Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44

by **mourningdove** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:28 pm

<a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-obit-royal-servant,0,2592082.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines">newsday.com-AP</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>LONDON -- George Smith, a former royal servant whose claim of rape sparked lurid tales of sexual misdeeds within the royal household, has died at the age of 44, his father said Friday.<hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:12 pm

She's cleaning house What's the connection? Here's what I posted on Tuesday antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 416 (8/23/05 7:34 am) Reply | Edit A safe pair of hands - for the Windsors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delicate job for officer better known for celebrity inquiries Rosie Cowan, crime correspondent Tuesday August 23, 2005 The Guardian John Yates, the Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner in charge of liaison with the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, is familiar with delicate policing issues. But one of his previous jobs, briefing the royal family on the case against Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell, could hardly be in starker contrast to his latest assignment, which took him to a remote hill farm several hours' drive from Rio de Janeiro, to meet Maria and Matozinhos de Menezes, parents of the young Brazilian shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station.www.guardian.co.uk/attack...18,00.html That's very interesting. In other words Yates framed Paul Burrell and then manipulated William Windsor. (Correos certificado 16 November 2002 Regina v Burrell Dear Sir Michael, Is the Prince of Wales not the tiniest bit curious about why Her Majesty’s Constabulary should lie about the evidence against Paul Burrell? Has he not the slightest interest in how it can be that Detective Inspector Maxine de Brunner should take it upon herself to lie to the faces of the Heir to the Throne and his successor? And that Her Majesty’s Constabulary should then take no action against the offending officer? After all, she got him into this mess, did she not? Cards on the table. The only reason why a junior officer would act in such a way – commit barefaced treason for no personal gain – is because said junior officer was acting on orders. And the only persons that are empowered to issue such an order are the more senior members of the royal family. The “powers…of which we know nothing” (aka the Sovereign Commander of the 33º Scottish Rite Freemasonry) ordered the frame-up of an innocent man. She told no one, and then she died. D.I. Maxine de Brunner found herself stranded in no man’s land without her sponsor. The police got caught up in their own conspiracy and could not abort the prosecution. And the royal specimen bottle blew up in the royal face right in front of the servants. It’s not as though the Queen Mother hasn’t got form in this kind of thing. Remember Crawfie? Marion Crawford was encouraged by the Queen Mother to write The Little Princesses. That same Queen Mother then vilified poor Crawfie as a traitor and a betrayer of royal secrets for money. She taught Elizabeth and Margaret that the working class can never be trusted, and a rival for the girl’s affection was eliminated. And Margaret died a bitter woman. Paul Burrell was more of a father to William. If you give a boy his first pornography, you must be willing to answer his questions. William had to be taught that the working class can never be trusted, and must be turned against Paul Burrell, guilty or no. And she had plenty of other good reasons besides the "rape tape".Not least the forthcoming inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales. I see Regina has already fixed the judge (brought in a ringer) and jury (drawn exclusively from Palace servants). But there was no way that she could avoid taking evidence from “Diana’s Rock”. Unless he were eliminated. Of note here is that the Burrells appear to be taking up a new life in a foreign jurisdiction and I wish them life and peace. As with Crawfie, the character assassination runs rife in old Blighty. All this will come as no surprise to the Prince of Wales or indeed to Prince William. Ask them to show you a copy of my letter to Prince William dated 4 January 2002. What Regina called “powers…of which we know nothing”, I called “the Shadow Sovereign”, and Adolph Hitler called “the most dangerous woman in Europe”. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. St James’s Palace has nothing to fear from your enquiry. But Clarence House certainly does. And strange to say, your master the Prince of Wales is moving over to Clarence House and taking over the “powers…of which we know nothing”. Oh, what a tangled web we weave! Please acknowledge receipt by return. Yours Sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=496.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=496.topic</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 8/26/05 1:20 pm

by **antiaristo** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:35 pm

For those that don't remember, George Smith was raped by Michael "the Fence" Fawcett. He was given no sympathy by the Prince of Wales, so he went to the Princess and poured his heart out. And she secretly taped the conversation, which covered not only the rape, but various homosexual activities between Fawcett and the Prince. That's why I referred to the "ambiguous, ambivalent relationship between the Prince of Wales (Edward Fox) and Michael Fawcett (Dirk Bogarde)." The movie was The Servant. That tape is the reason the police went after and framed Paul Burrell. And the man in charge was John Yates.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:33 am

