Second Batch 2002 - 2004

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:31 am

Added on edit: This thread is the continuation. the first batch is here
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... php?t=8553

Sir Michael Peat
St James’s Palace (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

cc Prince William (c/o The Vice Chancellor of St Andrews University)
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
Chris Mullin MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee
Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Opposition
Sir John Stevens, Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Sir David Calvert Smith, Director of Public Prosecutions
[/u]

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:33 am

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Sir Michael Peat 35003 Las Palmas de Gran St James’s Palace Spain Canaria (Correos certificado RR052197192ES) 26 November 2002 Regina v Burrell Dear Sir Michael, Thank you for your most courteous reply of 21 November. Just one thing troubles me. You write: “One thing I do know is that neither junior nor senior police officers act on the orders of the Royal Family who had nothing to do with the investigation of the Burrell case or the way in which the trial was conducted. I am afraid much of what you say is untrue and unfair.” What troubles me is, how do you know? It is only the Prince of Wales himself that could venture such a statement. Would he care to measure up what he “knows” against my personal experiences at the hands of the Shadow Sovereign? Regina v Burrell has got those same royal fingerprints all over it. Take a very close look at what happened, or, more accurately, at what did NOT happen at the 1937 Coronation. Someone broke the rules, then carried on in the same vein ever after, while the royal family looked the other way (the power at work of which we know nothing). She got caught in January this year, whereupon she died (leaving this unfinished business). The royal family shared the loot – much more than 50 millions – from a life of crime, completely free of taxes. RSVP Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Prince William (c/o The Vice Chancellor of St Andrews University) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Chris Mullin MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Opposition

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:36 am

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Sir Michael Peat 35003 Las Palmas de Gran St James’s Palace Spain Canaria (Correos certificado) 11 December 2002 Regina v Burrell Dear Sir Michael, Thank You for your reply of 1 December. You play a resolute straight bat in defending the indefensible. Does the royal family have any previous form in this type of corruption? That is in the use of the police and the courts to persecute and ruin “little people” in the prosecution of a private agenda? They most certainly do: Queens Bench 1994-c-2024, J.P.Cleary v Anglia Television. Please find attached these documents: 1) Cleary Second Affidavit sworn 14 December 1994 2) Cleary Third Affidavit sworn 30 January 1995 2) FORGED court order dated 9 February 1995 4) Cleary Fourth Affidavit sworn 14 February 1995 3) Cleary to Lord Mackay, Lord Chancellor, dated 8 April 1995 “I knew there was a possibility that Iain Scott would send his goons after me – it was why I fled the country. But what I did not know until a little over a week ago was that the enforcers despatched by Mr Scott would be none other than the boys in blue. I have mainly the word of my estranged wife, but there seems no reason to doubt her on this. There were two police forces looking for me. So far as she knows they still are. The police did not tell her that I was to be arrested, or that any charges were to be laid. The police told her I was mentally ill. I cannot bring myself to explore what might have happened – might still be happening – had I not had the foresight to depart those shores. Where would I be now if the police had caught me and I had been incarcerated as ‘mentally ill’?” 4) Cleary to Elizabeth Windsor dated 19 April 1995 [Formal repudiation of the Crown] “On top of everything else, the knowledge that exalted Minister(s) of the Crown can stoop so low as attempted abduction and probable murder, and for purely private gain, leaves me no alternative but to seek legitimate authority elsewhere.” 7) Acknowledgement for items 5) and 6) above dated 28 April 1995 <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Michael Huebner to Sir Teddy Taylor MP dated 27 October 1995 “The order was actually made by His Honour Judge John Baker and not Sir John Baker” My career died with that FORGED court order, as did my life with my own family. For which a great big “thank you” to all of the Windsors. So please take a moment to look into the faces of their “little victims”, Victoria and Georgia Cleary, as I knew them last in 1994. And explain to them how their father is “unfair” when he writes the truth about this enormously greedy, despicable and hateful Windsor family. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Prince William for the well being of his own immortal soul Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Chris Mullin MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Opposition

