|
|
VOMIT UK 32/99
Victims Of Masonic Ill-Treatment 7 August 1999
Anyone criticised or maligned in these publications has a guaranteed right of reply. JMF or P2 Lodge UK stands for the hierarchies of the Judaeo/Masonic Faction. The ordinary Mason and Jew are as likely to suffer from the machinations of the JMF as non-Masons and non-Jews are.
GEOFFREY SCRIVEN AND THE LATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
This issue will deal primarily with yet another attempt to gag and imprison Mr Geoffrey Scriven.(Fax 0161 428 1159). WE PUBLISH THIS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST EVEN IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT TAKE UP HIS OPTION TO PROCEED AGAINST MR SCRIVEN. If the Attorney General does not proceed with the case Mr Scriven will attempt to have issues raised in a court of criminal jurisdiction before a jury. The judges who authorised the action against Mr Scriven claimed that they 1. Had heard Counsel Bruce Carr, 2. Had read a statement related to the procedure, 3. Had read the affirmation of Adam Peter Chapman and 4. Had read the exhibits referred to therein. According to the order the hearing lasted 2 minutes, from 1400 t0 1402 hours. We believe that the two judges were prepared to sign away a man's liberty without considering the evidence. We anticipate that the judges will claim that the two minutes was a clerical error and that anyway they had read all the documents before they entered the court. It would not surprise us if the two judges were presented with a copy of the order away from the court and signed it without reading any documents. We sincerely believe that the two judges Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Brian Smedley paved the way for the unlawful imprisonment of Mr Scriven without following due process. Whatever they say they could not have heard counsel and started the proceedings with a 2 minute hearing. It would have taken 2 minutes for the usual mutual admiration and throat clearing as Counsel positioned his right arm diagonally across his left breast with his outstretched hand pointing over his left shoulder.
Lord Chief Justice Bingham has stated that it would not be in the spirit of the law to wait until the human rights legislation came into force before compliance. Yet the two judges permitted an ex-parte hearing in private. They did not allow Mr Scriven an opportunity to argue his defence. Nor did they allow public scrutiny in a case, which can deprive a man of his liberty for a time without limit. This enables the bent authorities to set up a crisis hearing where judges, sitting without a jury, can apply unlawful pressure as before by stationing policemen or tipstaffs in the court to intimidate or arrest Mr Scriven.
We have been inundated with letters, faxes, emails and phone calls. These are always appreciated even if they mean that we cannot publish information, which should be published. For example we had a poem from an Irish patriot, Siobhan Hairston. Her sentiments were clear and powerful. It would have helped Blair to understand that, come Orangeman come RUC slaughter, there is only one final solution to the Irish problem; United Ireland. Then we have two octogenarians, Mr & Mrs Masefield (Fax 01308 485729) writing to Chris Mullin at the Home Affairs Committee and to the Prime Minister explaining how Mr Scriven had been exposing the skulduggery of the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary. Mullin, true to form, has moved on to Transport. We consider Mullin to be a traitor to the Irish cause and to the victims of Freemasonry. Bear in mind that his constituency is in the Labour Badlands of the Northeast. Few people know that the Attorney General, the top government law officer, either resigned or was sacked in the cabinet reshuffle. Had he taken a powder one week earlier he would not now be held culpable for seeking to imprison Mr Scriven for contempt of court.
MORE ON GEOFFREY SCRIVEN
A former Attorney General has a messy private life and was involved in the Lloyd's rackets. Unlawfully, being a person without assets he was a name in Lloyd's syndicates. It appeared, during his tenure of office, that he was not his own master. Questions were asked as to why a Queen's Counsel who was in financial difficulties should take a substantial drop in income to become Attorney General. His repeated abuse of legal processes to promote the interests of the well connected and deprive litigants of justice is well established. In Mr Scriven's case he made the accusation that Mr Scriven had scandalised the court. Courts cannot be scandalised. There was no case to answer but Mr Scriven was persuaded to give, under duress, certain undertakings calculated to protect judges. Now the judges seek to have Mr Scriven committed to prison for breach of the undertakings he gave under duress and which were not anyway sought by the Attorney General. Mr Scriven attacked judges for being corrupt and for protecting each other at the expense of fairness and justice. Any action arising from Mr Scriven's allegations should have taken a different form. The writs should have named the judges whom Mr Scriven criticised and specified the false statements, if any, made by Mr Scriven. The proceedings should have been before a jury.