Focus: Death of a princess It was an accident, Mr Fayed Conspiracy theories still swirl around the death of Princess Diana. But, reports Martyn Gregory, who has lived with the case for seven years, the inquiry will prove that she died because her driver was drunk Sunday August 28, 2005 The Observer As the eighth anniversary of Princess Diana's death on 31 August 1997 approaches, the fantasies about the most popular member of the Royal family in recent history are again surfacing. Lord Stevens's team of detectives is putting the final touches to its report for the Royal Coroner, Michael Burgess. Contrary to some tabloid reports last week, 'Operation Paget', as Stevens's probe is named, has found the official 1999 French investigation 'rigorous and thorough'. Few expect Paget's conclusions to differ significantly from those of the French - that Diana died in an accident caused by her speeding and drunk driver, Henri Paul. I certainly do not. Since I did my first investigation into the crash in 1998 for Channel 4's Dispatches I have become progressively more convinced that the 'conspiracy theories' are mainly the product of Mohamed al-Fayed and a brilliant PR campaign run by former journalists and apparatchicks at Harrods. With a budget of more than £5 million, its central aim is to discredit the French investigation. Fayed has recently been distributing a video The Mystery of the Alma Tunnel, in which he says: 'I pledge my life to bring Prince Philip and his terrorist thugs to justice before the British people and the people of the world.' If it is accepted that Henri Paul was drunk, then none of the theories involving Prince Philip, the Queen, the 'flash before the crash', the white car apparently involved in the accident, dark deeds by MI6 or anybody else even begins to work. Who would conspire to kill Diana by getting a drunk driver to commit suicide? So why do so many hang on to the idea that Diana's death was not simply a disastrous accident? Because it was a tragedy that someone so young and so loved could be dead. Someone, beyond a drunk driver, needed to be blamed. Just like John F Kennedy, such a shocking development needed to have a story greater than the prosaic. Looks like the murderers are going to try to kill off the story quite soon. Eight years.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:40 am

Sir John Stevens Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Correos certificado 05291ES) 12 January 2004 Diana Spencer Inquest Dear Sir, Further to my copy letter to Sir Michael Peat of 16 November 2002. I understand you have been charged by royal coroner Michael Burgess to look into the possibility that Diana’s death was other than a simple traffic accident. I have information that may be of assistance when making your enquiries. My information concerns motive. Why would anyone want to murder the princess? And my answer is, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as re-affirmed on 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales, viz: 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. As you can see, this law grants unlimited powers to our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. So long as Diana was alive Charles was not free to marry. If Charles wanted these dictatorial powers for himself he had first to be rid of his wife once and for all. I’m afraid it has all happened before (in 1936 and 1952) and not only with Henry VIII. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Mrs E. Windsor (ref. your Coronation Oath sworn 2 June 1953) Michael Burgess