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:38 am

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Sir Michael Peat 35003 Las Palmas de Gran St James’s Palace Spain Canaria (Correos certificado) 14 December 2002 Regina v Burrell Dear Sir Michael, Further to my letter of 11 December. Does the royal family have any MORE FORM in this type of corruption? That is in the use of the police and the courts to persecute and ruin “little people” in the prosecution of a private agenda? They most certainly do: WT902314 and WT911421, The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth v J.P.Cleary. Please find attached these documents: 1) FORGED Application Notice of 12 April 2000 2) FORGED Notice of Hearing dated 25 June 2000 3) FORGED Judgement dated 21 August 2000 [NB All of these FORGERIES were served on me here in Spain.] There was NO HEARING at Wandsworth County Court; only an elaborate charade. For the SECOND TIME the powers about which they know nothing were indeed at work in that country. Taking a lawful claim right outside of the legitimate legal system. And into the netherworld Realm of the Shadow Sovereign. 4) Cleary First Affidavit sworn 24 July 2000 In the first place the Windsors tied up my only remaining asset, my only chance to post bail, prior to the Jill Dando frame-up (poor Barry George took my place when they needed a replacement patsy). Now, the Windsors have left a single penny of “costs” outstanding. And on the basis of this one-penny of costs for a hearing that did not take place, they have stolen the proceeds from my apartment. Nice people, those Windsors. Would you agree, Sir Michael? Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA PS Cherie Blair makes a harmless, amusing diversion, does she not? Perhaps she should compare notes with Prince Harry, abused in the same way back in January. cc Prince William Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Chris Mullin MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Charles Kennedy MP, Quiz show artiste

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:40 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Secretary of State for Culture Media & Sport Spain (Correos Certificado RR052197232ES) 26 November 2002 Queens Bench 1994-C-2024 J.P.Cleary v Anglia Television Dear Secretary of State, It’s about this chappie you’ve just installed as Deputy Chairman of OFCOM. Richard Hooper . Mr Hooper is apparently to be the “content supreme” for the whole of British television. A sort of turbo charged Lord Wakeham. Do you know what sort of man you are so empowering? Let me enlighten you about his record. Mr Hooper was one of the five directors of MAI at the time of the takeover of Anglia Television Group plc. At the very least Mr Hooper is a liar, a fraud and a thief. Perfect, I should think, for the Blair vision of a Masonic Britain. While I sympathise with anyone who must operate within a government that is falling to pieces, could you not learn to talk to your friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? She knows all about this, but apparently she forgot to tell you. RSVP Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Lady Elspeth Howe Lord Currie Gerald Kaufman MP, Chairman of the Culture Media & Sport Select Committee Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Opposition enc. Cleary to Hewitt 30 June 2002 Cleary to Ashcroft 24 July 2002 Cleary to Annan 26 August 2002

