Earthling

Positive Money, Martin Wolf & Bilderberg

Posted in Money by earthling on April 29, 2014

You know what? I’m getting bloody sick of transparent, obvious shit where people are in bed with other people and promoting all of the “need for change” across all fronts AND YET, if you are at all quick on the uptake know who is who and have done ANY amount of homework, you can see, quite clearly, that the elite of this world WANT this “awakening” and they WANT us to scream for change and demand change and march and shout about it all. They are creating the conditions and they are publicising and propagandising about it all as they have their “actors” in place to be the pied pipers who will offer the solutions and make them SOUND just exactly what people want – like “The Reset’s “TEAL TAX” for instance. All they need say is “What if you didn’t have to pay tax but all the Corporations did at 1%? Then instead of the inland revenue taking in £500bn a year, they’d raise upwards of £1.4 TRILLION.” People will go ape about this because, on the surface, it sounds great.

IT ISN’T! The people shoving this idea toward you don’t expect the vast majority of you to think past the “headlines” (because people generally don’t in any circumstance). However, that’s another story for another time.

What is it that is staring us in the face now?

Positive Money wolf

POSITIVE MONEY! God they don’t half get around huh? They don’t half get the foundations and charities funding them also. So much so that it isn’t just the UK Parliament they are into with their ideas and having MPs listen to them, they are spanning countries now.

What they’re also doing is bringing Martin Wolf to your attention and saying “Isn’t it great that this issue is finally getting attention and being debated”.

SURE it is! BUT, as I have said time and time again (it’s even the case with “everyone’s favourite” Max Keiser), the elite are pushing this information out there into the mainstream while, at the same time, they have their placemen (and that includes the likes of Keiser and Positive Money) to tell you what the solution is. Just like it is the same elite who own the world’s energy companies who are promoting Climate Change and Ecoscience etc.

MARTIN WOLF IS A BILDERBEGER FOR GOD’S SAKES! HE’S IN WITH THE BILDERBERG BRICKS AND MORTAR! AND POSITIVE MONEY DON’T KNOW THIS?

I attended a POSITIVE MONEY conference in Edinburgh a few years back. I was positive about going and my thought of supporting it in any way I could. I walked out that night having been effectively silenced for questioning them on one or two specific points and, of course, my support went no further. THESE PEOPLE ARE PLACEMEN.

I can’t help you see this if you do not fully, as yet, understand money and what it is. If you don’t then you will never get it – the penny will never drop (excuse the pun).

Rockefeller et al WANT their new currency system. The guy has admitted wanting a supranational banking government. There is NO NEED for banks to exist. Period! In fact, it is the existence of banks which is the problem along with their loaning you your own value and charging you interest on it.

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU, LIKE SO MANY, WILL THINK POSITIVE MONEY IS THE SOLUTION. AND IN DOING SO, YOU ARE WALKING RIGHT INTO THE TRAP THAT THE ELITE ARE BEGGING FOR YOU TO DO!

Martin Wolf Bilderberger 1 Martin Wolf Bilderberger 2

 

GOLD IS NOT MONEY!

SILVER IS NOT MONEY!

FIAT PAPER IS NOT MONEY!

THEY ARE FORMS OF CURRENCY WHICH ARE, THEMSELVES, INVESTABLE!

IT IS YOU WHO ARE MONEY!

YOU DO NOT WANT AN INVESTABLE CURRENCY!

YOU JUST WANT A CURRENCY RECOGNISED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A MEANS OF EXCHANGE AND ONE WHICH HAS NO INTEREST ASSOCIATED WITH ITS ISSUANCE!

IT IS VERY VERY VERY SIMPLE!

LEARN IT!

Stop being so fucking lazy and expecting to be spoonfed! You want spoonfed? POSITIVE MONEY AND MARTIN WOLF (in sheep’s clothing) will be happy to spoonfeed you – CRAP!

You wanna get fucked in the ass again and again? Be my fucking guest!

 

Don’t worry I can hear you now: “How can such an uncouth character with language like that expect to be listened to?”

I’m uncouth bud because I’m bloody sick of your laziness and/or your ignorance. While if you wish to be spoken nicely to then you go ahead and listen to the Tony Blairs and David Camerons of this world. Heck! Listen to Her Majesty! They’ll massage your fragile little ego for you

AND FUCK YOU UP THE ASS WHEN YOU’RE BUSY TELLING YOUR FRIENDS HOW LOVELY YOU FOUND THEM TO BE!

You’re so fucking easily fooled. You’d rather someone smile in your face and screw you without your knowing than have someone say you’re a fucking idiot while trying to help you out!

Make your choice!

I think I might be just about to step back into the matrix anyhow. I’ll leave the blog up for posterity or, alternatively, you can stick it up your posterior.

Learn Mathematically Perfected Economy or forever be bullshitted!

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BEHIND BITCOIN

Posted in Finance by earthling on December 28, 2013

Ok, the word is out. I’ve been wondering for quite a while where this “bit coin” garbage has been emanating from. I now have the answer.

Barck Obama and Eric Schmidt

Barck Obama and Eric Schmidt

Bitcoin is NOTHING more than an alternative investment product – another commodity. That is all it is. This has been clear to me for quite some time now and, for the life of me, I could not understand these alternative media – so called “gurus” – such as Max Keiser (who refused point blank by the way to discuss mathematically perfected economy and who is, in fact, a Wall Street investor. That is all he is and all he ver shall be and he is pushing his “alternatives” to benefit himself).

ANY purported “money” of ANY type, be it gold, silver, fiat or bit coin, is a commodity in and of itself. It is a traded commodity like anything else and why? Because it is falsely represented as “money” rather than purely an exchange mechanism which REPRESENTS value (or “money’) that you and I and everyone else creates. UNTIL SUCH TIMES THAT MONEY IS RECOGNISED FOR PRECISELY WHAT IT IS, THIS FALSE ECONOMY, REPRESENTED BY WHATEVER TRADABLE COMMODITY WILL PERSIST!

Meanwhile, here is the fact: THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IS BEHIND THIS NEW CURRENCY AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS BRINGING A WORLD CURRENCY IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR. If what this “Strategic Tech Investor” newsletter is correct (and it is NOT any form of “Conspiracy related” media after all) then China is jumping on the bandwagon. Once you have China in on the game (essentially, then, the entire far east following suit) and you have the west, through the Council on Foreign relations, adopting it, it’s endgame. Barack Obama is not “worried” about this at all. He does what he’s told by the CFR and his “mentors” such as Brzezinski and Kissinger.

And now we know why Eric Schmidt and Google have been so high profile within the Bilderberg set up in recent years. It’s all about Google being primed for creation of a new international electronic currency.

Bitcoin strategic investor

 

If you wish to listen to the “presentation” related to this newsletter on the subject, then click here: http://pro.moneymappress.com/NVXBITCOIN49CH2/ENVXPCAB/?email=markwelsh63%40hotmail.com&a=8&o=15879&s=17628&u=352361&l=217786&r=MC&g=0&h=true

 

 

And lo and behold, the likes of your “guru” Max Keiser is getting you all to “buy into” the entire idea. I’ve never trusted that guy and his bile for a few years now. Your “alternative” heroes are selling you all out lock, stock and bit coin! Even David Icke and Alex Jones and so many others. No, Icke has not pushed bit coin (Icke wouldn’t know what to push except saturnial aliens) but Jones on the other hand, has, once more, been another “guru” who will not entertain anything in the realm of the REAL solution: MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY. He pushes gold and silver and why? Because he’s funded by people who’s interests are in such (at the moment). I haven’t seen Jones do TOO much on bit coin and there’s a good reason for that – the gold thing. Once bit coin takes hold however, you can be sure he will.

ALL YOU DUMB BELIEVERS IN YOUR BITCOIN: YOU’RE PROMOTING THE VERY THING WHICH YOU ARE DESPERATE TO PUT A STOP TO! NOW THAT, MY FRIEND, IS BEYOND STUPID!

 

Money physics & the transference of power.

Posted in Finance, Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics by earthling on December 9, 2013

Well, many years ago, I happened to study physics during my university years. Did it ever occur to me to apply physics (and it was “Applied Physics”) to the issue of money? Of course not! Did it even enter my head that there could be any connection? Nope! I didn’t want to be an economist or an accountant for god’s sakes. I wanted to be a physicist. My head was in Astronomy and space science and all that stuff which makes me read David Icke and his followers posts and say “Oh for christ’s sakes give me a break!” I keep saying you don’t need science degrees to recognise shit is shit but then, perhaps you do. Perhaps science degrees actually create conspiracy theorists? For instance (and this is the perfect example from my perspective). The law of momentum – as well as a few other laws – simply doesn’t allow the wings of a 767 to slice through a steel building like butter. What amazes the hell out of me is that there are hardly any physicists actually coming out and saying “Just wait a goddamned minute here! THAT is just not possible!” So, when you know it isn’t possible and you know there are substantial numbers of physicists in the private/public and educational sectors who seem to be keeping their mouths shut about elementary physics on the day of 9/11, then you lose all respect for these people.

However, that’s not what this blog is all about. It’s about money and applying physical concepts to it. All very simple so don’t have a heart attack over it. It’s just, once more, I haven’t seen this done either and yet, to an extent, it stares us all in the face yet we ignore it and allow these criminals to continue crimes on humanity by starvation (for one thing).

energy-physics-background-concept-6c914b

Bodies at rest and in motion

A body at rest has its entire energy stored and is considered to have POTENTIAL energy. Simply, then, the body has the potential to do a certain amount of work but, currently, is not. Imagine a slingshot or a gun. The stone has the potential energy stored in it provided by the tension applied by the stretching of the rubber which will, eventually, release it. The bullet’s potential energy will be converted to KINETIC energy (movement of a mass) when the bullet is loaded into the barrel and the trigger creates the explosive FORCE which then propels it. When either the stone of bullet is released, they will do “WORK” and work is equal to Force multiplied by distance or W = Fxd.

So, the energy expelled from the point of release of the stone or the bullet until it, once more, comes to rest (hopefully in a Rothschild’s skull) is the Work done on the bullet or stone. The energy of either projectile is calculated by E = 1/2mV² where E is energy, m is mass and V is the velocity. Note that velocity is not the same as speed since the former is a vector quantity whereas the latter a scalar quantity. For the purposes of this blog however, we can take velocity as meaning speed since we assume the bullet or stone to be travelling in a singular direction. Simple then!

Power

Take all that expended energy then, that work done, and divide that amount of energy by time and what you arrive at is POWER. Now POWER can be expended OR it can be absorbed. In either case, it is a measure of work done over time. Tell me something? Why, if you were to work 24 hours a day while someone else played a round of golf for 3 or 4 hours and did nothing else, would you not assume to be more powerful than them?

Answer: You’ve EXPENDED your power while they, on the other hand, have ABSORBED your power. Muhammad Ali was good at that. He’d get his opponent to spend much of their power by absorbing the shocks of their punches (IF ever they actually landed one while, even throwing a punch expends energy and it’s lost. It tires his opponent).

So how does the politician or the banker absorb your power? You know the answer to that! They have you expend your energy constantly running after what they control – MONEY! MONEY is POWER! Yet money is literally only pieces of paper with very little mass and it doesn’t really do any work now does it?

Ah but it does!

Money (the paper) represents the very work (real work through expended energy) that you and I and everyone else does to make our living. If it truly represents that however then how is it that the CEO or Chairman of a company or the Head of state of a country or anyone of their Directors/politicians etc who, generally, don’t expend any energy whatsoever comparatively speaking, have more money than you who works every hour god sends just to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Not only that but you may work in a vocation such as nursing – saving lives – or as a cleaner of whatever kind – thereby ensuring that our world does not decay and we’re over-run by rodents. Is it because of IQ? That’s what Boris Johnson would have you believe but let’s take him and George Osbourne for a moment.

Boris achieves a 2:1 degree in the classics at Oxford University. A second class degree in a “mongrel” course. What I mean by “mongrel” is that it covers everything from English literature to Archeology. A master of nothing then and finds IQ tests a bit of a problem.

George, meanwhile, is another 2:1, 2nd class achiever in History of all things. George has never run a business in his life. I’d be surprised if he knows how to read a spreadsheet – think about that. Yet, he is the Chief Financial Officer of the nation of the United Kingdom! A coke snorting, kinky black prostitute lover with a 2:1 in history. But then he does have experience of folding towels in Selfridges and entering date of dead people on a database.

Dumb and dumber

But let’s see, how could two dumbfucks like that end up as power absorbers? Well, you just need to look at their parentage and then the fact that Boris gets a King’s scholarship and George a Demyship, both at Magdalen College.

Oh and they’re both, along with the present PM, ex Bullingdon boys rubbing their dicks up against the likes of Nat Rothschild.

Take a look at this article re the PPE students who just know, even as they enter college (they’ve achieved nothing so far but know they will – it’s pre-determined) that they will end up in the power absorption business in one way or another….

“The thing is this,” one graduate laughs, “PPE is such a big subject that no one can ever know everything, so we all have to bullshit like mad at times to cover up our ignorance. And we by and large get away with it. So we carry on bullshitting once we leave Oxford and most of us are still getting away with it.”

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/23/ppe-passport-power-degree-oxford

But let’s stay on the subject of the idea of IQ being the basis for one’s “success” – that “success” being measured by the British government (and other governments) in terms of economic success.

This is worth a read, if not purely from the perspective of reading the final conclusion which is:

“The results of Terman’s longitudinal study of gifted children suggest that IQ can play an important role in determining life success; but high IQ alone is not enough. Variables such as family background, socioeconomic status, and educational experiences as well as personality factors such as motivation, the willingness to work hard, being committed to goals, creativity, and emotional maturity are also strongly linked to success in life.”

http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm

Basically, your success in life is a product of your environment. Your environment also teaches you whether you will “go along to get along” or whether you will stand for what you believe to be right. These politicians and businessmen generally have two things in common: They drop from a fallopian tube which has, in one way or another, provides the “right background” – Osborne: Data entry clerk and folding towels in Selfridges. Think about it – plus their character has been moulded by influences which create either the “go with the flow” attitude or the opposite. I agree it isn’t quite as “black and white” so don’t go off on one but, as a general rule, this IS the case.

Now let’s consider the reality of what money is MEANT to be: A representation of one’s debt to another and a means of exchange of such obligations for the purpose of making it easier for a large society of people to buy and sell various goods without having to first find a specific person who requires the particular good/product/asset you wish to sell while that same person having physical goods or services (resources) which are a precise match in terms of value of what he wishes to purchase from you, thereby resulting in an exact exchange of value. The “Resource based economy” fans are totally missing this point and would hate the very thing they promote! It would be a bloody nightmare and would lead to the world being less connected and “one”. Do these people actually think before they open their mouths I wonder? I think not.

In this precise exchange of value (however achieved) you actually have an exact exchange of POWER. Mr X has exchanged Energy of Fxd with Mr Y’s energy of an exact equivalent. A fair exchange then. This is achieved even with the use of an exchange mechanism called “money”. The entire human race will then interact upon the exchange of debts which, across the entire 7 billion people on earth, cancel out. There is NO “Global debt” where, somehow, the entire human race is in debt to the tune of $trillions to some “unknown” entity – who is that entity? God? Martians? No, you KNOW who that debt is owed to – the Central banking system which, in itself, is controlled and owned by a cartel of private individuals NOT “the public” 😉

The question: WHAT WORK HAS THIS CARTEL UNDERTAKEN TO ARRIVE AT A POINT OF HAVING SUCH WEALTH AND POWER?

The answer: They have created a system which WE support wherein pieces of paper (now, actually, simply 1’s and 0’s in a computer) become the wealth and power.

The second question: DOES THAT PAPER, OR COMPUTER DIGITS, REPRESENT THE TRUE VALUE OF THE WORK DONE BY EACH INDIVIDUAL? CAN YOU REPRESENT ONE MAN’S E=1/2mV² BY THE VALUE OF THE PAPER OR DIGITS?

The second answer: No. You SHOULD be able to but not in the present system you can’t.

How obvious is this? Quite. Who digs the roads? Who builds (or even designs) the buildings and the bridges? Who saves the lives? Who keeps the streets clean? Who creates products or art/beauty? Who drills the oil? Who digs the gold/silver/uranium etc? Who manages the corporations or organisations which carry out these tasks? Who protects whether by way of Police or Armed forces? Who does all of this and everything else?

Answer: You, me and every last one of our “brothers and sisters” who actually find and are lucky to find employment.

Now you may say “Well a person working in a bank is employed and does a service too”. Yes, they do but the problem is they “provide a service” which is entirely unnecessary and does nothing more than prop up a fundamentally corrupt system of money. They could also be employed in a system which is entirely non corrupt and provide SIMILAR services.

The people who own this system only, in fact, have POTENTIAL ENERGY. They have never expended one ounce of that energy for the betterment of mankind. NOT ONE OUNCE! While, what’s even worse, is they absorb other people’s energy constantly and over time. Absorbing that energy and work done over time = Work Done/time = POWER. They are energy vampires – literally.