There is another simple remedy for the judges to which Mr Scriven would not object. If Mr Scriven has accused judges of having committed criminal offences - and he has done so - the Attorney General can commence a prosecution for criminal libel. Mr Scriven does not expect the same special treatment meted out to William Straw, son of the Home Secretary, by the Attorney General.
What are the judges bleating about? Lord Denning stated (R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1969] 2QB 150 at 154) "We will never use this jurisdiction to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself."
The significant part of Denning's statement is his admission that the judges act as a body "we" and that others are "they". So judges cannot sit on judgement on Geoffrey Scriven for breaching an undertaking given to fellow judges under duress. Denning also stated that criticisms of judges had to be respectful. Why should Geoffrey Scriven be respectful to judges? When he first brought perjury and fraud to the attention of Lord Justice Russell the judge said he was referring Mr Scriven's complaint to the Attorney General. He was in fact referring the matter to the Attorney General to have Mr Scriven silenced for contempt. Had there been contempt Russell could have dealt with the matter in his own court. This was the scandal that enabled Mr Scriven to find out that the Lord Chancellor was instructing judges. Mr Scriven got hold of these green papers which effectively told the judges that Mr Scriven thought that the Attorney General was looking into his complaint whereas the Attorney General was going to have him committed for contempt of court and the judges should therefore adjourn the hearing. What sort of language should Mr Scriven use? He has been subjected to judicial corruption for years and has spent around £100,000 seeking justice. What f----ing language should he use to describe those f---ing men and women who cause misery, poverty and death to decent citizens? Denning, a most distinguished and learned judge misdirected himself? Would that our people realised that judges are men and women who start off as barristers and counsel where they hone the technique of lying into a fine art.
Bear in mind that Geoffrey Scriven is a man alone. His case does not hit the headlines in the national Press. Why is he threatened with imprisonment every time he has his opponents, the judiciary, in a corner?
What about Norman Tebbit's and Lt. Col. Wilford's criticisms of a senior judge Lord Saville who leads the enquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry (N. Ireland). Their comments were widely reported in national newspapers. The Brighton bomb crippled Tebbit's wife. His views are understandably biased by that outrage. This is what he says about Saville. "Either Saville is incompetent as a judge or so sympathetic to Irish nationalism that he is unfit to lead the inquiry." The most serious allegations one can make against a judge are that he is incompetent or biased. Incompetence is unacceptable. Bias is corruption.
Wilford is even less complimentary and twice as big headed. This is what he says. "I recently heard Lord Saville described as a clever fool. I would go further and, in the light of his most recent decision to appeal, I believe him to be a vindictive fool. …. He is simply prejudiced against us". How dare Wilford scandalise the honourable judge? Does he think that the Court of Appeal might be biased too and allow Saville's appeal?
While on the subject of Bloody Sunday please be reminded that the police were aware before the Widgery report that a lone sniper concealed himself in a warehouse on the walls of Derry and deliberately murdered two young men down below. Saville must find out whether Widgery knew about the sniper and he must find out if the sniper was placed there to give the signal for the troops down below to open fire. That sniper was following orders. Who gave the orders? Why was BSE given the name of "Mad Cow Disease"? Who regularly consults with the Mad Cow at 10 Downing Street?