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:43 am

THE ENEMY WITHIN To: Messrs. Michel (Belgium), de Villepin (France), Fischer (Germany) So, Belgium, France and Germany plan to “rescue Europe” do they? Better late than never, but how, pray, do you intend to defend against an enemy you dare not even name? A few observations, in my own fair hand….. 1 De Gaulle was quite correct. You brought the British people inside the European tent, but their sovereignty prefers to remain outside pissing in. 2 Words mean exactly what she wants them to mean, only force matters (the Law of Thelema). A thousand years of English common law; the Treaty of Maastricht; Human Rights Act; Resolution 1441. It’s all a load of old rubbish to Her Majesty. Just plumbing to be fixed by disposable servants like Blair and Irvine. 3 Heiress to the most dangerous woman in Europe, she is a cold-blooded killer who likes to frame innocent patsies like Henri Paul and Barry George. 4 Another of her pleasures is to force her victim to bear the cost of his own persecution. Like digging one’s grave before being executed, updated to suit the palate of the modern monarch. She is a sadist, and causing pain and damage keeps her young. 5 She’s already got Spain, led by soft fools already taken by the king. The Borbons hold the real power in this country, not the people. But then I guess you found that out, right? (If the people of Spain were truly sovereign they would prevent their 40 million largely Catholic souls from being delivered into Scottish Rite Freemasonry.) 6 She thinks Europeans are a bunch of fools ripe for the taking. I fought them hand-to-hand in England, and lost. I fought them hand-to-hand in Ireland, and lost. I am fighting them hand-to-hand in Spain, and I’m losing. John Cleary BScMAMBA Freeborn Englishman & citizen of Ireland Copy correspondence attached Las Palmas 25 March 2003 Cleary to Peat 16.11.2002 Peat to Cleary 21.11.2002 Cleary to Cox 17.03.2002 Cleary to Peat 26.11.2002 Cleary to Hewitt 30.06.2002 Peat to Cleary 02.12.2002 Cleary to Jowell 26.11.2002 Cleary to Peat 11.12.2002 Acknowl. Jowell 31.01.2003 Cleary to Peat 14.12.2002 Cleary to Annan 26.08.2002 Addendum 15 April “La Fiscalia General del Estado ha archivado* las denuncias presentadas por consejales de Izquierda Unida de differentes ayuntamientos contra el Presidente del Gobierno, Jose Maria Aznar, al considerar que “No ha efectuado declaration alguna de guerra a Irak.”” EFE 15 April 2003 La Constitucion: Articulo 117.1 La justicia emana del pueblo y se administra en nombre del Rey**......[y su logia masonica] *just the same – Sir John Stevens and Sir David Calvert Smith 16.11.2002 **just like Regina in England. Must be a coincidence.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:45 am

His Holiness Pope John Paul II The Vatican Holy Father, You tell us that Scotland is no longer a Christian country. Yet Spain stands in breach of the Treaty of Westphalia, and is killing Christians for financial and political gain. Some forty million souls in this country are in very grave danger. There is no more that I can do. My mind and my spirit are falling to pieces. Will you not take up this cross? Las Palmas, 5 April 2003 Enclosures: Cleary to King Juan Carlos 15.07.1997 The Enemy Within 25.03.2003 Sir Michael Peat to Cleary 21.11.2002 & 2.12.2002 Addendum 15 April “La Fiscalia General del Estado ha archivado las denuncias presentadas por consejales de Izquierda Unida de differentes ayuntamientos contra el Presidente del Gobierno, Jose Maria Aznar, al considerar que “No ha efectuado declaration alguna de guerra a Irak.”” EFE 15 April 2003 La Constitucion: Articulo 117.1 La justicia emana del pueblo y se administra en nombre del Rey......[y su logia masonica] All the supposed abominations, the skeletons and death's head, the coffins and the mysteries, are mere bogeys for children. But there is one dangerous element and that is the element I have copied from them. They form a sort of priestly nobility. They have developed and esoteric doctrine more merely formulated, but imparted through the symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and the element I have taken over. Don't you see that our party must be of this character...? An Order, the hierarchial Order of a secular priesthood." -Adolf Hitler praising Freemasonry

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:47 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Felipe de Borbon 18 May 2003 Canaria Palacio de Zarzuela Young man, I really would not like to be in your shoes. Do you truly understand the life mapped out for you by your father? Are you aware of the horrors that will be committed daily in your name? I remember as though it were yesterday. Madrid, summer 1982. I was working for Bain & Company on a Firestone project, and I was lunching with two Spanish colleagues. All of a sudden the restaurant burst into spontaneous applause, and a young man, just behind me at a higher level, stood up and took a bow. Then the room went back to normal. How can you steal away those people’s happiness? Is this why you must look overseas to find your bride? Do you really believe you are Rex Deus, “Protector of the Holy Places of Jerusalem”: better than the people? Do you really believe that spontaneous affection for a fifteen-year-old boy was down to your lineage; down to your irresistible charm, your effervescent personality and your incandescent sex appeal? Your father has reproduced here in Spain that very class system that bedevils Britain today, as it has done for centuries. Its foundation is the secret society of Freemasonry, into which you yourself have been inducted. His purpose is the complete overthrow of Spanish society as grounded in the Constitution he signed in 1978. Your father, Sir, is the very worst class of man. The worst class of bully, that goes after a fifty years old woman and her disability pension. The worst class of pervert, that would make criminals of those who protest illegal war. The worst class of liar, that hides behind that same Constitution that he himself dishonours. The very worst class of cowardly traitor, that sells his people into bondage. What, Sir, are you? RSVP Yours sincerely, John Cleary PS Did mummy do Bilderberg this year?