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:34 am

Some of you will know that I have levelled many serious charges against members of the Windsor family. Some have read my voluminous correspondence in Data Dump. Even so, there's nothing in the papers. This guy must be nuts. Here are the thoughts of an insider. As well as a columnist, Ms Odone is Deputy Editor of the New Statesman. All the news they don't allow you to read Cristina Odone Sunday August 28, 2005 The Observer At first sight, the Blairs' holiday in Barbados and the killing of a Brazilian electrician on the London underground have little in common. Yet the farcical attempts by No. 10 to impose a media blackout on the PM's holiday destination and joint efforts by police and the IPCC to withhold CCTV footage of the Stockwell Tube incident until Christmas betray a very British game of collusion and cover-ups. It is a game played by the forces of the establishment - in this case, government, police, and media - in which elite speaks unto elite, closing ranks and keeping the public in the dark. This system relies on the old boys' act rather than any law. Whenever the government feels the need to keep some piece of information secret, they send a note to editors asking for their co-operation in what is inevitably presented as a matter of national security. Editors comply, their journalists follow suit. This sheds an unflattering light on all the players involved - from the government and police force that are equally obsessed with secrecy and obfuscation to a supine media pathetically grateful for any crumb of information tossed its way and any chance of being included at top table. But who protects whom, in this game of secrecy? When Dave Hill, Blair's press spokesman, asked editors to keep the whereabouts of the Prime Minister secret 'for security reasons', he was clearly alluding to a potential terrorist attack. Yet George Bush could rely on no such pact of secrecy. Not only did every American (and jihadist) know that the Prezz was holidaying at the family ranch in Texas, anti-war protesters were allowed to gather within a Molotov cocktail's throw of the gates. Americans' democratic mindset requires everyone to be accountable - even when on a break. When the Washington Post published an article this month entitled 'Where is Tony Blair?', poking fun at the Prime Minister's spurious invisibility (photographs of the 'first family' aboard a yacht filled whole pages in the tabloids), one Washington media man asked whether it was fitting that Blair on a yacht in Barbados should be accorded special protection while ordinary members of the public commuting to work were not. Equally questionable is the reasoning that allows the Met and the IPCC to withhold the CCTV footage of police shooting Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July. The authorities argue that crucial evidence should not be made public until December because it might prejudice the inquiry. Again, the British way means that the authorities' wish is the media's command: the Fourth Estate has no legal recourse to challenge this directive. Another much-used defence in gagging the media has been the authorities' fear of the 'potentially incendiary' nature of the information the media wants to release. It's a line of argument that gained credence in the wake of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, which erupted when footage was broadcast showing white police beating Rodney King, a black youth. Britain's draconian libel laws account for a great deal of the hacks' wariness when it comes to printing allegations about any individual. But the unspoken gagging order is particularly striking because it is so highly selective, as scores of celebrities have experienced: Naomi Campbell's visits to Narcotics Anonymous, for instance, or Tara Palmer-Tomkinson's trip to a rehab centre in Arizona, were not accorded the same privilege (though Campbell did sue the Mirror for its report, and won). The French have always abstained from printing details of the private doings of public figures, but Paris Match has just published an article on Cecilia Sarkozy, wife of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, and her friendship with a Moroccan businessman**. The six-page spread may prove the breaking point in the unspoken complicity between political and media circles. This complicity was summed up by Guy Birenbaum in Our Inside Dealers, his 2003 exposé of the French establishment, as the attitude of an arrogant clique that believes 'We sort out what is good for you and what you need to know.' Birenbaum could have been writing about Britain's cosy club of hacks and cops and politicians. Blair's Barbados hols and the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes show that, whether it is where the rich play or how the poor die, the club is determined to keep you in the dark. <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1557674,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/b...74,00.html</a> **I presume this is payback for Sarkozy revealing the links between British Intelligence and one of the "suicide bombers".