In a judgement on 23 July 1999 Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Collins found that free speech included not only the inoffensive but also the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence. If this case goes ahead without a jury the judges will argue that the offence was not that Mr Scriven had made disparaging remarks about judges but that he had broken an undertaking not to do so. No court in the land can require an individual to give an undertaking not to eat fish and then imprison him for eating fish when he faced starvation. The Law is an ass especially when it suits the asses who administer it. The case is not yet sub iudice but Mr Scriven will exhaust every remedy to punish the wrongdoers.
A UK UPRISING
1. It is lawful to oppose with reasonable force any act that is unlawful even an unlawful court order. On an earlier occasion Mr Scriven faced the same prospect of imprisonment for scandalising the court. At the hearing in the High Court there were policemen stationed at the door of the court. Several of his supporters were advising Mr Scriven. His Mackenzie friend was not permitted to speak. Mr Scriven accepted the advice that he had made his point and that there was nothing he could achieve in prison. He therefore gave undertakings (under duress) in the belief that the judicial corruption would cease. Lord Justice Evans said that Mr Scriven's motives were admirable. The judiciary got the wrong message from Mr Scriven's compliance and went from bad to worse with the result that Mr Scriven caught them out in Warrington County Court. This latest foray by the Attorney General is another attempt to abort a court case against his mates in the legal profession. The committal pre-hearing was on 14 July 1999 two days after Mr Scriven faxed the Warrington Court. Mr Scriven had repeated his request that the court should fix a date for a jury trial. What other remedy did Mr Scriven have when the doors to justice were slammed shut? He had the choice of the pen or the sword. He chose the pen but his efforts did not hit any headlines. His published statements discrediting the UK legal system and the judges in particular were not published nationally. He is not as well known as Norman Tebbit. He stated facts, which the judges could have challenged in a court of law. Now the judges are going to answer Mr Scriven's accusations by sending him to jail where he will not be allowed to communicate with people outside prison and where he is likely to be abused by prison officers or prisoners acting on behalf of prison officers. Remember Wormwood Scrubs, the only prison with a Masonic Lodge inside the prison itself. Twenty-four prison officers have been charged with assaulting prisoners.
2. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights bestow on UK citizens inalienable rights to trial by jury and the right to bear arms for defence. MPs cannot lessen these rights but, will the willing collaboration of the judiciary, have been trying to do so. Ordinary people who were no longer prepared to tolerate the dictatorship of the Crown and its cohorts won these rights. The same situation has been created again. The tyrants are the legislature and the executive. Blair MPs do not have a voice. They do as they are told. Judges do as ordered about by another politician, Lord Chancellor Irvine, who sends "secret briefings" or "bench memos" to the judges. The organisation behind the corruption is Freemasonry. If you prefer you can call Freemasonry "The Old Boy Network" or "The Establishment". Ordinary decent hardworking and intelligent people are being robbed in the courts, made homeless and then imprisoned if they continue to fight. What remedy has the ordinary man or woman? Albert Dryden shot a Chief Planning Officer and was sentenced to life imprisonment when defending his property. Another Chief Planning Officer caused the deaths of six people. He was a Mason and was not prosecuted. Is it surprising that ordinary people resort to violence particularly when they are denied a voice?
3. Let use quote from Gerald Warner on page 17 of "Scotland on Sunday" (25 July 1999).
'The Thing that leaves a trail of slime along Downing Street has debauched our country.
'Under Blair, Britain is rotting like a fish from the head down.
'In such antipathies lies the remote germ of civil war.