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:49 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Lord “Charlie” Falconer 35003 Las Palmas de Gran House of Lords Spain Canaria Correos Certificado 17629ES 18 June 2003 Queens Bench 1994-c-2024 JP Cleary v Anglia Television Dear Sir, So, the august and ancient office of Lord Chancellor is no more, eh? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Let’s see now. Take yourself: appointed by the Queen as… President of the Second Chamber [LEGISLATIVE], with a Seat in Cabinet with the “Justice” portfolio [EXECUTIVE], and Queens Counsel, able to deputise as a High Court judge. What was it they said about the George Bush (41) tax increase? If it looks like a Lord Chancellor, acts like a Lord Chancellor, defecates on ordinary people and answers to no one like a Lord Chancellor…it’s a Lord Chancellor. Congratulations, Queens Counsel. Irvine was disposed of. You are the latest foreigner selected by the Harlot to serve as senior law officer of England. Your brief: “Words mean exactly what she wants them to mean, only force matters (the Law of Thelema). A thousand years of English common law; the Treaty of Maastricht; Human Rights Act; Resolution 1441. It’s all a load of old rubbish to Her Majesty. Just plumbing to be fixed by disposable servants like Blair and Irvine.” The Enemy Within Now that we’ve cleared up that little deception, let’s get down to the matter at hand. The forged Court documents issued under Lord Mackay of Clashfern (JP Cleary v Anglia Television) and by Lord Irvine of Lairg (Wandsworth Council v JP Cleary), in both cases acting on the orders of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I’m sure you know the high significance of the American President’s annual address to Congress, known as the State of the Union. On 28 January this year President Bush cited documentation he claimed “proved” Saddam Hussein had purchased large quantities of uranium oxide ore from Niger. The documentation was “authenticated by the British”, according to the President himself. Your chum Bomber Blair, at it again, waving around his enormous “God-given” Royal Prerogative. BLAIR LIED AND THOUSANDS DIED BUT THE WINDSORS THRIVE. So we have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in February 1995. We have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in April, June and August 2000. We have forged Government of Niger documents laundered by the British, according to President Bush. That’s quite a record for the “fount of all justice and honour”. So why should anybody believe a word that comes out of the British Junta while the Windsors are in charge? On what grounds do you seek judicial parity with the 24 democracies that comprise the European Union? What has changed in the three years since I warned Jospin and Reno against recognizing that obscenity as a legitimate and trustworthy jurisdiction? Exactly when did the thieving old slag in Buckingham Palace give up her “God-given” right to defecate on whomsoever she wishes by means of the English Court? And who, exactly, will enforce that prohibition against the Sadist Sovereign when that Sadist Sovereign really doesn’t want it enforced? R.S.V.P. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BScMAMBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin 97375 Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman 97376 Kofi Annan Hans Blix Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy 97377 Enc. Cleary to Peat 16 Nov, 26 Nov, 11 Dec, 14 Dec 2002 Cleary to Reno 29 May 2000 The Enemy Within 25 March 2003