Let’s take a look at a recent release of the M2 money circulation in the USA by the St.Louis Federal Reserve. It actually tells us a lot when it’s considered in terms of physical equations and graphical analysis:

M2 Money circulation

Now let’s apply the physical equations to this graph which represent what’s really going on:

M2 work done

1. Straight off the cuff you’ll notice the line itself is curved. This demonstrates that there is an acceleration of the amount of work being done (the increasing dollar amount of assets being procured) over time. Throughout the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, the slope of the line was fairly shallow and by the mid 1990s, it was levelling off. This levelling off was a representation of the fact that the economy was stagnating – there was no growth which would allow increase asset purchase. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the vast majority of people because, hopefully, what I will show is that the subsequent acceleration of asset purchase (change in “Work done”) does not represent, in any way, an increase in wealth for the broader population but is, in fact, the transference of wealth/POWER to a tiny fraction of the population.

2. I’ve used the green areas superimposed onto the graph to show the massive change of area displayed between 2 years (late 1990s) and the 2 years (start of 2012 and end of 2013). Note that the grey columns represent recessionary periods (the last one starting in late 2007/early 2008 through to mid 2009). Ask yourself how it is possible that, during that recession of 2008/2009, there was a very significant inflexion point representing a massive acceleration of “WORK DONE”/increase in financial assets held when the market and the economy was crashing through the floor! HOW is that possible? Well, it’s possible because the was enormous sums of money being gained by a very few people through bail outs and government/public money being privatised (put into private hands) allowing those private individuals to then buy up very substantial amounts of assets. Further, the hedge funds which bet on the housing collapse (not a bet at all because it is insider knowledge/trading) then pumped even more profit from others misery into these same small few’s hands and allowed even more asset purchases.

3. How is it possible that the amount of work done by 300 million people in America could rise from the green area representing 2 years, in the mid/late 1990s to the size of the green area representing the last 2 years? Has the US suddenly had an enormous boom in manufacturing and production in the last decade and a half? No. Quite the opposite. While surely, the line should have fallen from 2010 until now pretty significantly but it hasn’t, it just keeps on growing! Impossible right? Well no, it’s not. It’s called “quantitative easing” and that QE is representative of “WORK DONE” which hasn’t been done at all! But the purchase of assets by this small few continues because of it and what the graph doesn’t show is that, as those assets are accumulated by the private banking/business cartel,  the American government is sinking deeper and deeper into debt which means it has to find MORE ways of squeezing MORE “productivity” (money) out of you!

4. The green areas also represent something else however: Power!

Remember: Work Done (ΔEnergy)/time = POWER. Power can be expended and it can be absorbed. In this case, both are happening. The vast majority of people are expending their energy while it is being absorbed by the small few. AND IT IS ACCELERATING! Look at y2 – y1 in each case. The slope of the line has massively increased in recent years in comparison with the slope during the 1990s. This represents an acceleration of the transference of power from the vast majority of people (the 99% so to speak) to the minority (the 1%).

y2 – y1 (1990s) = $400billion. x2 – x1 = 2 years. The slope (acceleration of power transference) = 2

y2 – y1 (2013) = $2000billion. x2 – x1 = 2 years. The slope (acceleration of power transference) = 10

Now you may be able to understand, from a physics/maths perspective, why the following has occurred:

Forbes rich

 

While Michael Meacher ( a blithering idiot and/or a “gatekeeper” – even if the latter then that is still proof he’s a blithering idiot) gives you the following data:

Meacher billionaires in the UK

 

So why do I say Meacher is a blithering idiot? After all he “spoke out” about Bilderberg didn’t he? Forget he’s been in politics for decades and it took him to 2013 to eventually “speak out” at a time when it is so in the public’s consciousness and awareness anyhow that it gives the IMPRESSION that he is, in fact, doing something “dangerous” LOL If you had pointed it out to him even as few as 5 years ago or less, he would have replied (as Clarke and others did to me) in some condescending “palming off” fashion.

Here is why he’s a blithering idiot however: “instead of a more sensible Keynesian approach”.  Again, he proves that our political “friends” cannot think outside the box and they work on the basis of “left and right” and “Keynes and Friedman and Austrian” economics – ALL of which support the existing paradigm of interest bearing debt. DEBT is not a problem – I have said before and will keep on saying it: We ALL are indebted to one another in each and every interaction we have which includes money or not. For example, I have a debt to you reader who I feel an obligation toward in replying to your comments if they are a question of me or on my writing. To reply is keeping to an (albeit unstated but nevertheless real) PROMISSORY OBLIGATION. Without such, there could be no interaction. All that money is (or should be) is a means of exchange of PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS which represent the exchange of assets and value between people. INTEREST only occurs in this existing, corrupt (and unnecessary) system where the banks (again, unnecessary) are given the power to ISSUE money (not create it) and act as middlemen who then RE=PUBLISH our debts between ourselves and add on a NON EXISTENT “debt” called interest. They have created a system where their “money” has become, not an ‘idea’ for the representation of exchange but a tangible commodity in of itself. This is why people like George Soros and so many others “bet” on (or hedge) against currencies. In a REAL economy devoid of interest, they could not do this because there would be no such thing as inflation or deflation.

So Meacher stays in the box and tries to find a solution to a problem based upon a system which IS the fundamental problem. Speak mathematics and logic to the likes of Meacher and he’ll glaze over. Why? Because he’s invested in the existing system. His entire being is invested in that system and, additionally, he would have no idea of what you are talking about because once you say “it is the system which is wrong” that scares the living daylights out of him. George Osborne cannot possibly even understand today’s economics nevermind have a mind that can grasp an improvement. The man is an imbecile.

But back to the graph for a moment because here is the bottom line:

What happens when that slope becomes a vertical line?

No more work is being done and ALL power has been transferred.

As that slope increases and the time (years) narrow to months and weeks and days as the M2 circulation goes spiralling upward, what happens is that, eventually (theoretically but also in reality except for the fact they manage it) you are left with ALL power transferred – no “kinetic”energy left and it is all transferred to “potential” energy in the hands of a very very small few. And THAT is the goal for these people. Once they have all power absorbed by them, they no longer need money because they OWN every last resource which they have captured through governments coming good on their promissory obligations (Government bonds) to them. There is no activity left in the private economy from which to derive the payment of the debt because ALL resources (human and capital) have been absorbed by the central banking private owners.

Now, finally think about the proverbial “Free Energy” because this is exactly how it works. “Free energy” in the sense of a perpetual system which feeds off its own energy, is impossible. I really do hope you know this. Free energy in other ways such as harnessing the sun’s energy is another matter altogether but creating a machine which provides its own energy input from its own energy output, is going to come to a very quick demise.

In a self-powered system, due to the losses in the circuit, the input energy decreases thus decreasing the output energy, which results in lower input energy. That is, a slow decay, ultimately ending in zero power output.

Now, apply that to the monetary system. It is self powered because we get the money from the same source – central banks – right? THEN you have losses in the system because you introduce the loss by the addition of INTEREST right? Adding interest is exactly the same as, say, offering someone £100 but giving them only £90 because you have applied the charge upfront. It comes to the same result when he has to pay you back £100 even though, in real terms, only receiving £90.

Thus the “input energy” decreases, which decreases output energy which results in lower input energy. Slow decay resulting in zero power output because, due to having to make up for the “losses” we are selling off our very resources to pay the “loss” (the interest). We then end up with no resources which results in zero output. The system collapses in the sense we are left paupers and the central banks have all resources and all laws.

ALL our WORK DONE over time has ALL of our POWER expended. That POWER does not disappear. Energy/power is always conserved – the Conservation of Energy principle. The energy/power is simply changed into another form. What the people who own the world’s monetary system have done is exactly that. They have had us expend our energy and they ave absorbed it. The power is simply displaced. It still exists it is just it exists in THEIR hands. The thing is, they have achieved this through fundamental fraud by way of the interest bearing system they have introduced and still support. Indoingso, they have committed crimes against humanity that far outstrip anything we have ever experienced by a two bit dictator. But they own the system which has them own the law.

THEY HAVE MURDERED BILLIONS AND CONTINUE TO DO SO AND THEY WILL MURDER BILLIONS MORE.

AND OUR POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM IN THEIR IGNORANCE WHILE IT IMPACTS THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

That’s why I have a section named “Gross stupidity within society.

The “Trial” Of Kenneth Clarke MP

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 2, 2013
A Clarke Evasion

A Clarke Evasion

FIRST OF ALL: LET’S CORRECT SKY NEWS. THIS IGNORANT, STUPID REPORTER IS GIVEN A SCRIPT FROM WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS. IN IT SHE SAYS THAT BILDERBERG CANNOT CREATE LAWS. WHAT A STUPID WOMAN! AS YOU WILL SEE AHEAD, THE TREASURY PLAINLY STATES EXEMPTIONS ON AN FOI REQUEST BECAUSE IT RELATES TO “THE FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY” FROM WHERE LAWS ARE CREATED!!

 

The following email was sent to Clarke, by me, in 2009.

Dear Mr. Clarke,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to shed some light on a number of various issues which are troubling me and many of the British electorate. There are just simply so many questions – all questions. And from what I have managed to research, you may just be the man who can answer these questions. They are quite horrifying if truth be known.

You see, there seems to be a strange series of events over the course of decades which seem to be inextricably linked and would have much of the UK electorate wonder if there is something at play from forces whose goal is to attack and deconstruct the sovereignty of our nation (and all nations) thereby, in effect, being at war with our nation. Could this possibly be the case? And could it possibly be that our representatives in government and shadow government are inadvertently enabling such to be achieved?

Please allow me to explain. I am sure that the details of this and the impact it seems to be having on the UK will come as a deep shock to you.

This group called “Bilderberg”.

While you, Mr. Clarke, have attended many Bilderberg conferences in the past, it concerns me greatly that you may have no idea of what the Bilderberg agenda is so I thought I would enlighten you. It may then have the impact of having you reconsider whether you attend any future conferences. Of course, it may just be that you attend on the pretext of working with such a group when, in fact, you are simply engaging in some form of covert checking on those of our government and others who may be supporting the Bilderberg agenda.

I am sure you know of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. The International bankers and “philanthropists” who have built up such considerable wealth over the centuries that the overall wealth of these families eclipse the likes of Mr. Gates’ billions by an order of magnitude. Their “charities” and foundations are countless in number and, more often than not, they have tax free status. Meanwhile Mr. Rockefeller is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Rockefeller, in fact, within his own memoirs, states the following:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

I also include here, a link to a very well researched and 100% factual article re David Rockefeller: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/The_Proud_Internationalist_2006.pdf

That said, I believe I need to bring it to your attention that Mr. Rockefeller was one of the founding members (along with Dennis Healy) of Bilderberg in 1954 and is on the steering committee.
Further to this, Mr. Rockefeller is also a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Americas; These “Think Tanks” having their “cousins” in the UK and Europe with organisations such as the European CFR and the RIIA (Chatham House) plus others.

You see, while Bilderberg state and restate (ad infinitum) that NO policy is made at such conferences, this of course would be the case since many of the attendees are not a party to the overall agenda. Meanwhile, the policy is simply communicated through the great number of “Independent Think Tanks” as mentioned above. One can see many examples of reports and papers from the CFR, for example, finding their way into the UK Parliament and being used as “very well researched and highly thought of” organisations’ reports which should steer government thinking. It really is not at all difficult to work out what is happening here. For those in government and political circles who understand what Bilderberg is (and the interconnectivity between Bilderberg and the “Working Groups”), such reports will be given significant attention and weighting even though they are provided many times by non-UK, national sources.

What is further of interest re Bilderberg is that, under Chatham House rules, it never divulges what is discussed and presented and never attributes anything said to any of the participants. This seems to create a major issue when considering the persons who attend the Bilderberg conferences from the UK as I am sure you can imagine.

Mr. Clarke, just think of how such meetings/discussions could be construed. To apply Chatham House rules to a conference which includes statesmen and women from a vast number of different sovereign nations could be seen in the same light as there having been members of the UK government having clandestine private meetings with Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War. To have such meetings is simply a breach of our Constitution.

I would therefore appreciate your consideration of such and your comments.

UK Parliament questions re Bilderberg

What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:

86. That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.

(Mr. Clarke) “I suppose you could apply the test of whether there is any prima facie evidence or any evidence to support this allegation and I imagine that the Committee do throw out cases where you are met with a vehement denial from the Member of Parliament and where there is no indication whatsoever of there being anything to support the allegation. I do not remember one happening quite like that where someone has been accused of something without there apparently being the slightest grounds. The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, “So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?” I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?” Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.”

Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?… JP Morgan Chase for example?

And the following:
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) 


TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001 

THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE

I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.

It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted.
For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me.

Now, with respect to other issues which are clear from the UK Parliament Hansard text and other Parliamentary notes:

Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.

Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all).
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed!
Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also.

Bilderberg 1960s:

Roy Jenkins 

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit. 

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.

An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?

1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference:

HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W 
§

Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement. 

§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.

As previously stated, Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we?
The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective.

Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS’ MEETINGS)HC Deb 24 May 1977 vol 932 cc1195-203

§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?

§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.

My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws such as the Treason law), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void.

e) Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule
Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:

Portcullis: UK Parliament website.

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/214

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1979 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2010 
Location 36

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/228

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1977 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2008 
Location 36

Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that the second document should have been opened in 2008. It seems it has been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
“Just tea and crumpets and a chance for people to talk openly”; yet, not open to the public or to any media scrutiny whatsoever. Democracy and a free society exists I see. Ironically, we speak of democracy allowing freedom of speech yet the Bilderberg feel they are not free to speak freely? What a bizarre “twist” of reality we have here.

The EU Question:
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose.
The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC.
The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy.
I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC.
I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose.
Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate.

4. “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
There is a book which is named “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
An online copy of this book may be found here: HYPERLINK “http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy” http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy
The book made enough of a furore in the 1970s to be brought up within Parliament on more than one occasion.

DEFENCEHL Deb 26 June 1979 vol 400 cc1357-476 

Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY 

”Nor is it just for money. How many people know another American book of yesteryear by Garry Allen called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? It has sold over 3½ million copies in the United States. Its contents are one reason why more and more young Americans just are not going to play, if a war comes. This book points out not merely that it was the German bankers, Warburg Brothers, who put up £25 million to put Lenin in power in Russia, and who also assisted Trotsky to go from the United 1450 States to join him, but that they also sold nuclear armaments to Russia, not just to get money but to control the Communists so that, if they gain permanent power, the bankers will control them by the vast sums which they are owed back by Russia. The book is, chapter and verse, about foundations; it is chapter and verse about persons, well-known names; it is chapter and verse about the Council of Foreign Relations; and it is chapter and verse about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought. The address where that book can be obtained in this country is: KRP Publications, 245 Cann Road, London, E.11.”

I repeat: “..about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought” 

The question is: Why have these libel cases never been brought?? 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords…
The MEDIA
Considering the BBC’s involvement in 1972 when the Heath government took the UK into the EEC stating such a move would never threaten UK sovereignty, one may also look at and consider the media involvement within such issues as we see today and wonder, again, at how reports such as the most recent “Summer of Rage” can be disseminated to the general population, suggesting an events (or events) which have yet, and may never, take place. One could almost suggest that the media are being rather careless in reporting such possibility since it could be construed as “planting the seed” of unrest – almost in fact, an act of terrorism according to today’s “thinking”.
One could further consider there to be a purpose (a “Common Purpose”?) to spreading such fear and anxiety.
It is interesting, at this juncture, to note the complete blackout of media journalism when it comes to reporting the Bilderberg Conferences to the point of card carrying journalists being arrested (on some trumped up “charge”) while trying simply to cover the conference in Turnberry for instance; The only media being allowed as “rapporteurs” at the conferences being “Economist” journalists. Other journalists have been invited (hand picked) of course but they are then covered by the Chatham House rules. It may be added that such journalists would not wish to break those rules for various reasons. I have personally contacted one such journalist who simply offered me the same old story that the conference was “utterly harmless”. Of course, this may have been the case for Ms Mary Ann Sieghart, not being one of the “inner circle” of course. “Utterly harmless” yet documents pertaining to Bilderberg are locked up for 30 years!!

Meanwhile, I have spoken with other so called “journalists” on this subject and while they are initially “all ears” and promise to return calls, those calls never come. I contacted the Scotsman for instance who continued to ask more and more questions on the subject of Bilderberg and when I mentioned “Common Purpose”, all communication ceased. It wasn’t until I checked the ownership of the Scotsman and found it was owned by the Pearson Group, did the reason for the cease come into view. Sir David Bell is Chairman of Pearson Inc, Non-Executive Director of The Economist and Chairman of Common Purpose International.
‘The Economist’, in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: “When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.”

Please see the attachments which detail the communication (or lack thereof) with Mary Ann Sieghart and also a copy of the report by Nic Outterside at the time of the Bilderberg meeting in Sintra, Portugal. The latter makes for very enlightening reading.
At the end of this document, I bring to your attention a report from May 2003 from the Asia Times. While the entire western media (at least those which are not truly independent) are unwilling to cover anything to do with Bilderberg, Asians have, generally, never been invited to attend Bilderberg. It is no surprise then that such a report was generated from a mainstream publication within Asia!
People, generally, like to keep their jobs and, with that in mind, one could postulate that this may be the reason for the lack of willing to discuss and/or cover Bilderberg in Western media. This, however, then allows the agenda of Bilderberg to continue and for most people to be entirely in the dark as to their overall purpose (which I shall not expand upon in this document) or to even have heard of the group.
However, as will be seen from the attachment entitled “BBC Correspondence”, simple interrogation leads to revelations of remarkable incompetence that, I would suggest, would not occur if such an organisation was entirely independent. And we pay a licence fee for our TV which is purely based on the upkeep of a BBC which is either entirely incompetent or entirely controlled. Take your pick!
Once one can enjoy TV without payment of a fee to support such incompetence, I may decide to let go of my hard-earned salary. Meanwhile I do not wish to conditioned by deceptive news reporting while paying for the “honour”.