Gerald Warner, a distinguished journalist, is warning that we are heading for civil strife against a political/judicial dictatorship. Chris Mullin, the hammer of the Masons and a lawyer, has been moved to the department of transport. Judas Iscariot was happy with his thirty pieces of silver. Poor Ould Ireland! The Labour Party is dominated by members of the legal profession who are either Masons or beholden to Masonry. Blair is 'The Thing that leaves a trail of slime along Downing Street' while he holidays either amongst the Mafia in Tuscany or the money launderers in the Seychelles before stopping off in Cape Town one of the starting points for drugs to the UK. Next we will have Margaret Cook demanding a share of the diamonds from Sierra Leone on the grounds that diamonds are forever whereas Cock Robin was a wham bang thank you mam scumbag. The debauchery must be a reference to anal sex. One of the most repulsive speeches recently was that of the Rio Pewf extolling the benefits of education. Next he will be forcing Blair to repeal section 28 of the Education Act to release funds to teach homosexuality to children. Peter Mandelson, Ron Davies, Nick Brown, Chris Smith, Lord Puttnam, Lady Puttnam and other libertarians will soon be in the majority in the Labour Party. Even Blair will walk with his hands on his hips. The British public doesn't want this and all the ranting and raving about being sexist and intolerant is harming the country by making decent people feel guilty twice over. We are not stopping perverts having anal sex. We are opposed to its being promoted by government ministers who are supposed to represent the will of the people.
4. There was a home-made bomb placed outside offices in Wimborne, Dorset in March 1993. The office was not identified and was therefore probably a public office or a solicitor's office. The suicide Masonic solicitor, David Dolton, was a partner with a Wimborne firm, which acted for the police. We mention this because we receive messages regularly from people who, at the end of their tether, want to blow a judge's or a solicitor's head off.
The bomb caused fifteen Dorset policemen to raid and search the home of Dr Ian Anderson who states that they stole his £300 revolver (licensed) and £180 from his wallet. The police stole two tea bags and made themselves tea. Dr Anderson, fearful for his safety, emigrated to California. At Bournemouth County Court Dr Anderson got the same treatment as Gerald Coulter when he sued the police for damages arising from the thefts and the trauma which caused him to emigrate. The Court found that the policemen were guilty of stealing two tea bags and awarded damages of £100. The Masons rule the roost in Dorset where drugs flow freely into the many little coves around the coast. The cost to the public of this action was £250,000 most of which would go into solicitors' bottomless pockets.
We now expect Chief Constable Stichbury to prosecute the police officers for theft and to investigate why there was a £250,000 bill (obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception). The legal costs must be met out of the Police Federation indemnity fund. It was the thieving policemen who caused this action and who should be sued for damages to meet the cost of the action. Again we remind Jane Stichbury of the complaints by Gerald Coulter, Mr & Mrs Masefield, David Husband, Barry Hunt and others whom we have been asked not to name. In Mr Coulter's case his claim for his massive losses should be against the police. Stichbury has sent Mr Coulter a whitewash reply without addressing the criminal offences committed by policemen and officials. During the week Mr Coulter was on the point of releasing documents but is now apparently happy with his solicitors. Who are we to offer him advice about solicitors?
Note that the £250,000 case was reported in the London Metro, a free newspaper. It was not reported anywhere in Dorset. A Dorset police officer stated "We have an good relationship with the local Press". The local Press stinks as all things Masonic do. Remember the report on the Dolton suicide - deep as a puddle on an ice rink.
THE POINT WE HAVE TO MAKE AGAIN IS THAT IF BLAIR DOES NOT CLEAN UP HIS ACT THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE IN THIS COUNTRY. NOBODY WANTS VIOLENCE. BLAIR MUST SPEND MORE TIME IN THE UK AND CONCETRATE ON THE PUBLIC GOOD RATHER THAN ON SELF-AGRANDISSMENT.
MUTUAL AID
CAMPAIGN FOR A FAIR HEARING, PO Box 54, Cambridge CB5 8BB. Fax 01223 327042.
Ph 01223 327634 (Organiser - Suzon Forscey-Moore, American Law Researcher)
POW TRUST, (A registered benevolent and social welfare charity) 295a Queenstown Road,
London SW8 3NP. Tel.0171 720 9767 Fax 0171 498 0477 (Gen.Secy. Peter Sainsbury).
Lloyd's world-wide swindles http://www.truthaboutlloyds.com email info@lliarsoflondon.com
Published by J M Todd, Misbourne Farmhouse, Amersham Road, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks. HP8 4RU
Per pro Vomit. No copyright. Tel 01494 871204. Fax 01494 870031