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:50 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Judge Peter Cory 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Correos Certificado 83288 Spain Canaria 10 July 2003 Dear Judge Cory, I read the leaks about your deliberations in last Sunday’s Observer, and which I interpret as the modern day variety of “public consultation”. According to that newspaper you are to recommend a “full public inquiry” be held into the murder of the late Pat Finucane, such is the volume of evidence to indicate collusion on the part of the British. Personally, I can conceive of no act so cynical and as clearly designed to stimulate the growth of violent actions on the part of the Nationalist community. So I welcome your conclusions. Yet a public inquiry is not necessarily the same as an independent and impartial inquiry. You only have to look back at the Widgery Inquiry into Bloody Sunday to see that is the case. So can I draw your attention to the British power structure – the distinction between the Crown and the people in that country? For in the United Kingdom there is no separation of powers and the people are not sovereign, but subjects. Listen, if you like, to the State Opening of Parliament, where Queen Elizabeth refers quite explicitly to “My Government”. Thus the British Government acts in the interests of the Sovereign herself, and not necessarily in the interests of her subjects. Where a conflict exists between the interests of the Sovereign and the interests of the people, the British Executive is bound to act in the interests of the Sovereign. It will disguise this conflict, of course, and the result is that Westminster these days has become little more than a confused Gilbert & Sullivan played out behind a series of curtains and smokescreens. But the absolute primacy of the Windsor family is easy to demonstrate beyond all doubt. What do we know about the Finucane case? We know that Brian Nelson instigated and facilitated the murder. We know that Brian Nelson was a British Officer in the Force Research Unit. We know that Nelson’s commanding Officer was Gordon Kerr. We know that Gordon Kerr is today a brigadier general and the military attaché at the British Embassy in Beijing. We know that Gordon Kerr is Scottish, a Highlander and an acquaintance of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Both the British Government and the Windsor family have a direct, personal and enduring interest in this case, as Brian Nelson found out in April this year. There are very real similarities between the Finucane case and the Burrell and Brown cases. The Windsor family had a clear interest in the outcome of Regina v Burrell and Regina v Brown. Yet it was not until the conflict of interest between Regina, a witness for the defence and Regina, the prosecution, came to prominence that both cases were abandoned. The underlying conflict between Regina, the Windsors’ interest and Regina, the presiding judge was disregarded throughout. Regina v Burrell and Regina v Brown were never independent or impartial, nor were they ever intended to be independent or impartial (see item 1 Cleary to Peat). With all these aforementioned Reginae one might be forgiven for wondering exactly how many Queens Elizabeth exist. Actually it is not such a silly question. For just under fifty years there were two persons who lawfully bore the name “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”. The Sovereign herself, of course, but also the mother, the Shadow Sovereign (see item 2 Cleary to William of Wales). It was the Shadow Sovereign herself who issued the order to eliminate Pat Finucane. Gordon Kerr was true to his military oath and he did indeed obey Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. “That’s quite a claim!” I hear you say. Can I provide any evidence to sustain my charges? Judge Cory, I can provide you with enough evidence against the Windsors to fill the State of Alberta. Why else try to pull a Pat Finucane on John Cleary? Let me give you but a single relevant example of a capital crime committed at the instigation of the Shadow Sovereign. Please refer to the attached item 3. This Court Order was delivered to my front door on the outskirts of Dublin on 13 February 1995. As you can see it was issued in the name of Sir John Baker. Please refer next to the attached item 4 from the Chief Executive of the Court Service and is the reply to a written question from Parliament to the Lord Chancellor. Mr Huebner states “It was actually issued by His Honour Judge John Baker and not Sir John Baker.” As you know, John Baker and Sir John Baker are completely different names under English law. There was no person called Sir John Baker in the High Court and the document is, by definition, a forgery. Yet Michael Huebner, acting on the instructions of the Lord Chancellor, in turn acting on the instructions of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, told Parliament that the document was authentic. There are four aspects to this example that I would emphasise: 1 The very short and secure chain of command (Shadow Sovereign to Lord Chancellor to operative) mirrors the Finucane chain of command (Shadow Sovereign to Gordon Kerr to operative). 2 The object of the exercise is laundering – turning a forged document into an authentic document. This is identical to the role played by the British in the State of the Union address by President Bush, where forged Niger documents were authenticated in the September dossier. (Note: the Iraq war could be the quid pro quo for Richard Breeden at the SEC, who closed down the investigation into Lloyds of London.) 3 A non-existent person can be created ex-post in order to redeem the fraud. Thus as Malcolm Wall was made a director of Anglia Television two months after he had committed his crimes, so John Baker could become Sir John Baker after he had issued the forged court order. And who could possibly work such magic but “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”? 4 “The Lord Chancellor is history!” said Mr Blair on 12 June 2003. Brian Nelson is history too. Thankfully Elizabeth Bowes Lyons is now dead, but the secret crime machine she created using illegal powers still operates under the command of her grandson, Charles Windsor. And Elizabeth Windsor has in turn vested in her son the use of “Crown Prerogative” powers, making him the true Prime Minister of the UK. (Who signed over Hong Kong? Who greeted Vladimir Putin? Simeon of Bulgaria was not the prototype.) Furthermore amongst others he has knighted the fraudster Gary Winnick of Global Crossing in return for monies paid into the Prince’s Trust. I contend, therefore, that an independent, impartial inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane is not only impossible within the Windsor Empire. It would also be illegal under the disgusting Treason and Felony Act of 1848, which defines treason as any action that is against the interests of the ruling family. And which was re-affirmed by the High Court of England and Wales on 26 June 2003. To any who claim I am mistaken, I issue this challenge: answer those questions I put to Lord “Charlie” Falconer on 18 June 2003. Let me quote myself verbatim. “So we have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in February 1995. We have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in April, June and August 2000. We have forged Government of Niger documents laundered by the British, according to President Bush. That’s quite a record for the “fount of all justice and honour”. So why should anybody believe a word that comes out of the British Junta while the Windsors are in charge? On what grounds do you seek judicial parity with the 24 democracies that comprise the European Union? What has changed in the three years since I warned Jospin and Reno against recognizing that obscenity as a legitimate and trustworthy jurisdiction? Exactly when did the thieving old slag in Buckingham Palace give up her “God-given” right to defecate on whomsoever she wishes by means of the English Court? And who, exactly, will enforce that prohibition against the Sadist Sovereign when that Sadist Sovereign really doesn’t want it enforced?” Thank you for your attention, Your Honor. Yours sincerely John Cleary BScMAMBA Ps. I will soon be going back to see my mother. This is a somewhat perilous enterprise, so can I suggest that if you wish to contact me you do so at your earliest convenience? Cc Mrs Geraldine Finucane M. Luzius Wildhaber Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin Sir Bertram Ahern Mary McAleese Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy Enc. Item 1 Cleary to Peat 16 Nov, 26 Nov, 11 Dec, 14 Dec 2002 Item 2 Cleary to William of Wales 4 January 2002 Item 3 Forged Court Order 9 February 1995 Item 4 Court Service to Cleary 28 April & 27 October 1995 Item 5 Cleary to Lord “Charlie” Falconer 18 June 2003