Pen ultimately:
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party – Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec ’98, in response to previous answers (see below)

Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question)
Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters – would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby?
And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda – Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee.
[Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.]
Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity?
And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.
P-3880/98EN

Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999)
The Commission’s reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.
And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you were an attendee:

ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003: “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” Full article: HYPERLINK “http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003.
There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”.
Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen!
To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke.

Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy?

Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes.

From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention.

I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever.

Kind Regards,

Earthling

This is the reply I received:

A Clarke Evasion

And now, with regard to the latest news on Clarke and a possible Lisbon Referendum:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/ken-clarke-lisbon-treaty-referendum

UPDATE 5th October 2011. Mr Clarke you are outed by your very own treasury as one lying son of a bitch!

FOI Act: Paragraph 35 (1) a: information relating to the formulation of government policy.

I gotcha Clarke! It took two years but I knew that letter and your reply would sink you. And you were sunk by your very own treasury’s response to an FOI request! How wonderful!

Now, what does all this result in?

Well read the following and you will see the CLEAR indictment of Ken Clarke (and it goes for Ed Balls, George Osbourne, David Cameron, Tony Blair and those who have all gone before them):

This “Code of Conduct” has been broken by all on so many levels it is astonishing –

Code of conduct for MPs Duties of Members Integrity Openness Honesty Financial gain

Ken Clarke attended this 2003 Bilderberg Conference when all participants were advised as follows –

Asia Times May 2003 Asia Times May 2003 2

Ken Clarke then joins Centaurus as an advisor (how does he know what to advise this Hedge Fund group? well, it is abundantly obvious is it not?). It is PRECISELY what Alan Greenspan did shortly before the Mortgage crash also in joining John Paulson’s Hedge Fund. Paulson then went on to make a KILLING in the mortgage default market –

Ken Clarke Centaurus

Remember particularly here, the MP’s Code of Conduct: Financial gain

And, finally, where Ken Clarke LIES to a member of the Public by saying NO POLICY was made at Bilderberg, Her Majesty’s Treasury blatantly contradicts this lying assertion by Clarke by quoting EXEMPTION 35 (1) a

FOI Bilderberg 1 FOI Bilderberg 2

MR CLARKE. YOU ARE A LYING, CORRUPT BASTARD AND I SENTENCE YOU TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR TREASON. YOUR BILDERBERG COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU SOON ENOUGH!

BILDERBERG 2013: ALEX JONES AND MICHAEL MEACHER ADVISED OF THIS ISSUE. MEACHER WAS A LITTLE RETICENT BUT HE SUPPORTED MY COMMUNICATING IT ALL TO SPEAKER JOHN BERCOW. THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THAT JOHN BERCOW IS ON RECORD IN PARLIAMENT, MANY TIMES, QUESTIONING TONY BLAIR ABOUT BILDERBERG. THIS, OF COURSE, BEING BEFORE HE WAS MADE SPEAKER.

MY TAKE ON THIS? “WE’LL GIVE YOU A JUICY ROLE, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT BILDERBERG!”

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons – Prime Minister Tony Blair’s written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg Group


Mr. John Bercow MP: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns 476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213] [John Bercow MP]

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government–the Defence Secretary–has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Christopher Gill MP) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (John Keetch MP) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.

And now, on Monday 10th June 2013, Ken Clarke, once more repeats his lies in Parliament:

It isn’t only Clarke, of course, who is involved in what is, ultimate and in actual fact, treason. It is the entire British parliament and you can include the monarchy also because the monarchy’s job is to keep their oath to the British people and maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom FOR the people. But getting simple stuff like this through most people’s heads is practically impossible.

As for the “communications” with Bercow and Meacher: Read from the bottom up ( I can’t be bothered to copy and paste each in a top down mode):

    • Bilderberg Association’s charitable status!‏

    Earthling
    29/06/2013
    To: nursej@parliament.uk, michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk
    Dear “Mr Speaker”,

    Please reply….

    Please DO NOT suggest you cannot comment due to having to remain “politically impartial” about what is consistently promoted as a “Private gathering”. That is simply ridiculous, evasive and, as a Parliamentarian, you are bound to the Parliamentary oath. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it.
    YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! DON’T YOU DARE FORGET THIS!
    Now, in your own words, I wish to hear your justification of a Private Association which is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP and which has SECRET documents locked up by the 30 year rule being given Charitable status in this “democratic” nation of ours.

    If you refuse to answer this, I wish to know who it is who I can complain to about your evasion and your disrespecting your Parliamentary oath? Thank you.

    A serious complaint has been registered against the Bilderberg Group’s charity, the ‘Bilderberg Association’, with the UK’s Charity Commission.

    The complaint was launched by a member of the public on the basis that the ‘Bilderberg Association’ could bring the Charity Commission into disrepute and damage public trust in charities, by allegedly not complying with UK charity law.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and engages in one sole ‘charitable activity’ – funding the Bilderberg Meetings.

    The Bilderberg Meetings are annual, private conferences attended by 140 of the world’s most powerful people, including bank bosses, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and royals.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ claims that its objectives are “to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences”.

    In furtherance of its objectives, the Bilderberg Association claims that it “organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means” (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012).

    However, as one of the most prolifically secretive meetings in international politics, the Bilderberg meetings have no known role in “public education”, despite this claim. The Bilderberg Group has also consistently refused to ‘publish reports of such conferences’, despite this being another of their claims to charitable status.

    A Bilderberg meeting is, according to the official website, “a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world”, and is of an entirely “private nature”. After the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attended the recent Bilderberg Meeting 2013 in Watford, UK, Downing Street refused to publish minutes of his discussions within the group.

    Tax-free corporate funding of a private talking shop between politicians and the meeting’s benefactors cannot be identified as an activity for ‘public benefit’ – particularly since the contents of Bilderberg meetings are withheld from the public. Without discernible public benefit, the Bilderberg Association would not meet the statutory requirements for charity status.

    From the ‘Bilderberg Association’ Annual Report and Accounts, 2007

    To claim for charitable status in the UK, and thus benefit from tax-free funding, a charity must demonstrate that their aims are for public benefit – broadly, to “advance education or religion or relieve poverty”.

    Furthermore, the Charity Commission deems that “a political purpose cannot meet the public benefit requirement and so cannot be a charitable purpose”. A ‘political purpose’ means any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party; or securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities, whether in this country or abroad.

    Of significant concern is that the Bilderberg Association’s committee member and trustee, Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a trustee of the charity when questioned in parliament.

    The Charity Commission must respond to the complaint within 15 days.

    Details of the complaint sent to the Charity Commission are shown below:

    Please provide a summary of the evidence:

    I am concerned that ‘The Bilderberg Association’ is misleading the Charity Commission, and thus the public, as to its stated ‘Specific objectives’ and ‘Activities’. It’s actual objectives and activities would be highly unlikely to qualify for charitable status. Therefore, large amounts of money, it would appear, are possibly being unlawfully exempt from tax.  Full details are set out below.

    Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to report:

    The Bilderberg Association engages in one single charitable activity, which is ‘Contributions to the running costs of Bilderberg Meetings’, which are the controversial (having come under recent parliamentary scrutiny and allegedly breaking the Ministerial Code) private meetings between politicians (including the Prime Minister) and heads of corporations and banks. However ‘The Bilderberg Association’ claims that its ‘Specific objectives’ are ‘to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences’; and under ‘Activities’ the Association claims that it ‘organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means’ (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012). However, the Bilderberg Meetings, as entirely secret meetings, have no role at all in public education, as the results of meetings are not in fact disseminated, and no reports are published. Bilderberg Meetings are in fact, by their own admission, characterised by ultimate secrecy. Therefore, it would appear that the objectives and activities of The Bilderberg Association (at least in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 for which I have been able to obtain accounts) are identifiably false and misleading. 

    The most recent identification of Bilderberg Association funding comes from their 2008 accounts, whereby the Association claims to have received £50,000 each from Goldman Sachs and BP. However, only £50,000 appears in their yearly income (although 2 x £50,000 = £100,000). I am concerned about the real objectives of the Association since they clearly do not match their falsely stated objectives and activities; and since the Association is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and goes on to fund the private meeting of Goldman Sachs’ and BP’s CEOs with MPs and Cabinet ministers. This bears the hallmarks of illegal lobbying.

    Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome: 

    The Bilderberg Group is uncontactable. I have contacted several Members of Parliament who share my concerns including some of those subsequently mentioned. 

    Michael Meacher MP, Dennis Skinner MP, and Tom Watson MP have questioned Bilderberg Association’s Committee Member and trustee, Kenneth Clarke MP in parliament. It concerned me greatly that the oversight of the charity is desperately lacking – in response to Tom Watson MP’s question, Ken Clarke MP claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a Committee Member and trustee of the Bilderberg Association.

     

     

    Sincerely,

    Earthling

     

    FW: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
29/06/2013
To: michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk

FYI…

And when one is treated like an idiot by our “esteemed” Parliamentarians, please do not expect an ounce of respect in return.

If Mr Meacher enjoys Ken Clarke supercilliously lying to his face in Parliament (because one is removed from the House if one has the audacity to state that the other is actually lying) and abides by parliamentary rules – which ensure you never can say what you mean – then that’s his choice. I’m not in Parliament so, ironically, while you all believe you have “parliamentary privilege”, in this particular case, I have greater privilege. Among all the lying creeps in that building, Ken Clarke far outshines most! Then you have little bootlickers like Bercow……


From: Earthling@hotmail.com
To: nursej@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:22:23 +0000

Dear Joanna,

Having received Mr Bercow’s reply:

A question for you: Do you enjoy being treated like a fool? Is it a fetish developed by the people who work for these idiots who “lord” over us yet are only our representatives?
The reason I ask is because the replies which I receive from the likes of “Mr Speaker” are so incompetent and transparent in their attempts to evade and also to deceive, that I have to scratch my head in wonder that people such as yourself may actually kiss their feet for all I know.
The evasions and deceptions they apply to questions posed by me and so many others, are actually applied to you also (assuming you understood the nature and essence of what is being asked and referred to). In your assumed choice to ignore the utter crap that emanates from these people, I have to assume that you do not understand much of what is being asked?
So, with that, please pass this follow up question to “Mr Speaker” (who doesn’t appear to speak much in his initial reply):
IF, as Ken Clarke suggests in answer to Michael Meacher’s questions, the Bilderberg conference has nothing to do with Parliament and it is purely a private occasion, then how on God’s earth can Mr Bercow respond saying that, due to his position requiring him to be politically impartial, he cannot comment?
Bilderberg has “nothing to do with politics” according to Clarke! How then would Bercow commenting on it be “politically partial”?
We’re not all logical incompetents Ms Nurse!
So, again, please ask “His Speakerness” to reply in a less incompetent manner and answer the original questions I put to him.
Thank you and Kindest Regards,
Earthling

From: nursej@parliament.uk

To: NURSE, Joanna

Hi Joanna,

Thanks for advising. Yes I certainly do wish to receive a full reply to all points referred to both, in my email and within the letter I sent to Mr Clarke originally but which received a stock reply from him. I say stock reply because I am aware of others who received precisely the same letter from the MPs they contacted but, simply, with their MPs signature on the bottom. Evidence the, if such were needed, that the public is given lip service by their representatives and that a general template had been supplied to all attendees (and perhaps others) to reply to constituents’ and the public’s questions. Specific questions, therefore, being entirely ignored and simply a standard answer as reply which doesn’t answer anything at all.
My address is:
xxxxxxx
Thank you and regards,
Earthling

To: Earthling@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:38 +0000

Thank you for your email, which was sent to Mr Speaker’s constituency office email address.

 

If you would like to receive a reply, please provide me with your postal address, as that is the Speaker’s preferred method of correspondence.

 

Due to the high volume of emails and letter received by the Speaker, please understand that there is often a delay before a response is sent.

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 June 2013 13:03
To: MEACHER, Michael
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Mr Meacher,

 

What else would I have expected? The UK Parliament is a corrupt hotbed of criminals. There is not ONE of you which I could point to and say “I 100% trust that man”. If you remember, while at the Bilderberg protest, I mentioned to you that you spoke of the Conservative attendees in your speeches but never once referred to Ed Balls (you saying that Ed Balls was not a government minister – which actually matters not one bit). While you all play your “tennis game”, Mr Meacher, you all swerve the issues when they lie at your door and evade and all of your evasions, whichever side of that phoney left/right fence you are on, maintains the status quo. But then that is what your actual job is. To maintain that status quo.

However, I will offer you something to think about: Whilst you play your games and maintain the paradigm – looking after your own interests as a whole – in the future, whatever family you may have (offspring) are going to inherit what you tried so hard to maintain for yourselves today. If you think your family will be protected from this New World Order Mr Meacher, then you are very naive. The people running this show eat you up and use you and then they spit you out just as quickly. Your offspring means NOTHING to them. By all means ignore my words Mr Meacher but, trust me, you will forever regret doing so.

 

Lastly, the reply from Bercow: Again he plays the game but he makes a big mistake (you all do for those of us to whom you are all transparent). His point that “his position requires him to be politically impartial”, I hope you recognise for what it is. Mr Clarke states in answer to you that this Bilderberg conference is a private gathering and has nothing to do with Parliament therefore. If it is “private” and in no way “political” (embarrassingly transparent as it all is), then Bercow’s comment is senseless. But then what’s new?

 

Parliament: Parler – to speak, Mentir – to lie. A House full of it!

 

So, my point: Let’s see what you’re really made of. If it’s anything like my own MP (Damian Green), then I already know! A man in abject fear of being put on the spot and on the record…..

 

 Bercow letter 2

Earthling

RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
MEACHER, Michael (michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk)
11/06/2013
To: Earthling

Dear Mr Earthling,

Thank you for your email which I will bring to Michael Meacher’s attention.

Regards,

Monica Masson

PA

 

Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP

Oldham West & Royton

House of Commons

020 7219 6461

 

Oldham Office

11 Church Lane

Oldham OL1 3AN

0161 626 5779

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2013 12:46
To: BERCOW, John; MEACHER, Michael
Subject: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Dear John,

 

I spoke with Michael Meacher at the Bilderberg protest on Saturday. He advised me that I can, and should, contact you and that I would receive a reply from you regarding this issue with Government Ministers attending Bilderberg conferences.

I wrote a letter to Ken Clarke in 2009 regarding his attendance and I put quite some detail in it as you will see. I received a “stock reply” from Mr Clarke (others have received exactly the same replies from their MPs who have attended) which evaded ALL of my questions, points and detail.

In 2011, there was a Treasury response to an FOI request which then entirely contradicted Mr Clarke’s assertion that the conferences are attended in one’s “personal capacity” when it stated George Osbourne attended in his official capacity.

 

Now, the blog also mentions you John because, before becoming Speaker, you asked a number of times about Bilderberg to Tony Blair. Why did you ask such questions? What was your concern? Your concern was precisely the same as mine and all the Bilderberg protestors who attended on Saturday and the other days. You know what the problem is John and, whether attended in a personal capacity or not, the attendees are not invited on the basis of their golf handicap. They are invited on the basis of what they can achieve within their Public function!

 

My demand is, therefore, that Ken Clarke (and all other UK Parliament attendees) be brought up on the charges which you know apply due to the subversion of their Code of Conduct oath and Constitutional law. And since when did a private meeting with “no policy objectives” require that documents relating to it be locked up under the 30 year rule of secrecy?

 

John, understand that, if you want and demand respect for your position then so do I and the citizens of this country since, after all, you are the public servant who is meant to be representing us!

 

I would, therefore, ask (but in asking I fully expect) a considered, detailed reply once you have read the blog. I send you the blog to read rather than “reinvent the wheel” and re-write it in this email.

 

Thank you and Regards,

 

Earthling

 

PS: I make NO apologies for the language on the blog or videos.

 

 

The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by earthling on July 27, 2013

Yes it’s ANOTHER “legal person” blog. Just because this message does not seem to be sinking in with the vast majority of Human Beings on this planet.

Now, before I go on, I think it’s great that we protect species on our planet (but PLEASE do not think this is done by the likes of the WWF etc – it is NOT) so I’m all for this initiative. BUT, like ANY initiative – just like the government’s initiative and legislation which protects gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights etc; if you have ANY experience with the law whatsoever you will know that such initiatives are exploited as positive discrimination practice which is, in itself, anti “Human Rights” because it literally gives certain groups MORE “rights” than others. Take employment law for example. If you are either of the previous 2 mentioned groups, you are FAR more protected and have a MUCH better chance of winning a legal case than if you are a white, straight male.

Don’t believe me? Try this:

EVEN WITH AN OUTRIGHT ADMISSION OF GUILT IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE STRAIGHT, WHITE MALE IN THE UK CANNOT, IT SEEMS, EVEN FIND REPRESENTATION IN COURT.