by **emad** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:09 pm

In the summer of 1967 a female member of the Royal Family aged under ten year old was gang raped by soldiers in Buckingham Palace. Her injuries were so serious she spent nealy a month in intensive care at King Edward VII Hospital in London, th first two weeks on life support. Eventually she recovered and her parents sued the regimental commander, the regiment itself and its colonel in chief Prince Phillip. In the run up to private civil proceedings in London, a decision was made by the girl's parents to press charges in the criminal courts and eight serving soldiers were arrested, charged and refused bail pending the wait for legal proceedings. Eventually a deal was struck with the Director of Public Prosecutions who had been leaned on heavily by the Harold Wilson administration. The civil and criminal lawsuits proceeded virtually in tandem and a press blackout was ordered by Wilson. The soldiers were charged with conspiracy to rape and conspiracy to murder. Six were found guilty and received lengthy custodial sentences. Two were acquitted after turning states evidence, and were kicked out of their regiments. Phillip signed a confession that implicated various UK chums in child sex activities of the resurrected 18th century paedophile organisation The Hell Fire Club. Two other members of the House of Windsor were heavily fined in the civil lawsuit and had to sign the 1960s equivalent of a Royal ASBO. The documents relating to these lawsuits and the original attack are held in the UK's Royal Archives at Windsor under strict confidentiality agreements. It is still possible to view the precis of the legal proceedings on the proviso that the request comes from an authenticated legal source, in writing, sponsored and seconded by a bona fide UK judge or senior QC. And that the person viewing the documents signs the UK Official Secrets Act. A documentary about the whole business was made in the UK in 1975 and a subsequent follow-up film report in 1980. The original footage is also held in the Royal Archives in Windsor. As of January 2000, forty seven requests to view the classified documents and/or the film footage were officially turned down by the curator of the Royal Archives in Windsor on 'national security grounds'. No figures are available post-January 2000. Of the two successful attempts to view the documents, one was by senior UK legal sources who had been paid to lodge a potential appeal in 1973 and 1976, and the other was by UK Law Lords in 1980, reviewing an unrelated case on appeal in which the appellant had made reference to the 1967 royal rape proceedings in the criminal courts at the Old Bailey, as part of his case in an unconnected but allegedly relevant legal case. EDIT: From memory, the only UK journalist to have written and published anything relating to this matter is Chapman Pincher. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=emad@rigorousintuition>emad</A> at: 8/28/05 11:25 am

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 2:27 pm

First off thanks to MourningDove for posting this. I've looked through two search engines and found NO REFERENCES in the British media. This man caused weeks of headlines in 2002. Now three years later he is dead and the news is blacked-out. At the same time they are pouring out the propaganda about Diana. Observer yesterday, Telegraph today. The eighth anniversary of the murder is on Wednesday. And the man that murdered her is trashing her and killing whomsoever he wishes. I'd imagine Paul Burrell and James Hewitt are feeling somewhat nervous. The last time the Battenbergs/Windsors were held to account for their behaviour was when the Prince of Wales was cited in a divorce petition in the 1870's. Since that time they have prevented any comeback by simply invoking the Treason Felony Act. Poor George Smith. He didn't have much of a life. Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44 Fri Aug 26, 8:11 AM ET LONDON - George Smith, a former royal servant whose claim of rape sparked lurid tales of sexual misdeeds within the royal household, has died at the age of 44, his father said Friday. Peter Smith said his son died Wednesday after a long illness. He did not disclose the cause of death. A former soldier in the Welsh Guards who served in the 1982 Falklands War, Smith was Prince Charles' valet for nine years until he was dismissed in 1997. During the 2002 theft trial of Princess Diana's former butler, Paul Burrell, it emerged that Smith claimed to have been raped by another royal servant in 1989. The jury heard that Diana was said to have kept a tape recording of Smith detailing the allegation. Charles' office said that the allegations had been investigated internally, and by police, and that there was no basis for prosecution Smith also claimed to have seen a senior royal in a compromising position with a male servant. The story generated lurid — albeit vague — headlines in 2003, despite a court order forbidding reporting of details of the alleged incident. Charles took the highly unusual step of issuing a statement identifying himself as the royal in question and denying the allegation. His private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, called the claim "totally untrue and without a shred of substance." Charles' office said at the time that Smith had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and alcoholism following his military service.

Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44

Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44

Re: Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44

Re: Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44

Cleaning House

Why did they kill her?

Reality Check

Not the first time a rape occured at Buck House

Britain today

Who is online