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:53 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 M. Luzius Wildhaber 35003 Las Palmas de Gran President of the European Court of Human Rights Spain Canaria Correos Certificado 92261ES 14 July 2003 Dear Mr President, I write further to my copy letter (to Judge Cory) of 10 July. I’d like to expand on what I told the judge about the British laundering of forged Government of Niger documents. I want to make sure that when the time comes the right people are punished for murdering so many thousands of blameless human beings in their smash and grab raid on Iraq. The central thrust is that the United Kingdom is a judicial dictatorship, with all real power held by the Sovereign. All public political activity in that country is mere theatre, with the lead players manipulated as puppets. When apparent rivals clash they are controlled by a single mind, and the outcome from the encounter is predetermined. It cannot be otherwise, because true politics in the United Kingdom is illegal under the Treason and Felony Act of 1848, reaffirmed 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales. What is most alarming is the way that this judicial dictatorship has spread rapidly to former democracies as varied as the United States, the Republic of Ireland and Spain. And the way in which she seems able to control the heavyweight tribunals in the Netherlands. It’s not just the European Court of Justice and the Telefonica Golden Share. Did you know that two of the three presiding judges in the Milosevic trial have sworn in a judicial oath that they will obey Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth? “And your descendents shall possess the gates of their enemies” Genesis 22:17. There is a plan afoot, far advanced, for the Windsor family and their allies to take over the world with their forgeries and lies. This could be our last chance to stop them without violence. But don’t take my word for it. Check out the correspondence. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA Ps I read that the thieving old sadist is at it again, opening her bowels in public, this time over Diana and her boys (through Franklin Mint). If she will do this to the trust funds for her own grandchildren, then nobody’s money is safe. How come all you clever people running Europe can’t see that the English Court is full of Scottish turds? Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin correo cert. 78418 Valery Giscard D’Estaing Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman correo cert. 78405 Enc Cleary to Reno 24 April 2000 & 29 May 2000 Cleary First Affidavit 24 July 2000; Second Affidavit 1 October 2000 Cleary to William of Wales 4 January 2002 Cleary to Cox 17 March 2002 Cleary to Kofi Annan 26 August 2002 Cleary to Peat 16 Nov, 26 Nov, 11 Dec, 14 Dec 2002 The Enemy Within 25 March 2003 Cleary to Lord “Charlie” Falconer 18 June 2003