Now, what you all have to understand (for if you don’t this human race is finished – the majority being slaughtered by tyrants and the rest enslaved) is that YOU HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS! They DO NOT EXIST! The documents which state they are “Human Rights Acts” DO NOT apply to human beings! They apply ONLY to LEGAL PERSONS! For until you are recognised as a LEGAL PERSON you do not exist in law. If you do not exist in law then how can a “non-existent” entity be conferred ANY benefits? It is a LOGICAL FALLACY!

So what is the problem of being a LEGAL PERSON as well as a Human being? Well it really does not take too much synapse energy to work it out and I have beat that path before on other blogs so, if you’d like to know, read them! If you don’t like my tone then too bad. Spite yourself by not learning because you don’t like the “teacher”. Do I give a fcuk?

I wrote a blog some time back re the “Natural person”, in which I included the following:

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov's Bible!

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/12/the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons/

Clones and Robots of the 21st Century WILL be given LEGAL PERSON STATUS. As will animals of various kinds. Now Corporations already have them and are given greater preferential treatment over human beings (while the idiotic human beings that we are WORK for the very corporations – and, in essence, give them “life” – who rule over us! THINK about that! We WORK the very systems of oppression {government, law, religion and corporations} which dictate our very lives! We give them the ‘breath of life’ which provides them the status and, ultimately, the very power over us that they have! We then have issues with them, as individuals, and THEY win hands down over us. THINK OF THE SHEER MADNESS OF THIS!

Next up, we have DOLPHINS (and I personally think they are beautiful creatures).

Dolphin persons

Give this some thought however. You may then just begin to recognise how absolutely controlled and anything but free that you are. You see, this is not a blog about giving dolphins rights. This is a blog to demonstrate and display to YOU that you have none!

1. “Bans holding them in captivity for commercial entertainment”

Let’s compare that with you. Are you held in captivity? Oh I really think that if you consider it seriously, you will recognise that, in fact, you are.

Commercial entertainment? Well let’s see. Let’s go back to those Corporations for example. They’re commercial and they are using you – perhaps not strictly for entertainment purposes (unless, of course you ARE an entertainer and there are many girls in certain clubs who are for instance) – but do you get to choose your working hours? Your working days? The work you do? The holidays you get? And do you REPORT to anyone? Even if you are the Vice President of Disney Corporation you STILL report to the President.

But then, just to really take the piss out of you, you have MPs who get paid over £2000 for 14 hours work per month for a water company. What does he do? Does he pump the water for them for 14 hours? Even that would be a decent hourly wage for a water pumper!

Then you get the non executives who you find on the Board of Directors of TENS of different companies! HOW can they possibly be doing a decent job for any of them while, for each, they may be getting paid hundreds or tens of thousands of pounds each directorship (or perhaps they just get tons of stock!). While YOU get a 9 to 5 and a contract which states you can’t work for anyone else while you are in full-time employment for the company. Now HOW does that work eh?

YOU’RE A SLAVE THAT’S ALL.

2. Do you think they’ll issue dolphins with passports? I guess not. Dolphins then, are FAR more free and less captive than you are even as a legal person.

3. Will they start having to pay VAT on their food bill? Will they even have a food bill? I doubt it somehow. Humans have the greatest intellect on the planet yet here we are, PAYING to live! (when we don’t have to).

4. Do they pay interest on their promissory obligations to each other? Oh yes, Dolphins and ALL sentient beings take on all sorts of promissory obligations. Again, we are the “intellects” and we have set up a system we allow to run which steals our own promissory obligations to each other AND charges us interest on them! Humans? Top of the food chain? Pull the other one!

There is a VERY interesting question to be raised here however. You understand the word “standing” when related to legal issues don’t you? For instance, if you are not a party to a contract, you have no “standing” in court to be heard in relation to any contractual dispute.

Look at it another way: The girl called Jade Jacobs Brooks from Essex, was considered non existent so she had no “standing” to demand her human rights be acknowledged and “benefits” (not that being given a passport and a citizenship is a “benefit” but, again, I’ve covered that elsewhere) conferred upon her.

But here’s a beauty: As stated by the UN, the child with no birth certificate, non existent in law then just like Jade, has no standing and, therefore, cannot be protected by the state. Those children all around the world in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine who have no ID/birth certificate, have NO STANDING in law such that, if they are murdered by America, Britain or Israel, there is NO legal basis on which to prosecute. Genocide can take place and if those who are killed have never had legal standing, they did not legally exist. They CANNOT, therefore, be legally considered as murdered! 

Now, that would APPEAR to be a good argument for ensuring one has a birth certificate and, therefore, is legally recognised right? But let’s look at the dolphin issue once more:

If a dolphin is killed, it has no birth certificate so HOW then does it achieve “legal personality”? Well, simple. A dolphin is obviously a dolphin right? So one dead dolphin means someone has murdered it. Or, if it is kept in a tank somewhere then it’s obviously a dolphin!

What about all those human beings who are trafficked year after year? Isn’t obvious they are human beings? Pretty obvious really if they walk into a court and say “Hey judge! I’m being held against my will for the purposes of prostitution”, What’s the first thing the judge or police will say? “ID and address please!” Yet what the FCUK has that got to do with what that person – sorry, human being – has just stated? IF, then, that human being has no ID or birth certificate or Social security number to give, then that human being DOES NOT exist as a person in law and the law will do NOTHING to help them!

Will a dolphin have to fill in form after form and submit them to court? Will it have to follow legal procedure? Will it have to submit all documents with a 7 day window? Will it have to write out an affidavit? No!

So let’s say someone has it captive in a tank somewhere. Someone else sees it and reports it to the authorities. Here’s the thing – under any circumstances related to HUMAN person’s rights (if such existed), to complain under such (and watch out because the British government are looking to introduce a new Bill of Rights which, in parliament, they have stated will be NON JUDICIABLE – figure that one out!) requires that you MUST be the one DIRECTLY affected by any action. All others who may complain generally about issues affecting you (or even them – if it is too generally applicable to society) have NO “standing” in the matter.

It reminds me again of our friend Ken Clarke when, in Parliament, he just laughed at the idea of a parliamentary question relating to Bilderberg. He said he does not see what interest Parliament have in a Private organisation and how that organisation is or can be under parliamentary scrutiny – effectively, then, what he is saying is that Parliament have no “standing” wrt Bilderberg because Bilderberg is private.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY AND YOUR PRIVATE CAPACITY?

Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

Forcing would-be Canadians to pledge allegiance to the Queen before they can become citizens is discriminatory and a violation of their constitutional rights, three permanent residents are set to argue in court on Friday.

All three maintain they oppose the oath on religious or conscientious grounds, saying pledging allegiance to Canada should be sufficient.

The Citizenship Act requires applicants for citizenship to swear or affirm they will be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

People born in Canada or abroad to Canadian parents are automatically citizens and don’t have to take any such oath.

“All of the applicants would willingly take an oath to observe the laws of Canada and fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens,” the document says.

That they cannot have the “convenience” of a Canadian passport or the right to vote is a small price to pay for adhering to their principles, the government argues. (Ahh! So they WILL allow them to adhere to their principles – and, I assume, believe they are providing for their “human rights” – but there’s a BIG problem with such an argument. It is a “human right” to be provided with a passport and the means to travel. It’s also a “human right” to be provided with citizenship and NOT a cut down version! So they may be allowed their beliefs BUT with a penalty of foregoing another human right? hahahaha. The legal person system is so incredibly see through it should be coming apart at the seams by now!) 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

 Why would ANYONE willingly take an oath to a piece of land and to abide by laws which they have not read or, perhaps, even understand the full implications of? It is this ignorance which provides these statist maniacs their power to manipulate and control every last person on this earth.
Discriminatory; Which it is. To live “freely” you must pledge allegiance to another? So much for free human beings to have freedom of conscience, thought and expression plus freedom of faith, religion etc. From the outset, no commonwealth country provides that freedom! How about that?But hey, no-one ever thinks of that! And the monarchists will ignore the pure contradiction in it and say “If you don’t like it, then leave”. But where does one go because one must accept “citizenship” and therefore, allegiance to another piece of earth with fictional boundaries drawn up.So, to have all those freedoms, one MUST become stateless. However, do that and they win again because their legal system will not provide any “human rights” to you including a passport.

And you think you are not captive? 🙂

 

 

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………
Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        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.”

 

Constitution

HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called “demi-monde” of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.

Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.

First, the Prime Minister’s power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.

Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.

 

CROWN LANDS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65

MR. HENLEY

said, he supposed that the management of certain rights included the receipt of any profit from them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER            Yes.
§MR. DARBY GRIFFITH            said, he understood the proposition to be a sort of adjustment between the property of the Crown and of the public, equalizing a liability on the one hand and a debt on the other. The property of the Crown and certain other matters frequently spoken of were all pure legal fiction, for the property of the Crown had been, since the settlement of 1688, arranged by the Civil List, and the Crown could not possibly resume that property. The foreshore rights were of an uncertain character originally, and had been sometimes exercised in a hostile manner to individuals.

 

INDEED YOU ARE CAPTIVE! Your “legal person” is a created fiction by, ironically, another legal fiction called the Crown (a legal person in of itself) which assumes a greater status of legal person than your legal person and, in doing so, imposes its legal statutes and rules upon you.

 

A fundamental of law is the following: ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE IT.

The biggest joke played upon the world’s population ever to be conceived (along with the theft of our own promissory obligations to each other – again given legitimacy by the legal fiction of the Crown.

 

INCREDIBLE WE ARE STILL ACCEPTING THIS. BUT WE ARE!

Share amongst the Nation

Posted in Politics by earthling on February 19, 2013

For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.

I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.

If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.

It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:

 

His office's words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don't, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right. So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

His office’s words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.
The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don’t, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right.
So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
To: Removed@hotmail.com
CC: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com

Dear Mr (Earthlinggb)
Thank you for your very pertinent questions, to which, however, in your closing “opinion”, you seem to assume certain answers.
The UKIP is opposed to the global politico-commercial cartel, in which the Rothschilds are prominent, and which underpins a number of supra-national organisations, notably the UNO and the EU.  If that cartel has undue influence on some members of UKIP, then I can only say that UKIP has its moles, traitors and agents provocateurs, just as you would expect in an anti-establishment party.  They expose themselves fairly regularly and we expel them as regularly.
UKIP is not “aligned with Zionist policy”.  We are in favour of democratic, sovereign nation-states, however, and are opposed to multiculturalism, which we see as a form of apartheid.  How this will play out in the Levant, with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of democratic structures, is not clear.
The written constitution of the UK consists of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and numerous statutes, which are now being over-ridden by a treacherous EU-élite, which has no justification whatever for its actions, and which has made a mockery, among much else, of the Coronation Oath.
The CFR, whose “shop-window” and recruiting-office is the annual Bilderberg-Meeting, must be seen as the epicentre of the conspiracy, of which the UK’s treacherous EU-élite is a part.  Throwing off the EU is therefore a key objective in opposing the formation of global, totalitarian government; but this is not something the public will readily understand – and does not need, at this stage, to understand – as long as the objective of dissolving the EU can be attained.  Moreover, as a poorly-funded, anti-establishment party, UKIP’s capacity to reach the public is severely limited.  We simply cannot afford, financially or tactically, to depart from our simple anti-EU message, at this time.
The face-book forum is too time-consuming to permit much dialogue.  I apologise, for example, concerning the ability of our correspondence-team, to answer your questions systematically.  We do not have the resources to do this, and Mr Farage has no time at all to answer general enquiries.  You won’t find any national party-leader who does.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
www.ukip.org    www.ukipmeps.org

From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:annabelle.fuller@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…

This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <admin@nigelfaragemep.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com===[Contact Nigel]===Name: Earthlinggb

Address: None of your business.

E-mail: Removed for privacy

Your Query: Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?

7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?

8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?

9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?

10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?

11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?

12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?

As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.

Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!

Facebook: Criminals extracting your info, your money and the piss!

Posted in The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 21, 2012

What a coup! They fucked you all again! Will you NEVER learn?

CIA/BILDERBERG/ZUCKERBERG screw you to the wall again and you just don’t get it do you?

 

At the height of the Dotcom bubble I worked with a company called Airspan Networks. They still exist today. They are in the WiMAX market. In Around June/July 2000 they floated on the Nasdaq at a price of $15 per share. In the first day’s trading, the share value went up to approx $49. All us guys who had our share options were whooping it up! BUT, we were disallowed from selling our shares for 6 months after the IPO. At the end of that 6 months the share price had fallen to $2. It then fell even further to under a $1 and Airspan was almost thrown off the Nasdaq because the Nasdaq was for corporations who traded above the $1 mark. Airspan’s underwriters were Credit Suisse First Boston (Rockefeller company). Here are some of the news items wrt that IPO:

     

Looks good so far huh? But wait……..  

Not so good now though is it?

Now remember while you read through the following: I worked with these guys. Stonestrom was my CEO while he had a few little “lackeys” and still does by the names of Smith-Petersen and others. God knows how the latter still gets a pay packet from this company because, frankly, he was hopeless. The guy would promise $40M deals in Asia while yours truly was just coming up with a $million here, a $million there and a $6M elsewhere (but we won’t talk about that company Bell Telephone in the Philippines who, according to the “Management” was never going to account for anything shall we?). Let’s also not mention that, to get the first $750K from them for 4 base stations and 100 L128 data units, I was told to sell them the Fixed Bandwidth network rather than the Dynamic bandwidth network I had already got them to believe in. Why did I have to do that? Because Stonestrom told me to on one of his midnight calls to Manila. Why did he want the Fixed Bandwidth network to be sold to them (and I was given no choice, I HAD to sell it to them even though I knew that is not what they wanted)? Because Airspan had shipped almost precisely that same amount of kit to another Asian customer who ended up not wanting it (when I say shipped I mean it was “in shipment” and even though not paid for, Stonestrom took the revenue to make the books look good (end of quarter – “we need to show growth for the IPO”). So he needed that lost revenue to be replaced because, in fact, he didn’t have the revenue! These are just facts.

While perhaps we also don’t wish to mention another Philippines company by the name of Majesty Communications who had agreed to order (and did) $2M of equipment from “yours truly” but then my management stitched me up with Bell Telephone and had me leave the Philippines. You see, by that time, they had to save money because this was now 2001 and the share price had fallen through the floor. They had to get rid of a good number of people and Smith-Petersen really wasn’t too keen on yours truly probably partly due to the fact that Stonestrom – instead of contacting his VP of Asia for the up to date market info – contacted me directly, thereby bypassing Smith-Petersen, knowing I was the guy who was converting REAL business and not just promising $40M deals that never happened! As I said, I still have no idea how that VP of Asia is still with the company. He achieved nothing.

Ah Suntel -yes. Well it just so happens that Suntel (Sri Lanka) was managed by a guy Smith-Petersen went to University with. That would help. Put the latter in front of complete strangers however and he couldn’t take a piece of business from A to Z. from “Hello” to “Thanks for your signature!”.

So where were we? Ah Yes Majesty Communications. So they placed the order for $2M but then yours truly got thrown out of Asia because I was an expensive “ex pat” and a good excuse to do so was to use me as the fall guy with Bell and their issue with pricing. Nice job lads! When I was told to leave the Philippines though, Majesty weren’t too happy about that because they had done the deal with me and it was me they wanted to manage their business. Now, my Finance Director had asked me whether this $2M should be booked (i.e. he wanted to take the revenue) and I said “No, not yet. Not until we get payment” but guess what he did (probably on Stonestrom’s say so). He booked it!

So yours truly is now in KL (Kuala Lumpur) and Smith-Petersen calls me up and says “Get on a plane to Manila because your customer, Majesty, are not taking our calls and are saying they want to cancel the order”. Oh dear! What a mess and what a shame! Have we booked the order yet? haha. Perhaps we shouldn’t have! But you did didn’t you? And now you’re putting the onus on me to get you out of the shit. But I can’t because Majesty won’t now accept that business because I ain’t there! You see SP, they trusted me to deal with them fairly and professionally. What does that tell you? So, in the end, what did Airspan do? Well, I had left by mid 2001 and boy were they pissed off with me. $2M deal gone. Well guys you either want quality or you don’t. If you do you have to pay for it and you didn’t. Not only that you didn’t keep to our employment contract you cheap bastards! 🙂 From what I can appreciate, they “hid” the bad debt until such times as they could write it off. So then back to the IPO issue: Let’s take a look at the ensuing lawsuit against Airspan, Eric Stonestrom and others. The following is taken from the actual court notes:               Now if you would like to read the full text of the Lawsuit by all means: AIRSPAN.PDF

But who would you rather have? A Sales guy who brought in $500K, $1M, $2M, $6M (yes lads Bell became $6M from a “paltry” initial order of $750K but I told you it would grow while I never saw the commissions from it because you sacked me on trumped up bullshit) and you were certain of getting it? Or would you prefer the VP who consistently fed you bullshit in his annual forecasts that he was going to bring you $40M from Australia and $40M from Pakistan which never happened?

Well Stonestrom, you listened to him. Had that anything to do with him having something “on you” by any chance?

