Earthling

The UK government are all self employed Private contractors!

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized by earthling on March 6, 2014

I have just stumbled across something intriguing which points to the very title of this blogpost.

Have a read of the following:

HC Deb 31 January 1957 vol 563 cc1156-71156

§28. Mr. Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are made for insuring Members of the Government against accident when they travel by air on Government business.

§Mr. PowellInsurance in such circumstances is a matter for Members of the Government to arrange privately.

§Mr. RussellDoes not my hon. Friend think that in principle it is quite wrong that Ministers should travel on Government business and not have the benefit of insurance? Although happily the chances of accidents are slight, is not the position wrong as a matter of principle?

§Mr. PowellNowadays, of course, the cost of insurance against risks of travel in these circumstances is very low, and my hon. Friend will probably be aware that Ministers of the Crown count as non-employed persons.

Mr. H. WilsonCan the hon. Member say whether the Treasury, which ought to set an example as a good employer in 1157this connection, does provide automatic insurance for civil servants travelling by air?

§Mr. PowellThe Treasury is not the employer of Ministers of the Crown.

§Mr. J. GriffithsWill the hon. Member get his terms right? Ministers of the Crown are not non-employed, but self-employed.

§Mr. PowellI am much obliged.

Mr. WilsonIn his début in answering these Questions, will the hon. Member give a clear answer to questions and not clever answers of that kind? I asked him whether the Treasury, which is responsible for the Civil Service, sets an example in this respect and provides insurance. That is very important for the Civil Service.

§Mr. PowellIf the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about the Civil Service, I will do my best to answer it.

Now, if these people (Government Ministers) are self employed, yet paid by the Treasury – which, it would certainly appear they are – then they are Private individuals contracting their services. This opens up a whole can (or cans) of worms and it’s difficult to know where to start!

1. Private individuals who are paid a salary set by the treasury and iPSA, as contractors, who make decisions based upon their own personal ideologies, as to what is law in this country and what industries are supported and which are not.

2. Private individuals, contracting their services as self employed, which then explains why each and every one of them can act as a “corporation”.

In 2001, Ken Clarke was still a backbencher so was still making a very healthy salary from being an MP, Yet he was also allowed to make the following incomes from business interests:

BAT Tobacco: £100,000 per annum.

Alliance Unichem: £125,000 per annum.

Foreign & Colonial Investment trust: £23,000 per annum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1409823.stm

Then he has his speaking engagements:

Clarke speaker

Clarke speaker 2

Now, if you can tell me how one man, with 24 hours in the day like you and I and 365 days a year like you and I, can do serious work for any one of these organisations and be worth such money, while, at the same time, be a full-time backbencher making an additional salary of about $50K a year, I’d like to know. Yes, you will say “it’s because of what he knows and influence so he deserves it” but that is the very point I’m making. He profits from a job that you and I pay him to do! While he then does not do the job WE wish him to do but that which his circles of influence want done. Is it so hard to understand how this corrupt system works?

Let’s take Damian Green as another example: Look at the month by month payments from South East Water for sums of £2083.33 precisely, each time for 14 hours work each month. Think about it. This suggests that he is doing SOMETHING for South East Water EVERY SINGLE MONTH which takes exactly 14 hours each and ever time. Now you tell me what that could possibly be! The details just goes up to 2011. Perhaps because iPSA took over the management of such info (and do not seem too good in presenting it at all since there is nothing I can see on it from Damian).

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10241

Now, you can look up Southern Water or South East Water and Damian Green and you will see the companies mentioning his name as an MP who is “very happy” with their performance. What neither one says is that Damian Green is PAID by them! While, again, Green has been getting these payments while being either a front bench or back bench MP making, these days, about £66K a year. ” Compare that with the situation of the archetypal backbencher on his/her £66k salary.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100224170/mps-pay-the-gap-between-leaders-and-backbenchers-could-widen-again/

What makes it all worse is that these goons don’t give a goddamned shit about any of you (or us). “They work for you” indeed! Don’t make me laugh!

Get this into your head: YOU have paid the salary of a man (in the case of Clarke for his entire career in politics but, generally, for them all) to learn and have knowledge about things such as upcoming legislation, economies worldwide and everything in between due to the position we expect him to fill and the job we expect him to do, but he is SELF EMPLOYED. He has then taken all of that knowledge of past AND future and used it (many many times against us) to fill his own private wallet! He then also speaks at engagements and also at SECRET Bilderberg meetings and Chatham House where and when POLICY is made and he and all who attend, while such policy is hidden from you and I based upon “Public Interest” (but you and I are NOT “the public” as I hope you are well aware), then make investments where and how they know of the legislation which is in the works and how it will impact an economy, industry or entire nation. Yet, once again, these people are PRIVATE, SELF EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS!

3. MP’s pensions:

This is an article from the Telegraph –

Sophie Jamieson

3:12PM GMT 12 Dec 2013

 The chair of the independent body that regulates MPs’ pay has defended the recommendation to raise MPs’ salary by 11 per cent.

Sir Ian Kennedy said that the proposals were the result of an extensive 18 month study and that Ipsa was “playing catch-up with decades of not coming to terms with the fact that MPs’ salary has not kept up with recommendation after recommendation.”

The package includes a reduction in pensions, an end to “golden goodbyes” and a cutback to expenses.

“The overall package will not cost the taxpayer a penny more” and is “appropriate for a modern democracy,” Sir Ian said.

HOW, may I ask, is it possible for a NON EMPLOYED BY TREASURY OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT and SELF EMPLOYED PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, to be provided with a PENSION? If one is self employed one particularly takes care of their own private pension arrangements. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Now, I’m sure there are many other issues with this that I haven’t even thought of (yet) BUT, here’s the big point: When it comes to such “extra curricular activities” by these PRIVATE individuals who are contracting out their services to Her Majesty as he government and Parliament, they can contract themselves out to any and everyone because they are not EMPLOYEES of the Crown. They are SELF EMPLOYED. As such, they can take on any work for anyone they wish and they all do so they shall all support one another doing it! Further, it explains, in part, how Ken Clarke and Osborne, etc etc, can attend Bilderberg and other such subversive groups in a “PRIVATE CAPACITY” because, in essence, that is what they are even as they work for the Government. They are NOT employed by the government or treasury. They are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

 

As Tony Benn stated “Who and what is ‘The Crown'”? We have no clue. Well we do but it is not even understood fully and transparently by our so called Parliamentary representatives!

I’ll tell you what it is though: It is a private gang and mafia. That is precisely what it is and always has been.

Tony Benn Crown

Here we are, a “Nation” who are expected to be “patriotic” (I never would be) and yet all those who are don’t even have a bloody clue who governs them!

We don’t know who or what this “Crown” is which prosecutes us or, if a military person, they do not know who/what they fight for.

We cannot even ask the question and why? Because this very “animal” states itself, unilaterally, that it is protected under the “Official Secrets Act”.

Well OF COURSE a fucking MAFIA would protect its own identity! That is what they DO!

Please! Is it really just me or do you get pissed off with the majority of people’s idiocy and apathy and ignorance and carelessness?

And then do you get further pissed off when they COMPLAIN?!

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge

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.

 

 

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!