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:55 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 M. Luzius Wildhaber 35003 Las Palmas de Gran President of the European Court of Human Rights Spain Canaria Correos Certificado 16 July 2003 Dear Mr President, I write further to my letter of 14 July. You don’t need me to tell you that the United Kingdom has a peculiar system of government. For example, why does a “United” kingdom have two separate High Courts, one in Edinburgh and one in London? And two “Established” religions? The people of England are subjects of the Crown under English common law. But the people of Scotland are not. By tradition in Scotland the people are Sovereign. So the spiritual and legal status of people in England is different to that of people in Scotland. So they actually need two completely different systems, one for the white folks in Scotland, and one for the niggers in England. Actually the English common law system could be worse, thanks to the Coronation Oath. The King and Queen, in whom all power is vested, must first swear an oath to justice and mercy and respect for traditions. And by eluding that oath on her ascension, and by her subsequent trickery, Elizabeth Bowes Lyons has devastated the English heartland with the full and active connivance of the entire Windsor clan. When Adolph Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe he might have been warning the English people. The British Crown has systematically discriminated against us on the basis of our nationality. And I thought that was illegal in Europe. Let me give you a contemporaneous example, which also serves to illustrate the theatrical nature of the British Legislature. The Communications (Murdoch) Act will likely be given Royal Assent today or tomorrow. You might have read a great deal about the valiant Puttnam leading his Merry Lords in rebellion, fighting for quality in British television. The final Lords Amendment “obliges Ofcom to give due consideration to the rights of Citizens”. Don’t you think that is a strange choice of words? Why “Citizens” and not “individuals” or “viewers” or “the public”? It’s the same sophistry as currently being employed by the Bush Administration in defending the State of the Union reference to uranium oxide ore from Niger. The English are not “Citizens”, so this amendment is completely worthless for us. All the more so as it will be applied by Richard Hooper, soon to be Chairman of Ofcom. The Communication Act is discriminatory legislation to its core Yours sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin cert. Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman cert. Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy cert. Lord “Charlie” Falconer cert. Enc Cleary to Hewitt 30 June 2002 Cleary to Jowell 26 November 2002; acknowledgement 31 January 2003 Stevens to Cleary 17 November 1994