Now, again, I knew these people. I worked with them. I knew how they thought and how they operated. I knew their aggressive tactics and their burning desire to “make money”. Sure, I was caught up in it too – that being caught up in the idea of making money – but what I didn’t know was how THEY were going to achieve it while the rest of us mugs helped them to yet we were forbidden from cashing in on what we achieved for them. You see, while the share price plummeted, the company was more cash rich than it had ever been because of people throwing their REAL money at it like betting on a horse. But the game was fixed. It was rigged. Just like in the game of roulette at a Casino, the House always wins. Well Airspan and the upper level of Directors (or let’s call them the American version – the VPs) and certain others were, in this case, the “House”. They sucked the public dry. Did Stonestrom and friends know the score? I can’t say but what do you think? 😉 However, they’re all still on the outside peddling the Airspan name and its products while, shortly after the IPO (and the cash injection it gave them while getting rid of people) they went on a spending spree and bought up a few companies. One, of course (where else?) being in Israel! Never!! An old Marconi unit. Why did the lawsuit come to nothing? Well look who was involved. CSFB, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns. What on earth do you expect?

 

So let’s now turn to Facebook (and trust me there are so many other stories of this nature – Ericsson debentures circa 1997 and more recently a lithium mining company called AMLM or American Lithium Minerals Inc – a BULLSHIT company which stole £20K from me). Ah Zuckerberg! What a nice little Bilderberg goon you are! A Goldman Sachs arse licking little prat. A nobody who appears out of nowhere and becomes a $billionaire on the basis of nothing. A leach. But then you’re part of the big boys club and the CIA love you!

You’re not jewish are you Mark? 😉 Let’s just look at the Facebook IPO and see the parallel with the Airspan IPO regarding pumping up the share price for flotation way above the actual value of the company:       “It was just a poorly done deal and it just so happens to be the biggest deal ever for the Nasdaq and they pooched it” Tell me something world? How is it that these criminals get away with just saying “it was a mistake” time and time and time again? WHY IS THE WORLD LETTING THESE BANKERS AND THESE CORPORATE CRIMINALS AS WELL AS THE SO CALLED “REGULATORY BODIES” WHO ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME CRIMINALS (otherwise they disappear in plastic bags or get “suicided” and hung or are found at the bottom of a lake) TAKE IT FOR A MONUMENTAL RIDE? Now read this little “gem” from Reuters of all people:

Morgan Stanley’s $2.4 billion Facebook short

By Felix Salmon
MAY 21, 2012
IPO | STOCKS
Matt Levine had a very wonky post on Friday afternoon about the dynamics of the Facebook IPO in general and of the very misunderstood greenshoe option in particular. Now that we’ve all had a nice relaxing weekend, it’s maybe worth revisiting that greenshoe, because it’s actually possible, given Facebook’s tumbling share price today, that Morgan Stanley will make a substantial amount of money on it. First, it’s worth explaining how the greenshoe option is meant to work. In the IPO, the underwriting banks — there were lots of them, but let’s just call them all “Morgan Stanley”, for simplicity’s sake — sold 484 million shares of Facebook at $38 each. At the same time, they bought 421 million shares of Facebook from the company and its investors, at $37.582 each. The underwriter’s fee of 1.1% is the difference between those two numbers: if you buy at $37.582 and sell at $38, then you end up creaming off 1.1% of the total amount raised. You’ll note that Morgan Stanley sold more shares than it bought. That’s the greenshoe. When you sell more shares than you buy, you’re short that stock, so when a bank exercises its greenshoe option, as Morgan Stanley did in this case, it is going short the stock in question. Why would a company like Facebook want its banks to be short its own stock? Partly because when there’s a big short in the market, that provides upward pressure on the share price. Shorts need to cover their short position — which means they need to buy stock. But more generally, the greenshoe is a way to provide the market with a nice extra slug of shares, which everybody wants if the stock trades substantially higher than its IPO price. The greenshoe does, however, raise certain existential questions — not least, how can 484 million shares be sold, if only 421 million shares have been issued? Do those extra 63 million shares exist? It’s a good question, and the answer is that they’re in a kind of quantum limbo, a bit like Schrödinger’s cat. In one possible world the shares trade happily on the open market, in which case Morgan Stanley will exercise its option, and force Facebook and its investors* to cough up the last 63 million shares; at that point, they certainly do exist. In another possible world, Morgan Stanley ends up buying back those 63 million shares on the open market, thereby reducing the number of shares actually trading to the original 421 million. In that world, the 63 million shares never had much of an existence: they were sold by Morgan Stanley and then bought back by Morgan Stanley, and all that’s left at the end of the day is nothing. Given where Facebook is trading right now, you can be sure that Morgan Stanley will not exercise its option, Facebook and its investors will not issue those extra 63 million shares, and that in a few days’ time, the free float of Facebook shares will be 421 million, not 484 million. Which in turn means that over the course of the first two or three trading sessions, Morgan Stanley will have ended up buying 63 million shares of Facebook on the open market. It sold those shares at $38, remember. So its total profit on the greenshoe operation will be zero if it bought all 63 million shares at $38 exactly. If it bought some of the shares above $38, then it could end up making a loss. And if it ends up buying a slug of shares below $38, then it’ll end up making a profit. That’s what happens, when you go short at $38 and then buy back at, say, $34. This is a very big trade: 63 million shares at $38 each comes to $2.4 billion. On the other hand, there’s very little doubt that Morgan Stanley was doing alot of buying on Friday. 43 million shares were bought at $38.00 exactly, and another 28.5 million shares were bought at $38.01. It’s reasonable to assume that most if not all of that buying came from Morgan Stanley, supporting the share price. So the chances are that at the end of the day, Morgan Stanley is going to end up pretty flat on its trade, selling the shares at $38 and then buying them back at $38. But if it bought more than 63 million shares on Friday, then it is sitting on a substantial mark-to-market loss right now. And similarly, if it bought backfewer than 63 million shares on Friday, then it’s actually making a profit on its greenshoe short. Chances are, no one outside the company will ever know for sure what Morgan Stanley’s P&L on the Facebook IPO ends up looking like. But it would make sense, if Morgan Stanley saw a lot of selling pressure on Friday, for the bank to keep onto at least a little bit of its short position into Monday morning. At which point it could make a tidy profit on that plunging share price. *In this case, it’s actually just the investors: Facebook wasn’t participating in the greenshoe scheme. But it could have, if it had wanted to.

 

 

I wonder? Was that Irish “I love myself”, Globalist little fucktard, Bono a wally? Or did he get a special price?

Well it looks like he was in early (from 2009). So the little globalist frontman got paid off well (assuming he now sells before they plummet). Meanwhile, I wonder who the short investors are?

Mark Zuckerberg anyone? hahaha

 

From its first ‘sell’ rating to short bets

PUBLISHED: 19 MAY 2012 08:17:28 | UPDATED: 21 MAY 2012 09:11:35

 Facebook received what may be its first “sell” rating on Friday, from Pivotal Research Group, which also set a target price of $US30 for the stock.

Shares in the No. 1 social network fizzled in their debut on Friday, managing an 18 per cent gain before backtracking to trade close to their $US38 initial public offering price.

“We are wary of the disconnect between revenue growth and operating/capital expense growth expectations,” Pivotal analyst Brian Wieser said in a research note. “The market is pricing Facebook as a less risky asset than Google, which we believe is simply not the case.”

I’M NO FACEBOOK BILLIONAIRE: BONO

U2 frontman Bono has laughed off claims he will become a billionaire on the back of the Facebook flotation.

The rock star’s investment group Elevation put money into the social networking site, taking 2.3 per cent of the company in late 2009.

But while the flotation means Elevation is worth way in excess of £1 billion ($1.6 billion), Bono is joined by nine other directors who stand to profit.

And reacting to the launch of Facebook on the stock market, he said: “Contrary to reports, I’m not a billionaire or going to be richer than any Beatle – and not just in the sense of money, by the way; the Beatles are untouchable – those billionaire reports are a joke.”

There had been suggestions that the canny investment could make his wealth outstrip that of Sir Paul McCartney, said to be valued at £665 million.

Bono told MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell in the US: “In Elevation, we invest other people’s money – endowments, pension funds. We do get paid, of course. But you know, I felt rich when I was 20 years old and my wife was paying my bills.

“Just being in a band, I’ve always felt blessed. I got interested in technology because I’m an artist; I’m interested in the forces that shape the world, politics, religion, the stuff we’ve been talking about today.”

He added: “Technology is huge, I wanted to learn about it. People might say that’s odd, but I think it’s odd if artists aren’t interested in the world around them. I’m always chasing that.

“Facebook are an amazing team, a brilliant team, it’s a technology that brings people together.”

WINDFALL TO BE SHARED WITH MENLO PARK CITY

Some of Facebook’s wealth is also slated to help fill the cash-strapped coffers of California and the smaller but still needy ones of Menlo Park, the Silicon Valley city where the company is located, although not in the form of taxes.

In a voluntary agreement with the city’s government, Facebook will soon pay a lump sum of $US1.1 million, a move Mayor Kirsten Keith hopes will be followed by another $US500,000.

The initial outlay to help fund capital projects for the city will be followed by additional annual payments of $US800,000 for five years, $US900,000 for the following four years and $US1 million in subsequent years.

The payments will help Menlo Park respond to Facebook’s expansion and its traffic. The company currently has 3500-plus employees and plans to develop a new campus – and there is an expectation the growth will lure more business to Menlo Park.

“Whenever you hear Facebook, you’ll hear Menlo Park. That’s just priceless,” Keith told Reuters in an interview. “Other companies will want to be around that.”

Keith says a future “ecosystem” of high-tech firms could establish itself in Menlo Park to develop products and services complementing the social network, providing more revenue to the city.

Menlo Park faces a budget gap of about $US1 million for the 2013 fiscal year beginning on July 1 and money slated to arrive from Facebook next January will help close the shortfall, said City Manager Alex McIntyre.

Facebook’s payments to Menlo Park will help replace revenue that was generated on the company’s campus when it housed a Sun Microsystems facility that generated about $US800,000 a year in sales tax revenue for the city.

Earlier this week, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that California will see $US2.1 billion in revenue linked to Facebook’s IPO through its next fiscal year. The estimate was based on the expectation the company’s shares will rise to $US45 a share in six months from the initial public offering price of $US38.

SHORTING ONLY FOR THE BRAVE

Shorting the Facebook IPO on its first day of trading is not for the faint of heart, but some traders are trying.

As the hottest initial public offering in recent memory, Facebook has drawn 1990s-style tech-mania interest from mom and pop investors and big institutions alike.

That intense appeal means short-sellers are both attracted by the stock’s high valuation and wary, at least for now.

“I have no interest in shorting a cultural phenomenon,” hedge fund manager Jeffrey Matthews of Ram Partners in Greenwich, Connecticut, told Reuters in an email interview.

Asked if this was because such stocks trade without regard to normal market valuation, he wrote back, “Bingo.”

Short sellers bet against shares by borrowing the security, then selling it. If the stock drops, they buy it back at the lower price, return it to the lender and pocket the difference as profit.

Shorts looking to bet against Facebook early face an uphill battle. Traders interviewed said the stock was going to be hard to borrow, at least for a few days, and only the best-sourced hedge fund managers will able to find lenders.

A prime broker at one of the top underwriters of the IPO said the firm would not be lending shares, at least until the initial settlement in three business days.

“I don’t know how many shares will be available for shorting,” said the broker, who requested anonymity. “We would only provide them once the deal has stabilised.”

The bigger-than-usual percentage of retail-investor ownership of the shares may make shorting more difficult, as those investors don’t tend to lend their shares for those who want to take a short bet.

“It will likely be difficult to get shares to borrow,” said Adam Reed, professor of finance at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

“In our research, we found that around 70 per cent of IPOs are borrowable on the first day, but many of those names were only borrowable by well-placed investors.”

Those who are able to short need nerves of steel. The borrowing cost will be high, and short-sellers may find the trade hard to unwind by buying back the stock in the open market, and could face a lender calling in their shorts if the stock rallies sharply.

Still, some are trying to short Facebook on Day One.

“I’m doing the legwork now and calling all the brokers,” said a hedge fund manager late on Thursday, after Facebook priced its IPO at $US38 per share. “Goldman and Credit Suisse are our prime brokers, so I am in contact with them about this.”

“This is about as bubbly as you can get,” he said. “My mother asked me if she could get Facebook shares and she has never been interested in IPOs before. A cab driver asked me about the IPO too. That’s when you want to short it.”

The hedge fund manager asked not to be named as he expected to be involved in shorting the stock on Friday.

“Facebook is the kind of stock that, if you don’t like it, you simply avoid it,” said Mohannad Aama, managing director at Beam Capital Management LLC in New York.

AP, Reuters

 

Finally, CIA? Facebook? “Conspiracy theory bullshit” right?

 

WRONG!

 

By Jon King

The All-Seeing Eye

Ever wondered who is behind the internet’s all-seeing eye, Google? Who put the ‘face’ in Facebook? Who’s ‘pal’ you’ve become when you send or receive through PayPal?

Ever thought Big Brother might be logging every sale and purchase you make on its virtual auction website, eBay?

No? Well if you think the above notions are little more than paranoid conspiracy fears, you’d best think again. Evidence that the CIA, directly or by proxy, bankrolled at least some of these internet giants, is now beyond doubt.

Which means the world’s most powerful intelligence agency has more control over the internet than even the hardiest conspiracy theorist may wish to believe.

 Back in 2006 former CIA case officer, Robert Steele (left), made headline news when he revealed that Google was ‘in bed with the CIA’, confirming fears that the internet’s all-seeing eye is more a US government spy tool than a user-friendly search engine.

Further rummaging at the murky end of venture capital investment deals seems to suggest Steele knew exactly what he was talking about, as we shall see.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

The PayPal Mafia

In 1999, PayPal became the world’s first virtual banking system, making it possible for surfers everywhere to send and receive money via the internet. The idea was conceived, and the website founded, by US futurist, entrepreneur, and 2009 Bilderberg attendee, Peter Thiel.

These days Thiel is recognized as the godfather of what was recently dubbed by Fortune Magazine the ‘PayPal Mafia’, a group of super-wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalists with alleged business ties to the CIA.

Indeed, according to some reports, it is largely via Silicon Valley’s venture capital boardrooms that the spy agency has taken control of the internet.

“The CIA is throwing caution (and several tens of millions of dollars) to the wind, joining the dot.com frenzy and investing in Silicon Valley,“ wrote Andrew Gumbel in The Independent way back in April 2000. “It is not looking for the next cool way to swap musical downloads, or place orders for organic groceries. What it wants is a super-smart search engine to marshal all the information on the internet – in secret if possible.”

As the evidence reveals, that “super-smart search engine” would manifest itself in the form of Google. But first, the seemingly ubiquitous Peter Thiel…

For the record, PayPal was not Thiel’s only internet success. He is also the ‘face’ behind Facebook.

While ostensibly true that Facebook is headed up by Harvard graduate Mark Zuckerberg, what is not so well publicized is that the internet’s phattest social networking empire was effectively the brainchild of Thiel and his entrepreneurial VC syndicate.

And that, via this syndicate, Facebook was early on picked up and deployed by the CIA as a social networking experiment.

“Facebook is a deliberate experiment in global manipulation,â” wrote Tom Hodgkinson in the Guardian. “The creators of the site need do very little bar fiddle with the programme. In the main, they simply sit back and watch as millions of Facebook addicts voluntarily upload their ID details, photographs and lists of their favourite consumer objects. Once in receipt of this vast database of human beings, Facebook then simply has to sell the information back to advertisers, or, as Zuckerberg puts it in a recent blog post, ‘to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web’.”

The Guardian article goes on to reveal Facebook’s surprisingly open connections to theCIA.

Aside from Thiel, major investors in Facebook include Silicon Valley’s Accel Partners (also major investors in eBay) and Greylock Venture Capital, both of whom, together withNVCA (National Venture Capital Association), share boardroom execs with an altogether more notorious outfit called In-Q-Tel.

And guess what? In-Q-Tel is the official venture capital wing of the CIA – check out theIn-Q-Tel website.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

A CIA Bed Partner

About the same time as Peter Thiel was busy setting up PayPal, just across the street theCIA was busy setting up In-Q-Tel, ostensibly an investment capital firm for the development of cutting-edge IT and communications technologies.

With the almost overnight global reach of the internet, the US intelligence community realized it was time to gain a length on this new electronic information highway, and in many ways PayPal was seen as an early social experiment in this regard.

As well as providing the means to unwittingly utilize the internet-connected public for intelligence gathering, it would also serve to shift vast sums of money around the globe regardless of national borders or currencies.

The experiment worked well enough. Thiel pocketed a handsome $55 million from the sale of PayPal to eBay in 2002, while the CIA went on to learn new ways of cyber-laundering vast sums of cash worldwide. Ingenious.

But the experiment did not end there. The CIA may have bought its way into PayPal and eBay. But it wanted more, and already had its sights on further, potential acquisitions – one in particular: Google.

What was to become the internet’s most successful “super-smart search engine”, Google, was founded in 1998 by two Stanford University students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, with seed funding from Sun Microsystems founder, Andy Bechtolsheim.

By the end of that same year the innovative search engine was already the web’s most visited domain, sufficient in itself to make America’s defence and intelligence community sit up and take note.

Indeed, just a few short months later, Google received a further $25 million development funding, primarily from Sequoia Capital (investors in Apple, Atari, eBay, PayPal, and now Google) and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who just happened to be bed partners with In-Q-Tel. From that point on Google and the CIA became lovers.

“Even while Google presents a public image of vigorously protecting its users’ privacy,“ wrote Michael Hampton for Homeland Stupidity, “it has quietly provided assistance to several U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency… In addition, Google may be providing assistance to the National Security Agency.”