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:01 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Andrew Gilligan Esq. 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Correos certificado Spain Canaria 21 July 2003 Dear Mr Gilligan, Poor David Kelly, he never had a chance. He said he did not want to live in a world like this. I know that feeling. The icy touch when agents of the Windsors come-a-callin’. Members of the British Legislature are accomplished thespians, if nothing more. But they have to have a script. They are bound to hold select committee hearings, and put on a show for the public. But they don’t want to talk about either of the two dodgy dossiers. There is just too much incriminating evidence. Enough, in fact, to fill the State of Alberta. They need a diversion. What else can possibly fill weeks of select committee hearings? And when they decided on the nature of that diversion, David Kelly was dead. The only reason I am alive (when a similar decision was made about Anglia Television) is that I fled the country and kept on running. David’s daughter is to be wed in September, yet he was unable to see even that far ahead. The poor man was alone and terrified and caught in a double game. And I know all about those dark players. Now Mr Blair tells us to await the inquiry. Brian Hutton was Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland when Pat Finucane was murdered. He is widely known to be a Freemason. And his “public inquiry” will be held “largely in public”. All of the Windsor turds will be kept in the black box of State Secrecy. Just like Dunblane. I tell you now; the powers of which they know nothing are at work in that country again. The old sadist is getting ready to open her bowels again, and she is going to defecate all over you. If I were you I would be on to the European Court of Human Rights today. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin cert. Judge Peter Cory M Luzius Wildhaber Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman cert. Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy cert.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:04 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 M. Luzius Wildhaber 35003 Las Palmas de Gran President of the European Court of Human Rights Spain Canaria Correos Certificado 25716ES 30 July 2003 Dear Mr President, Treason Felony Act 1848 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. Look at that flowery language, re-affirmed just last month. This is the foundation on which the dictatorship is built. Think about what shysters like Clinton (“it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”), Blair and Hutton can do with it. Think about what this means within the context of the Official Secrets Act. Think about what this means within the context of a ruling family that is in the habit of secreting their interests behind a long series of fronts. For example: “If any person whatsoever shall….put any force or constraint upon her…by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony” So Mrs Kelly, like her late husband, had best be careful about telling the truth. For if any of her words lead us towards the Royal Prerogative, and those so empowered, she will be guilty of “putting any constraint upon her”. She can be booted out of Southmoor and “transported beyond the seas for the term of her natural life.” It just depends on whether or not Buckingham Palace believe they can intimidate and cower the BBC and cover it all up. So the question I should like to ask through your good offices, the question I should like to put to Queen Elizabeth II is this. Murder is the medieval way. Murder is your way, but it is not my way. So apart from killing you and your family, which I reject, how do we, the people of England, rid ourselves of you, your parasitical family and your filthy, homicidal secret society? Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin correos cert. 72327 Valery Giscard D’Estaing Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman correos cert. 72326 Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy correos cert. 72325

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:05 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 M Jacques Chirac 35003 Las Palmas de Gran President of the Republic of France Spain Canaria Correos Certificado 72327 30 July 2003 Dear Mr President, Treason Felony Act 1848 Have you been a naughty boy? I attach a copy of my 30 July letter to M Wildhaber of the European Court of Human Rights. I think this is singularly relevant to the Sovereignty of France and her people. Just look at the wording on this piece of garbage legislation. I’m not referring to the pretentiousness of the language but to the pretensions stated. Just look at it. “if ANY person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom OR WITHOUT…imagine to put ANY constraint upon her….and such imaginations…shall express…by ANY overt act or deed, EVERY person so offending shall be guilty of felony..” This rubbish was re-affirmed 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales. Do you KNOW about this claim to jurisdiction over French Sovereign territory? You realise this wording means they can legitimately act in the same way in France as in England when it comes to “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”? Everything I wrote to Monsieur Wildhaber about the English can apply just as much to the French. It’s just that, to the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t yet used her secret society to enforce the Law of Thelema in France. But it’s only a matter of time, for this excrement is the foundation on which the New World Order will be built. So any French citizen, under attack from any of the Harlot’s multitudinous scams, and who seeks to defend him or herself in any way, will be guilty of the crime “putting any constraint upon her”. Guilty of a felony, and subject to extra-judicial reprisals from her filthy, homicidal secret society. You KNEW about this when you tipped off Blair about getting rid of the Lord Chancellor back in early June, didn’t you? You have known about this for years, haven’t you? How the hell can you dump the French people into a common political and economic arena with such a bunch of ravenous wolves? You have seen what they‘ve done to Iraq. You slimy bastard. At least le Pen is a patriot. Vive la France! Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Valery Giscard D’Estaing Jean-Pierre Raffarin correos cert. 72327 Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman correos cert. 72326 Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy correos cert. 72325

Second Batch 2002 - 2004

Second Batch 2002 - 2004

Sir Michael Peat

Sir Michael Peat

Sir Michael Peat

Tessa Jowell (Secty State Cultue, Media & Sport)

The Enemy Within

Pope John Paul II

Felipe de Borbon (Crown Prince of Spain)

Lord Charlie Falconer

Judge Peter Cory (Irish Peace Process)

Dr.Luzius Wildhaber (European Court President)

Luzius Wildhaber

Andrew Gilligan

Luzius Wildhaber

Jacques Chirac

Who is online