In 2004 Google further expanded its cyber-empire by acquiring a company called Keyhole Inc., until then a strategic CIA-front satellite imaging firm funded by In-Q-Tel.

Within a year Keyhole’s cutting-edge ‘virtual satellite imaging’ software had become Google Earth, and In-Q-Tel’s Director of Technology Assessment, Rob Painter, had crossed the street and joined the Google board, becoming the internet spy firm’s Senior Federal Manager. Fait accompli.

The more recent addition of Google Street View and future plans to develop the 360-degree spy-cam service into a live-feed CCTV webcam service streaming directly back toCIA HQ, Virginia, is evidence enough that Orwellian Earth has finally arrived.

Big Brother is watching. His lens is Google. His name is the CIA…

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

The Birth Of Facebook

While Google was busy setting up the CIA’s public domain satellite spy-cam service, three Harvard University students were unwittingly preparing to present the CIA with yet another social experiment.

Indeed, they were already catching the eye of the CIA and its Silicon Valley business fronts.

In June 2004, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes and Dustin Moskowitz met with PayPal founder Peter Thiel in San Francisco, who invested an initial $500,000 in their fledgling ‘Facebook’ idea. The following April (2005), Thiel’s investment was boosted by a staggering $12.7 million investment stumped up by Thiel’s buddy and former Chairman ofNVCA, Jim Breyer.

It is NVCA remember, which shares company execs with the CIA’s In-Q-Tel. And Breyer himself shares CIA associations via his business relationships with Gilman Louie, formerCEO of In-Q-Tel and NVCA board member.

Another former Chairman of NVCA, Howard Cox, would later head up a further investment in Facebook of some $27.5 million, this time on behalf of investment firm Greylock Venture Capital. As we have already noted, Greylock and the CIA are conjoined in their business ambitions via shared boardroom interests with In-Q-Tel.

Howard Cox, for one, senior partner in Greylock, is also on the board of the CIA’s In-Q-Tel.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

An Unprecedented Success

Which brings us full circle. The CIA, via In-Q-Tel and other spy-front investment firms, effectively bankrolled many of the internet’s biggest success stories – no doubt the reason behind their unprecedented successes.

And speaking of unprecedented successes…

In October 2006, Google purchased YouTube for a staggering $1.65 billion. Not bad for a video-sharing website founded eighteen months earlier by three computer nerds with nothing better to do.

 Indeed, given what we now know about the internet’s most omnipresent search engine, the question must surely be asked: who really bought YouTube – Google, or the CIA?

The PR story circulated at the time was that the nerds in question (YouTube’s founders) were former PayPal employees, itself sufficient to set sirens wailing.

But it’s the way the story is told that makes it sound so cosy and innocent, deflecting as it does all attention from the incestuous financial links now known to exist between PayPal, Google, Facebook, eBay, the US intelligence community… Oh, and YouTube.

So there we have it. Each in their own unique way, eBay, PayPal, YouTube, Facebook – not forgetting the trusty Google and a small host of others, including the web’s biggest online privacy protection firm, TRUSTe – would appear to be virtual eyes and data collectors for the world’s biggest and most powerful intelligence agency, the CIA.

Even Yahoo is suspected of being used by the CIA, as well as the NSA and other US intelligence agencies.

So the next time you log on to Facebook, or YouTube; or make a search via Google, or Yahoo; or a transaction via PayPal for something you just bought on EBay; take comfort in the knowledge that Big Brother has footprinted your every move.

And that those tracking cookies you’ve just picked up are hotwired back to Central Computer, Langley, Virginia – home of the CIA.

By WHOSE authority? Elizabetto Mussolini’s!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthling on January 2, 2012

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because the system is set up corruptly to have them think that?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because you are presumed a “subject” of Her Majesty simply because you were born in this country (itself a legal fiction) and your parents were coerced (and were ignorant of the contractual terms they were signing up to) into registering your birth AS a subject of Her Majesty?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON that, contrary to all LAW, should have no more right over your person than you do over theirs?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who has bought a debt from another party (a commercial transaction), refers to itself and its BUSINESS as a Commercial enterprise and has been given the title “Sheriff Officer” by the government to suggest its legitimacy in coercing you into paying up?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON because the LEGAL PERSON (Council in this case) from whom they bought the debt, could/would not answer your questions nor take notice of the issues you had but simply stated you MUST pay and if you have any issues, to contact an ombudsman – an ombudsman who is part of, and paid for by, the same corrupt system which is coercing you? Do you think it would go your way under ANY circumstances? If it did, it would be the end of the road for the entire con and they can’t have that!

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who states they are acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in collecting such local government taxes? I guess they are because it is Her Majesty the Queen who, by Royal Prerogative, makes the decision to fight illegal wars and while a massive portion of the country’s debt is used to fight these wars, Her Majesty wants it paid back.

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who, if it came to it, would have Kenny McCaskill and Alex Salmond and then possibly even Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, support their corner to keep the con going while Clarke himself, is a criminal of the highest order against the Constitution (highest law of their making) and if Her Majesty doesn’t know this then Her Majesty is a twat!

If you are, then read the following:

First of all, definitions. These definitions, as you can tell if you read the link, are from a respected legal source so please, under no circumstances, suggest “theory”. It is getting old and worn out.

About In Brief

What is In Brief

In Brief is a growing legal resource providing information on the laws of England and Wales.  It contains articles on a variety of legal issues, written in layman’s terms by ourteam of writers. They have extensive legal knowledge and experience in their particular area of the law and provide high quality information on the topics we cover.

In Brief aims to be the largest source of legal material of its kind anywhere on the Internet.  A site devoted to informing the public about laws relevant to them and providing people with an encyclopaedia of articles onEnglish law.

english-law.htm

Legal Personality

Only legal ‘persons’ can become liable or pursue an action under the law.

Types of legal person

  • A natural person i.e. a human being
  • An artificial person i.e. a corporation

index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_804

Need I say more on the fact that a NATURAL PERSON is a legal term under the umbrella definition of a LEGAL PERSON?

No, I thought not. Thank you!

Ok, now we have that out of the way, let’s consider a Judge or Magistrate’s position and WHO HE/SHE WORKS FOR!

Magistrates’ Court

Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, are unpaid trained members of their local community.

Virtually all criminal court cases start in a magistrates’ court, and more than 90 per cent will be completed there.

The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for full trial with a judge and jury.

Magistrates deal with three kinds of cases:

  • Summary offences. These are less serious cases, such as motoring offences and minor assaults, where the defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury. They are generally disposed of in magistrates’ courts.
  • Either-way offences. As the name implies, these can be dealt with either by magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can insist on their right to trial in the Crown Court. Magistrates can also decide that a case is so serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court – which can impose tougher sentences if the defendant is found guilty.
  • Indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. These must be heard at a Crown Court.

If the case is indictable-only, the magistrates’ court will generally decide whether to grant bail, consider other legal issues such as reporting restrictions, and then pass the case on to the Crown Court.

If the case is to be dealt within a magistrates’ court, the defendant(s) are asked to enter a plea. If they plead guilty or are later found to be guilty, the magistrates can impose a sentence, generally of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence (12 months in total), or a fine, generally of up to £5,000. If found not guilty (‘acquitted’), defendants are judged innocent in the eyes of the law and will be free to go – provided there are no other cases against them outstanding.

Cases are either heard by two or three magistrates or by one district judge.

Who are magistrates?

Justices of the Peace, as they are also known, are local people who volunteer their services. They do not require formal legal qualifications, but will have undertaken a training programme, including court and prison visits, to develop the necessary skills. They are given legal and procedural advice by qualified clerks.

District judges are legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals and are usually based in the larger cities. They normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases.

There are approximately 30,000 magistrates, 140 district judges and 170 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England and Wales.

Justices’ Clerks

Because magistrates do not need to have legal qualifications, they are advised in court on matters of law, practice and procedure. This advice is provided by Justices’ Clerks and Assistant Justices’ Clerks.

Magistrates in the criminal court

Over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ court.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases including motoring offences, commit to higher courts serious cases such as rape and murder, consider bail applications, deal with fine enforcement and grant search warrant and right of entry applications. They may also consider cases where people have not paid their council tax, their vehicle excise licence or TV licences.

All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as panels of three, mixed in gender, age, ethnicity etc whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three have equal decision-making powers but only one, the chairman will speak in court and preside over the proceedings. The two magistrates sitting either side are referred to as wingers.

Most of the cases are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but there are other prosecution agencies such as RSPCA, Environment Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, English Nature etc.

Where a defendant pleads not guilty a trial will be held where the magistrates listen to, and sometimes see, evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, decide on agreed facts and facts in dispute and consider whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Having found someone guilty or when someone has pleaded, the magistrates proceed to sentence using a structured decision making process and sentencing guidelines which set out the expected penalty for typical offences. They will also take note of case law and any practice directions from the higher courts and are advised in court by a legally qualified adviser.

For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, a magistrate’s sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, Community Payback orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody (a total of 12 months for multiple offences). Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from magistrates’ courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.

So, let’s just face the indisputable fact that, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brings a case before the court – and, in the case of a non payment of Council Tax in Scotland, it will be a Sheriff Officer who states they are authorised by Her Majesty – the Magistrate (or Judge) WORKS for the SAME CROWN! Meanwhile the prosecuting lawyer is a member of the Bar and if ANY lawyer or solicitor does NOT operate within the rules and procedures dictated by the Crown THEY WILL BE DISBARRED!

So, you have an “unholy trinity” facing you which, under no circumstances, will allow natural law (or even their OWN law) to interfere with their judgement upon you. You start to attack the fundamental basis of law and even their own stated law and they will simply refuse to listen and, worse, may imprison you for having the audacity (and intelligence) to destroy their mind game. You will be held in “Contempt of court” which simply means you are QUESTIONING them!

The Judge and the Crown state that one cannot be offered a fair hearing or trial if there is any other party in the proceedings who has a conflict of interest! Do you see a conflict of interest here? The entire set up is a conflict of interest!

Now, if you do not recognise a coercive mafia and dictatorship before you then you are simply past help!

Ok, let’s move on:

Here we have a “Charge for payment of Money”

Let’s go through this stage by stage:

1. Applicant: City of Edinburgh Council.

What do they want? Well, for over 2 years they have wanted my payment of Council Tax. Simple.

Why do they want it? Because that’s the “law” and “everyone has to pay the local government for services rendered – Police (joke), Roads (joke), Libraries, schools, Fire services, Rubbish collection, Trams (BIG joke!), Climate change initiatives (MASSIVE joke!), payment of Council workers PENSIONS, etc etc…..

2. Against: Me! Why? Because I made it clear that I refused to pay a tax to any UK government body because:

a) the UK government have broken their own laws and are committing treason in taking this country into the EU (fact – look up the Bill of rights which they continue to use when it is advantageous to them to do so). It states “No foreign STATES”. What is Brussels? So Her Majestic one (whether by a gun to her head or not) has sold this country out. She is not “ruling” (and neither is her government) by the law of her realm (unless she now sees the EU as her realm?). She has broken the Monarch’s oath and her Ministers have allowed her to do so.

b) If I assume the part of “subject” then the above kicks in. If I do not (and I don’t because I am subject to no-one and if the UK government wish to use force by way of their Domestic terrorist unit, aka Police, then let them show their hand to the entire country in an open court of law with a jury who happen to have logical intelligence) then I do not assume the capacity of a “legal person” whose “benefits” were COERCIVELY conferred upon me at birth when I had neither capacity nor capability to make my own decision as to whether I would accept such a role.

c) The British government have committed warcrimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and have been found, on numerous occasions, to have lied to the British people. This is fact and it is proven. Meanwhile, the overall national debt (which is entirely unnecessary to have at all) is used, in great part, to fund such illegal wars.

d) The local governments are nothing more nor nothing less than coercive tax collectors. Meanwhile each individual taxpayer pays income tax, road tax, VAT and the list goes on. ALL of it misused and abused from kickbacks to Councillors and their favourite European or British corporation who then charge extortionate amounts for a tram system that screws up the entire city of Edinburgh, to a complete and utter con called “Climate change” pushed by the United Nations “Agenda 21” and the Club of Rome whose agenda is to push people into cities, allow the buying up of the countryside by corporations and why? For their own kickbacks.

e) Ken Clarke – Lord Chancellor. Working for Bilderberg and the very same crew who control the UN, Club of Rome and the system of banking who paid off Tony Blair handsomely because he did exactly as he was told. He worked for the bankers and not the people. Ken Clarke and the crew are all on the inside track and write legislation for the banking crew while they also benefit from it because they are then privy to the future impact analysis of that legislation and are even told what to invest in. You CANNOT get any more corrupt than that. It is legalised insider trading!

3. Summary warrant: Simply means that I get no hearing (neither do you). They are not interested in one “legal person’s” defence nor reasoning against the actions of another “legal person”. What happened to “All PERSONS are equal before the law”? They don’t want and can’t have or allow you to speak before a court and jury to state your case because then they would collapse. One must remember that the court, as well as the Council and the BUSINESS (corporation) known as “Scott & Co” are ALL “legal persons” as are you. BUT, these legal persons work together whereas we, as 60+ million “legal persons” do not. This tight knit little “mafia” want their money because the system, set up by the legislative of the UK tells them it is all necessary while that same legislative in either Holyrood or Westminster (it matters not) are ALL on the take from the banking community (or the City of London and the Crown). Bear in mind that the Crown is ALSO a legal person (legal fiction) yet it is one legal person dictating to another legal person (you). Now HOW does that work? Anyhow, a summary warrant is just that  – the disallowance by the state (who say they are there for your protection – haha) of allowing you to expose them for what they are. Criminals and their own legalised mafia.

4. Local Government Finance Act 1992: A statute (not a law) applied to you because the vast vast majority of the population are entirely ignorant and just go along with it all. Democracy is a wonderful thing for the authoritarian government. Use the majority’s ignorance to keep the minority in line. And the majority equate democracy with freedom! Effectively, then, they build their own prison. “I’m not interested in politics” says Joe, “it’s boring”. “Oh good”, says Cameron and his ilk, “we can turn the screws ever more tighter then”.

And that is precisely what they’re doing! The bankers will reward them the more they screw you. It’s that simple! You stay ignorant and enjoy it however!

5. Walter McGill (Capacity: Sheriff Officer) – Poor Walter (can I call you Wally?). Just doing his job because that’s what he’s paid to do. He doesn’t have a clue about any of this and doesn’t want to. He just wants to get his job done and fcuk anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told by these legal persons who seem to be more important legal persons (even though they are artificial legal constructs) than the natural person. The artificial legal person is given precedence in law over the living, breathing natural person. Wally’s just a robot. Perhaps he’s good at making tea too!

And ALL in her majesty’s name! A woman of flesh and blood who has been crowned as the office holder (only a CEO in effect) of Monarch. A TOTAL legal fiction

But wait….. How very strange! Read the following:

Disqualification of sheriffs principal and sheriffs.

(1)A sheriff principal to whom this subsection applies, or a sheriff, shall not, so long as he holds office as such—

(a)engage, whether directly or indirectly, in any private practice or business, or be in partnership with or employed by, or act as agent for, any person so engaged; . . . F6

3)The sheriff principal of any sheriffdom, not being either a sheriff principal who is restricted by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice or a sheriff principal to whom subsection (1) above applies, shall not, so long as he holds office as such, advise, or act as an advocate in any court, in any cause civil or criminal arising within or coming from that sheriffdom.

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971

Now let’s just take another look at “Scott & Co” shall we? The name says it all of course but just for further clarification:

AN INTRODUCTION TO YOUR PARTNERS IN COLLECTION

Scott & Company is a professional partnership with a strong reputation for service delivery and excellent performance. This reputation has been built on the back of an unrivalled blend of centralised and decentralised services and a total commitment to quality management.

Our services are provided UK wide and are managed totally in-house. We enjoy a particularly dominant position in the enforcement, recovery and investigations marketplace in Scotland.

Our business continues to expand through service excellence, reputation management and key acquisitions.

David McLaughlin
Managing Partner

Scott & Co

How nice David. Do you get paid well for being as coercive as you possibly can? How much do you buy the debt for? Or alternatively, how much commission do you get paid for squeezing that money out of people? Your “business”? Ah so you even admit it is a business. Well that’s good and honest of you David but tell me? Two things:

1. If you didn’t provide such good service and delivery (in terms of coercion) then your business wouldn’t make much of a profit would it? When are you going to be provided with firearms David? Anytime soon? Or do you expect to just keep using the Domestic terrorist unit (aka Police) to ensure you apply that pressure to people?

2. What does it say above David re the disqualification of Sheriffs? Read slowly David: Part (a) David. Yes read again David. Now read your intro David: “Partners in collection” and your company is a private practice/business YET you actually state that you are Sheriffs? HOW does that work David?

And yet, it will be totally ignored David won’t it? You break the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act just by existing in the form you do and you work on more coercion means more profit yet you get away with it. If I were to walk into court and show this to a judge, your little mafia would kick into gear and the freemason judge would have me banged up for contempt. Nice little club you have going there David! 😉

Debt Recovery

The Scott & Co Group provides consumer and commercial debt recovery services to a range of public sector and prominent private sector organisations operating in the retail, utility, financial services and other sectors.

We provide a fully comprehensive service encompassing pre-litigation recoveries utilising our sophisticated contact management processes and field resources, litigation and enforcement, and door collection services.

We manage the litigation and enforcement requirements of our clients in-house.

Our services are provided throughout the UK from our network of 14 offices. Although we engage sophisticated volume debt management processes, we strive to provide a personalised service to our clients and their customers.

We are members of the Credit Services Association, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Institute of Directors and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.

Ah! The “Society” of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers while providing a personalised service to to your CLIENTS and their CUSTOMERS. It’s a nice business David when you have a corrupt government behind you isn’t it? So the Crown makes the rules, the Crown wants payment, the Crown uses you (while you profit) to enforce that payment. When you can’t because people like me ignore “you” as a legal person (Scott & Co) it pisses you off. You run off to the Sheriff Court (oh but wait, you ARE the Sheriff!) and get a summary warrant which you then state is “In her majestic one’s name and authority” (another legal person and fiction) and boy she wants paid doesn’t she? So she has created, by way of her government, a quasi government/corporate state to ensure the Crown gets what it wants (that’s called FASCISM David! Are you a fascist David? Looks like it from where I’m standing). I guess wee Alec is entirely in tune with it all to right? After all, he loves Her Majesty and also he loves the Windpower off the coast all based upon that con called “Climate Change” which will end up imposing further Carbon tax Europe wide and wee Alex is a Europhile because, by getting out of the political union with England and Wales gives him the title of PM of Scotland – an EU Fiefdom!

But you don’t mind being a PERSON David do you? You don’t mind the PERSON in the form of the artificial company of whatever type, having precedence in law over you! You don’t mind the Climate con ramping up costs of living/fuel and the tax applied to petrol and the price going through the roof while the old woman starves or freezes to death in her poorly maintained home in the centre of 21st century Glasgow or Dundee or Edinburgh? Nah David, you don’t give a FUCK because it isn’t going to affect you is it? Why? Because you have the “law” behind you while you make ever increasing profits out of others misery and you personally make a rather decent salary out of it all which, itself, will increase exponentially as this police state ramps up! Were you a leech in a previous life David?

Meanwhile David, you will presume of me that I am some sort of benefit sucking hippy right? 🙂

Let me make this clear David. I am speaking to the LEGAL PERSON (an artificial construct) by the name of Scott & Co here: YOU ARE A FUCKING CORRUPT CRIMINAL!

So then back to the “Law” for a moment:

The “law “IS an ass but let’s just consider what even it says shall we?

A basic principle: It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.  Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

And BOY do you have an interest!

While, as we can see with all of these Corporate persons given precedence over the natural person, we do not live under natural law any longer and have not for a very long time. So just as we have artificial persons calling the shots (in league with the legal person known as the Crown – and we don’t even know who or what the Crown is while it prosecutes us), we have UNNATURAL JUSTICE (which isn’t justice at all in any form or fashion) jailing people for non crimes! ALL good for business though when the jails (thanks again to Kennyboy Clarke) are all being privatised! Funny that isn’t it? Can you imagine a private business running a jail with no inmates? Not very profitable now is it?

[No, we do NOT know who the Crown is:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

While, as you will readily see from this statement by Tony Blair (just before he became the lying scum Tony Bliar), something smells with the National Grid:

HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …

Mr. Blair   Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

§The Prime Minister   I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

And do you know why there is such a monopoly while you believe you actually have a choice in suppliers? Because those “suppliers” are licensed to BILL you while the natural resources of the UK are exported and our needs imported to a great extent. And why? Because globalisation is the game and it is far more profitable to the Crown when the Crown owns and controls every last aspect of fuel and minerals and the seabed from whence they came. They then licence out the seabed (for example £64,000 per year in perpetuity for a single fibre optic cable lying on the seabed. For nothing. ZERO. NADA. Now think about the offshore wind farms, the turbines themselves and the cables laid from each turbine to the national grid which, when once laid, the investment is sunk – literally in this case. Yet the Crown charges £thousands per cable and per turbine just for sitting there in perpetuity. Add to this new knowledge you may have that Petroleum is vested in Her Majesty and that each and every Oil company who had and has wanted to be licensed has paid approximately 12.5% of the value of ALL oil pumped to the Crown because the Crown owns the mineral rights! THEN wonder at the cost of your petrol! Look it up, it’s all found in this blog.]

Now here’s an interesting story from Canada where the Crown is also enforcing its “law”. The problem is that the couple got it wrong while, even if they got it right, the Crown would STILL screw them!

“The couple maintains that, with proper interpretation of the law and proper arrangement of your business affairs, you can legally receive income as a “natural person” rather than a taxpayer, and thereby avoid income taxes.”

story.html

So where did they fundamentally go wrong? They stated they were “natural persons”. By doing so they applied a legal term to themselves and, as such, accepted the idea that they were legal persons and, as we all know, legal persons are subject to legality. They accepted the designation “natural person” thereby accepting the designation “legal person” which is imposed upon a human being by a state through the registration of birth process where one accepts (although one is too young to possibly do so AND, further, the full disclosure by the state of what it means – an abridging of your entire natural body of rights to that which the state says you have plus a legal enforcement of duties upon you – was never provided to you or your parents) that one is subject to another legal person’s rules.

I have already painstakingly, demonstrated in other blogposts the fact that YOU are a legal person and the State is a legal person as well as the Crown, the UK and the EU. The ONLY non artificial legal person with a will of its own is YOU. This is what the artificial legal person DOES NOT wish you to understand because, if you do, it is the end of the road for these corrupt bastards. In THEIR OWN LAW, ALL “persons” are equal before it!

However, to all of you Monarchists out there (such as Mr Albert Burgess) you accept the immunity from such law by a Queen and her lackeys because of some form of mental delusion which makes you bow at another’s feet! You’re PATHETIC in that regard.

But, after all this above guess what? I’m going to pay you! You know why? Because you’d get away with daylight robbery anyhow while sequestrating me (declaring me bankrupt which me, as a human living being would not be but my “legal person” would be). And that’s how you do it you bunch of fuckers. That bankruptcy would allow me no loans, no credit, I wouldn’t be able to buy a house even though I have a huge deposit for one. I would probably never get a job. So what you do is you make life fucking difficult for those you “conferred the benefits” of citizenship (or subjection) to. And I don’t intend to be a martyr when I recognise the ignorance and idiocy of the majority of the country who would just bay for my blood! You win you corrupt bastards!

THE SAD PART BEING THAT THE IGNORANT MASS OF POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CORRUPTION BECAUSE THEY WILL SAY “IF I HAVE TO PAY IT YOU HAVE TO PAY IT” WHILE THEY DON’T RECOGNISE THE REALITY THAT IF THEY SUPPORTED OTHERS THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTING THEMSELVES.

DEMOCRACY IS GREAT ISN’T IT? IF I WERE A DICTATOR THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT. DEMOCRACY: MAJORITY RULE AND THE MAJORITY IGNORANT. PLAY THE “DIVISION GAME” AND YOU CAN FCUK THEM ALL UP THE ASS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND THEY WILL NEVER LET THE PENNY DROP!

You have a choice “ma’am”: It’s either in your name and you’re a fascist OR it’s not in your name and you’re a waste of space? Which is it?

The “Natural Person” and the Matrix

Posted in Law by earthling on December 3, 2011

It is becoming more and more clear that even some (most?) of “they” do not even understand the terms by which we are all enslaved to debt and to a “matrix” known as the legal world.

The Matrix is: Are you “Neo” (a human being) or are you a fiction (a “person”).

The former is free the latter a slave. Period!

Case in point:

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

HC Deb 19 January 1993 vol 217 cc271-351

Mrs. Gorman

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of training and the use of slush funds, I should be interested to hear his comments on the attitude revealed in article 57 and amendment No. 199. The article is sinister because it refers to the laying down of            directives for the co-ordination … by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States            in relation to the activities of self-employed persons. It is sinister because the essence of many forms of self-employment is that people can drift into them, especially when they have lost other work. If there are to be directives, laws and regulations—

§The Chairman            Order. The hon. Lady’s point is relevant. She has asked a question and perhaps she will now allow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to answer.

341

§Sir Richard Body            I agree wholeheartedly with the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. I was self-employed before I came to the House—many of us were. A self-employed person should be sufficiently endowed to be able to decide for himself or herself what type of vocational training is suitable. It is amazing that the European Community or those who drafted the treaty should go so far as to suggest that the self-employed should take part in such schemes—it should be entirely a matter for them.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            Does my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to            training and conditions of access for natural persons.            My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to “natural persons”, can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.

This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—

§The Chairman            The hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.

9.15 pm

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about “persons”. A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            But a natural person?

I WANT TO KNOW GODDAMNIT! AM I OR AM I NOT A “PERSON”?

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons. 

§Sir Teddy Taylor            I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, “Are you a natural person?” My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is. 

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty            342            contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.

 

I hope that provides the reader with an insight as to what a natural person and a legal person are RECOGNISING that they both are defined in law and neither is “natural” but legal fiction. Both are under the same LEGAL heading of “person” but the words “natural” and “legal” are simply to differentiate (IN “LAW”) that which, outside of the legal definitions of “person”, is a living human being and  that which is purely a “person” created on paper (such as a Corporation by way of its Articles of Association OR a Nation State by way of its Constitutional arrangements just as the EU achieved a legal personality in 2009).

So here we have a Lord (and others), Teddy Taylor, who hasn’t got the first clue about what determines personhood yet there are so many people out there in the UK who would turn and listen to a Lord before they listened to a “dumb blogger nobody”. They will ask for “proof” when proof is already given but they will ask for “proof” in terms of documentation form the very people (government/state) who are using the “law” (their corrupted, devious version of it)   to oppress them. These very same people then are asking the people who the majority (vast majority) of the public distrust – the political establishment of this country – to admit what they are doing when, day by day, we see these people lying through their teeth and literally “leeching” from the good people of this country who, ignorantly and in obeyance of a corrupt regime, continue to pay their taxes while this bunch of leeches pay off their friends, pay themselves, use your tax to pay for their mortgages down to their DVDs.

All I can say is that the people of this country have a very robust form of “Stockholm Syndrome” and until they relieve themselves of it and educate themselves on the excesses of this corrupt British regime, then Britain is finished.

We have a Police force and an Armed Forces who are completely unaware of all of this and just continue carrying out their duties while their own families and everyone around them in this country lose their wealth and health and yet these IDIOTS don’t ask themselves “Why are we doing this job? We are constructing for these people the very bars of our own prison!”.

SHEER IDIOCY!

 

Meanwhile Teddy, if you’re listening buddy, you ain’t got a bloody clue do you? They create the “legal framework” as they go along. These bastards continue and carry on arbitrarily constructing the next paradigm regarding who and what will be considered a “person” in years to come and you know what? It might just not be YOU! What’s your IQ?

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”

the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons

 

KEN CLARKE – EXPENSES SWINDLER

On 12 May 2009, The Daily Telegraph reported that Clarke had “flipped” his council tax. He had told the Parliamentary authorities that his main home was in his Rushcliffe constituency, enabling him to claim a second homes allowance on his London home and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for the council tax due on that property. However, he told Rushcliffe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire that he spent so little time at his constituency address that his wife Gillian should qualify for a 25% council tax (single person’s) discount, saving the former chancellor around £650 per year. Land registry records showed that Clarke did not have a mortgage on his home in Nottinghamshire, where he has lived since 1987. He instead held a mortgage on his London house, which he had most recently charged to the taxpayer at £480 per month.

Why didn’t HE go in the purge? Well, when you start to understand all of this big picture you will understand that!

They purged who they wanted rid of and they used those “sacrificial lambs” (who had done far less than Clarke and others in many cases) to give you the impression they were doing something about it. And YOU SWALLOWED IT!

 

BILDERBERG: OUTED!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The illegal wars by earthling on October 4, 2011

BILDERBERG: You’re finished! The problem remains however that the people behind you aren’t… yet!

Your David Rockefellers, Tony Blairs, Gideon Osbornes, Ken Clarkes, every last one of you TREASONOUS BASTARDS who have attended this organisation’s meetings for the last 60 years and pushed through the agenda (via your working groups of the RIIA, CFR, Trilateral Commission etc etc) of destroying national sovereignty, planning and executing wars worldwide, crashing the financial system for your benefit and colluding in crimes against humanity, are finished. It is time for the people to lock you all up for life. And in our language life MEANS life!

Gerard Batten MEP in EU Parliament. He’s slow though because the UK treasury has admitted through a FOI request that, indeed, policy IS discussed (therefore made) in Bilderberg meetings. Why he doesn’t just come right out and say it is beyond me!

Now, you “Detectives” out there in your airy fairy land of just doing as you’re told by a bunch of black robe wearing judicial twats and who spend your days scouring over something pathetic which pales in any significance yet is for the purpose of exposing the REAL crimes such as this – why don’t you do a job which reflects the supposed nature of your position and investigate REAL criminals? Oh but DAMN I keep forgetting it is the real criminals who control the system which you protect and that pays your wages to scour the hard drives of people like me now isn’t it? So, in fact, you’re the criminals’ protective unit. You’re the “Mafia police” in essence. Yet you expect us, the public to trust you to keep law and order? Who’s “law” and who’s “Order”?

And you know the sad thing Detective Manchester? You all seem to be doing it believing you’re doing the right thing while the very system you protect is destroying the wealth and the safety of all your own – your mother, your father, your sister, brother, cousins, friends etc. Look in the mirror bud and work it out!

Here’s a little starter for 10 for you. See how bright you are to pick up on this and do your own investigation shall we? Or is it too big and you’d rather just have an easy life behind that desk picking on the little guy? The little guy who, in fact, is the equivalent of you and yours. You just don’t get it do you Detective?

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is
now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial
meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the
new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis
evolving around the Cold War. ”

Asia Times May 2003:  EE22Ak03.html

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook
presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid
with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the
geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the
U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn,
President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of
monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative
bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America
and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property
markets……..”

London Times Sept 2002:  http://www.nogw.com/articles/rothchildmeeting.html

Now, think logically detective. How could these reports POSSIBLY have been made up as any kind of propaganda? They were YEARS before this so called “out of the blue” crash while the wars around the middle east have all come to pass as have so many others. So WHO had the “crystal ball” Detective? The reporters? Or the people in that Bilderberg meeting? It’s GOT to be one of the two right? So I’ll leave it up to the detective capabilities of the Scottish detectives themselves to figure it out. After all, by god you can “detect” me for having a bit of a ‘conflict of words’ with an alleged jew on a messageboard. Is that the best detective work you can do Detectives? 🙂 We should all sleep safe and sound in our beds thenin the comfort of knowing our detectives can detect a little spat on a messageboard and get stright into action huh? Keeping the world free of corruption and crime I see! hahahaha. It’s hilarious, sorry detective but it really is! 😉

Meanwhile, you just need to read a few things dating back into the 90s and you will see the “genesis” of all of this being prepared by Zionist neocons and Obama’s own mentor.

So here’s dear old Lord Chancellor Ken. Proven lying bastard by yours truly simply taking his words and comparing them to the reality and the words of the UK treasury. Can’t get ANY FCUKING SIMPLER than that now can we “Detective”?

But Detective, you’re not allowed to have a political opinion! That’s out of your remit! You’re forbidden from holding one and, therefore, you are simply controlled by the very people you should be enforcing the law upon! Have you ever looked up not only International law but British law regarding war crimes? If you did you would readily see that the British government (Tony Blair and now Cameron for two examples) are 100% guilty of warcrimes. Where’s the handcuffs Detective? ….. Nowhere. And you know why? Because YOU are one controlled lackey who is disallowed from intefering in politics when it is the politicians themselves who are destroying this country from the inside and out. You’re IMPOTENT man and while you steal my property, I actually feel sorry for you! You’re BLIND.

And here you have an outright confession of guilt – yes Mr Detective guilt because to state as is stated is admitting an all out attack on the sovereignty of nations. Not by tanks (unless you’re a Libya or Iraq etc) but by financial WMDs and the bribery of politicians to take the money and then legislate in your favour opposing the constitutional basis of the nation(s).

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Read again SLOWLY Detective! He says OTHERS characterize him as conspiring with others but he then states in pure hubris that he pleads guilty AND he’s proud of it!

Are you fcuking thick Detective?

If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American internationalism based on American interests. If the Council has had influence during this period, it has derived from individual members taking the varied and often conflicting fare of Council meetings and publications to a wider American audience. From Foreign Affairs articles by W.E.B. DuBois and George F. Kennan to books by Henry A. Kissinger and Stanley Hoffmann, the Council’s role has been to find the best minds and leaders, bring them together with other Council members, and provide forum and stage.

Leslie H. Gelb

President,

Council on Foreign Relations

foreword.html

Now did that say “British public interests”? No it didn’t. How fcuking clear does this have to be for you “Detectives”??

As for our War criminal extraordinaire, Tony Blair, well who do you think this guy Rockefeller is talking about when he describes himself as an internationalist and CONSPIRING with others to bring about an integrated world political and economic structure (World Government in other words run by banks and corporations and that just means purely for THEIR profit)? Well here’s an example:

Evelyn and Lynn Forester De Rothschild

And who was it that ensured our resident war criminal (who is now still being protected by you lot using OUR taxpayers money because he’s afraid the taxpayers may want his blood for the shedding of theirs due to his lies – ironic isn’t it?) got his cushy job at JP Morgan at $2M/year while it is now mainstream that Blair was in Libya during his No.10 tenancy doing deals FOR JP Morgan?

[The VERY SAME oligarch who was involved in the Rothschild/Gideon Osbourne yacht scandal just a couple of years ago! Deripaska, the Rothschild goon! Isn’t it funny how Rothschild is in on the game with the very same faces influencing (and bribing) Blair, Mandelson, Osbourne – it doesn’t matter who or what side of the political fence they are because politics is the sham to display to the unread and uneducated:  Libyan-link-oligarch-funded-Blair-initiative.html

Behind the scenes you see on the telly and in the press, all these political whores work for the same masters and are rewarded for it. While you “Detectives” haven’t a fcuking clue!]

It was the fcuking Rothschilds. Yes those same scum who own and control and first funded the set up of the zionist state of Israel. Our Tony, of course, then becomes also the Middle Easy PEACE envoy! You couldn’t make this shit up Mr Detective!!

“The event is being arranged by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who hosts
influential gatherings for London’s elite. Those invited include at least seven
billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £25billion.

Invitations to Downing Street were given to tycoons willing to donate more
than $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery. Organisers of the event, American
Patrons of Tate, which Lady Rothschild chairs, claimed the No 10 evening is part
of wider fundraising efforts for the gallery, and that the main event will be a
dinner in Manhattan, which will not be attended by the Blairs.”

Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

The coincidences eh? Now here’s another one:

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank

General Charles Ronald Llewelyn Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, GCB, LVO, OBE, DL, KCSG, KM, KCJCO (born 17 November 1938) was Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997.

He is a cross bench member of the House of Lords. He was created a life peer as Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, of Craigiebank in the City of Dundee, after retiring as Chief of the Defence Staff. He was one of the several retired Chiefs of Defence Staff who spoke out in the House of Lords about the risk to servicemen facing liability for their actions before the International Criminal Court, particularly in respect to the invasion of Iraq. He has been appointed Colonel of the Life Guards and Gold Stick-in-Waiting to Her Majesty the Queen.

A Roman Catholic convert, he is a Knight of Malta and Patron of the Cardinal Hume Centre.

Guthrie was criticised in 2008 by George Monbiot for an alleged lack of understanding of international law. Monbiot based his argument on Guthrie’s September 2002 advocacy of an invasion of Iraq and subsequent comments, in which he appeared to support launching “surprise wars”, something forbidden by the United Nations charter.

And here’s the rub:

He is a non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Ashley Gardens Block 2 Ltd and Colt Defense LLC, (section21.aspx) and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd.

Extract from Guthrie’s comments in Parliament re the Iraq war which he fully supported:

“I ask the Minister to answer two questions that he has already been posed. First, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, I was assured that it was unthinkable for British service men and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still so?

Secondly, can the Government give serious consideration to the British Armed Forces, like the French forces, opting out of their commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights? Many of us feel that we should, in view of our experiences in Iraq.”

Obvious then that he is well aware of the breaking of International law – something he had to support for his boss Rothschild to have Blair and the British military support the imperialistic aims of the internationalists such as Rothschild and Rockefeller.

Excerpt from George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian:

Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by “peaceful means” (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war – which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service – or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.

It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”. The tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression” at the top of the list of war crimes.

If Britain’s most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that “the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq … Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option.” No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was “unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court”, regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.

constitution.iraq

International law is clear as day. While look at another “coincidence”. Guthrie argued in the house of Lords FOR the strike on Iraq in Septemeber 2002. Now re-check the Times article above regarding the meeting at Rothschild’s Waddington Manor – just so happens it was September 2002! How very predictable!

Now let’s take a look at Colt Defence shall we? Of which Guthrie is a non executive Director:

Customers.aspx

They supply just about the entire world with weapons so who is it we’re fighting? Martians? Otherwise it would appear they sell weapons to anyone and any one of these countries could stage an attack on any other, ignoring for a moment that they will be using the arms to kill their own people then Guthrie and crew say “hey you can’t do that! We sold those weapons to you to shoot pigeons!” (but then I suppose the World Wildlife Fund would be up in arms about that eh Philip?)

“Selecting the weapon that will equip a country’s Armed Forces is a crucial process with strong military and political implications; the best and most combat-proven weapon in the world should therefore be chosen. The example established by the U.S. Armed Forces and the armed forces of more than 90 other nations around the world confirms that Colt weapons significantly increase the field readiness as well as the operational, tactical and strategic capabilities of any country’s Armed Forces.”

“Prior to joining the company, Mr. Flaherty was a Managing Director in the equity capital markets origination business at Banc of America Securities LLC. Prior to joining Banc of America Securities in 2001, Mr. Flaherty was an investment banker at Credit Suisse First Boston.”

An investment banker no less and not only any old one but a Credit Suisse one! And who controls Credit Suisse? None other than dear old David Rockefeller! Now, do you think any and all wars might just be VERY lucrative for old Guthrie and the Rothschilds/Rockefellers of this world?

Now DEAR Detective. All I’m doing is researching and posting my findings online. If some unknown cyber personality then cries wolf and feigns offence while being quite happy to goad people (and there are many more) to be blunt with the little self proclaimed “jew” while he, like you, does not understand the historical and existing impact of zionism on the world INCLUDING the negative impact on the everyday TRUE jew, then that ain’t MY fault Mister!

So, if it’s your wish to continue to sieze MY property – not yours and not the British judiciary’s or the British Government’s – while you act as a protector of liars, thieves and war criminals in your ignorance, then I suggest you check the law. Your actions are both, enabling the ongoing cover up of war crimes and treason, and as a party to such, you are liable and effectively committing the crime of Misprision of Treason.

We urge all civilians to go to New Scotland yard, or their local police station to report UK war criminals, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lawson and around 250 MPs who are all WAR CRIMINALS
For more information and assistance please see
http://makingwarshistory.org
Also
http://taxrebellion.org
And
http://bsnews.info/

Kellogg–Briand Pact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

Nuremberg Trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

List of war crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

But hey, Detective, there may be an answer as to why you’re pissing me about rather than investigate all of this. You see, Zionist Israel can do whatever the hell it wants it seems and when David Cameron professes himself a zionist then what do you expect huh? He even changes British law in the face of International law JUST FOR THEM! Get it? Is it SINKING IN YET?

In the UK the  judicial system allowed private parties and individuals to present their  own evidence of war crimes before a magistrate who could then, if he or  she felt the case was strong enough, issue a warrant for the suspect’s  arrest. Consequently, in 2005 retired Israeli General Doron Almog only  escaped arrest by skulking in his plane before being flown back to  Israel, while in 2009 Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni cancelled her trip rather than face arrest. Other senior Israeli figures simply chose to stay away from Britain.

Sadly on 15 September this means of potentially achieving justice was revoked. In response to Israeli protests the UK government chose to change its laws rather than see Israelis arrested. In a move condemned by Amnesty International, the UK  government amended the law on universal jurisdiction so that in future  only the Director of Public Prosecutions can authorize the arrest of a  suspected war criminal (“Tories make life easier for war criminals,” Liberal Conspiracy, 30 March 2011).

Contradictory grounds

Oddly, the UK  government defended its decision on two contradictory grounds. The  first reason it put forward is that the evidence used to secure the  arrests stands little chance bringing about “a realistic prospect  of conviction.”

This is disingenuous, to say the least. As Geoffrey Robertson, a UN appeals judge, states: “The change in the law has nothing to do — as the UK claims — with ensuring that cases proceed on solid evidence. No district judge would issue an arrest warrant lightly (“DPP may get veto power over arrest warrants for war crime suspects,” The Guardian,  22 July 2010).” Secondly, the reason for the arrest is so the suspect  cannot flee while further evidence is being gathered. Indeed, this is a  common way for domestic investigations to proceed.

The other equally disingenuous reason the UK gave for the change in the law is that arresting suspected war criminals may endanger the non-existent peace process.

This absurd view was advanced by UK  Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who decried the previous law because  it constituted a risk to “our ability to help in conflict resolution or  to pursue a coherent foreign policy.”

Indeed, claiming that the previously granted arrest warrants had been politically motivated, UK  Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “We cannot have a position  where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country.”

However, the UK’s  retreat from the implementation of universal jurisdiction is not a lone  example of the power of the Israel lobby to affect states’ domestic  legislation. A similar shameful episode ensued when Ariel Sharon was  indicted before the Belgian courts, in that instance not just Israel but also the United States brought pressure to bear, Donald Rumsfeld going as far as to threaten to move NATO headquarters from Belgium.

Which raises the question, if enforcing international humanitarian law is a threat to peace, then why do we have it?

?p=3954

And from the Guardian:

change-universal-jurisdiction-law

You see Detective… these people aren’t jews they are Zionist Nazis! They are the jews’ nemesis and USE the “jewishness” to create a “shield” around themselves by bringing up the fcuking holocaust for the 2o trillionth time! While they then also evade the charge of racism as they set up a JEWISH ONLY EU Parliament!!

Jewish EU Parliament: 50141

Try THAT if you’re Christian or Muslim!

But the fact is they use this “jewish oppression” tactic over and over while, if you look at who is, in fact, manipulating and controlling all of this, these people ARE NOT oppressed. THEY are the oppressors! And neither are they JEWISH they are ZIONIST first and foremost! They’d slit a jewish throat as quickly as they’d slit yours or mine! You DON’T HAVE THE POWER to create your very own EU PARLIAMENT (contrary to any and all other accepted norms of racial equality, anti-xenophobia and political correctness) UNLESS you have money, influence and power! To suggest these people are oppressed is absolutely ridiculous! Ever heard of “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”? Ask Tony our war criminal. He knows being a Fabian!

Is all this information fcuking with your little brain Detective? Can’t process it? Is that the problem?

Be a good lad Detective. Return the almost £2grand worth of euipment you stole from me for your masters while neither you nor probably them have the slightest clue what the big picture is! After all, you’re not allowed to get involved in politics therefore you’re disallowed to catch the real fcuking criminals!

The biggest crimes of the century against humanity and all you can do is scour hard drives of a bloke who knows it.

Fcuk your idea of “law” mate. The “law” IS an ass! A very corrupt one at that!

New York City Police Foundation — New York

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York
City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the
foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen
security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops,
as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie
Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.

“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon
said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know
how much we value their hard work.”

Then LEARN Detective!…..

James Dimon is the chairman & CEO for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Bailout Company), a director at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a corporate fund board member for the Kennedy Center, a director at the Partnership for New York City, a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a director at Catalyst (think tank).

Now look up the letter “D” in the CFR list of membership and what do you get?

gX?_DAWSON_HORACE_G%20JR

And look up “D” in the Trilateral list of membership:

hF.html

Well would you credit it? Not only does wee Jamie come up on both BUT you also have Evelyn’s wifey Lynn come up on the CFR list.

Now ISN’T it a small world full of nothing but JUST coincidences?

To keep who safe exactly? Answer: JP Morgan, Tony Blair, Bilderberg etc etc etc

You’re bought and paid for Detective! That’s “law” for you!

Get yourself brains detectives! “That’s not a criminal conspiracy that’s just coincidence and democracy in action!”

My lilly white ARSE!

An addendum for our American cousins who read their Constitution. Here’s a man saying he supports what the Tea Party have done to HAVE Americans read their Constitution while he is a liar, a fake and breaks the Logan Act (look up your Logan Act too).

He doesn’t like to even acknowledge the word BILDERBERG. Wake the hell up America!

But I guess just as you never heeded the warnings regarding the Kenyan you’ll not heed this one either will you? They own BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum you slow minded idiots! On BOTH SIDES of the Atlantic!

Alan Greenspan: Insider Trader – Criminal

Posted in Finance, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on June 6, 2011

Time and time and TIME AGAIN, all I ever hear or read from mainstream media about us bloggers when we point at facts and figures, people and politics, Banks and bastards is “Conspiracy theorists”!

THEN, later – it can be weeks, months or years (and sometimes even decades) the facts and the info is displayed for all to see by mainstream as if it is something new that they never knew while people like myself, continuously, call these people in the media up and say “Here’s a story” but they NEVER wish to cover it. They NEVER ring you back. They just listen and then say “thanks very much” and disappear back into their cozy little routine as if you have disturbed them. No matter it might be the biggest scoop of their entire fucking lives. They don’t have the cajonas to write it! They are controlled little prats who have the audacity to call themselves “journalists”!

Ok rant over!

What’s just been published by Forbes on 1st June 2011 as if it is something “new”? As if it is ONLY fact when the mainstream dogs of dogma print it. Do you hear the mainstream being called “Conspiracy theorists” when they eventually publish? No! And you know why? Because they ONLY publish when their Editor says “go” and he only says “go” when the owners are happy for it to “go” and the owners are only happy for it to “go” when the establishment want it to. DO YOU SERIOUSLY STILL THINK THAT ROTHSCHILD AGENT, JULIAN ASSANGE, IS NOT GIVEN THE ALL CLEAR BEFORE HE “LEAKS”? If so you’re ignorant and naive!

?utm_source=allactivity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20110601

So, the entire US Congress and Senate are free to make their fortune off Insider trading. Well let me go back in time a little and copy an old blog regarding Alan Greenspan (no he’s not a congressman or a senator but he’s the VERY PERSON who, with 18 years as head of the Federal Reserve, CREATED the conditions and advised Congress and Senate on precisely the legislation they pushed through regarding fiscal and economic policy in the United States!).

From my blog dated 7th October 2009 titled “An orchestrated crisis (Part 1):

Now, you say, what an extremely fortunate and intelligent bunch of men these are who make fortunes while YOU die! “They’re just good at what they do and are lucky I guess so you can’t put them in jail for that can you?”

Well you can! Why?

Here’s why:

NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ — Paulson & Co. (Bloomberg: 573991Z US)Inc., a New York-based investment management firm, today announced itsretention of Dr. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
as a member of its advisory board. Dr. Greenspan will provide ongoing adviceto Paulson’s investment management team by sharing his perspective on issues affecting the financial markets.
Dr. Greenspan served as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board for 18 years, from 1987 until 2006 over four presidential administrations — those of President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President William Clinton and President George W. Bush.

idUS136083+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115

ALAN GREENSPAN: Presided over every aspect of the American monetary system (and to an extent worldwide) for 18 years. He understood the markets inside out. He knew what was wrong and what was right. What was going to balloon and what was going to bust. He dictated policy (for his owners that is). He walks into Paulson & Co in Jan 2008 and says “SHORT THE SUBPRIMES” and that is EXACTLY what Paulson did.

PURE INSIDER TRADING AT THE TOP OF THE TREE. THAT is why!! They are a Financial Mafia!! Will you please get this in your heads!

Need MORE proof? Then what about this little gem from Sept 2002:

rothchildmeeting.html

“He said that while everyone was drinking the best wines in the world, they were confronted with “three interconnected traumas” by those speaking: The Middle East, The collapse of shares, and the prospect of a global economic depression.”

and

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..”

So, SIX FULL YEARS BEFORE THE CRASH these people KNEW! How? ………… THINK about it! It doesn’t NEED much thought!

Then, in May 2003:

EE22AK03.html

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.”

While Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are on record saying they had no clue even as late as 2008. Well Ken Clarke was there in 2003 at the Bilderberg meeting AND he’s a Steering Committee member! So you’re telling me that the little creep didn’t nudge either of the other two we were going to hit a big issue???

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID IF YOU SAY YOU CAN’T SEE THIS SHIT!

Or do you think Walmart sell the same crystal balls?

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOLKS.

Make NO mistake. The ONLY reason these people are getting away with this is because it is our leaders who are getting richer along with them by being part of it. And THEY make the laws.

Those who are exposed such as Bernie Madoff are simply lambs to the slaughter. The ones who have been stupid or stepped on someone else’s toes.

Wake up to this coz this ISN’T BULLSHIT I’m talking here. This is, as they say, “In your face”

Enough people wake up and listen and we could hang these criminals, and the traitors who collaborate with them in our government, by the neck.

Apologies for the language but I do not take kindly to getting screwed!

Now to ADD to these FACTS – as I also said in that blog, George Soros is NOT the greatest investor and neither is Warren Buffet. They are INSIDERS and they are TOLD what is going to go up and what is going to go down due to various factors.

Listen to Max Keiser talk with Alex Jones (King of the American “Conspiracy theorist” camp):

A GLOBAL MAFIA is precisely what these people are.

Now listen to this (a video relating to Julian Assange but covers the Rothschild law firm of 500+ lawyers all over America and all interested in very specific types of law relating to Federal and Corporate law):

To the MAINSTREAM MEDIA: How bloody IMPOTENT are you people? You get your salaries but those who shut you up screw you through taxes, inflation etc as much as they screw anyone else. One day, you or your family members may just not be in as sweet a position as you so when your kid (if you’re not too fucking selfish to have them that is) comes to you and says “Hey dad, why didn’t you print this stuff way back when it would have been useful?” just tell them it straight:
“I’m a selfish bastard and was just thinking of me!”
 As for the rest of you dozy twats out there who still refuse to see the elephant(s) – and by now there’s a herd of them – in the living room: You deserve what’s coming at ya!
One last thing: If you don’t think Blair and Brown and Cameron and Osbourne and Mandelson and Clarke are not ALSO doing this over here then, again, you’re one naive prick! Because I’m telling you, they are!
22 ARLINGTON STREET, LONDON. Look it up!