Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[blanc]

mum's money anti - this sounds like identity theft.

[antiaristo]

***********************
I'll let you all know when there are any developments in mum's situation.
***********************

OK. So until someone comes up with a better explanation, let's go with the hypothesis that Sir Ian Blair planned a switch. And that he has been caught with his trousers down.

Does that not make this excerpt from the Guardian story (a few posts ago) even more revealing? (I started bolding, then realised everything is important!)

Michael Mansfield QC, for Mr Fayed, criticised the timing of Lord Stevens's report into the crash, arguing that it had given the impression that the Diana case was now closed. "The public, as well as national and international media, have regarded what is printed in the report as the final and the official verdict."

Edmund Lawson, for the Metropolitan police, hit back at Mr Mansfield's "substantial public criticisms" and said appropriate legal advice had been taken. "The commissioner stands by the decision to publish the report," he said. "It was not a decision taken lightly."

Lady Butler-Sloss was later forced to address the suggestion that there might be a perception of bias over her role in presiding over the inquest. Richard Keen QC, counsel for Paul's parents, suggested that she might be associated with the conclusions of the Stevens report. But Lady Butler-Sloss said that just because she had agreed to the publication of the report it did not mean she was parti pris to its findings. "I don't know whether its conclusions are right or not," she said. "I haven't heard the inquest."

The Metropolitan Police were charged with producing the Coroner's report: and they failed to complete it in time for the inquest.

But they are all lawyered up. Because they published something unofficial and misleading instead.

In other words instead of serving the inquest, they have become a party to the dispute, fighting their corner, defending their interests against "substantial public criticisms", pissing away our money on Edmund Lawson.

It's our money. So what "appropriate legal advice had been taken"? Where does it say you can substitute a freelance investigation for the official Coroner's report? Are we not talking Treason Felony Act here, that law which makes felony any resistance to the will of The Queen?*

Red lights are flashing. Or should that be blue lights that are flashing?

What's happening here is that Her Majesty has so many different agents working the angles on this that they are coming into collision with each other. Butler-Sloss must now defend herself from association with the incompetence of Sir Ian Blair and the decision to publish the Stevens report. Already she looks tainted and completely out of her depth.

Maybe she just aimed too high for her abilities: it's not an easy job being deputy assistant coroner for Surrey.

*ENGLISH LAW RESOURCES
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=8572

[antiaristo]

.
Anti clarifies all of this by explaining that which is still enshrined in English law, and how the deceptions are played.

slim, that's not quite true.

The Treason Felony Act refers to "within the United Kingdom or without".

It is a United Kingdom law.

A United Kingdom law that is used in England to suppress English laws.

That's why they cannot possibly allow an English parliament.

An English parliament would come into immediate conflict with the UK Crown.

It's also why they cannot allow Scotland independence. If the United Kingdom breaks up it dissolves the UK Crown and UK laws.

And of course it specifies a queen.

A king alone cannot use this law. But a king, married to a queen who swore to obey him on marriage, can use the law himself.

That is why what Diana herself wrote makes so much sense.

"This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous - my husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure & serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry."

I'm sure that the Mishcon note of October 1995 would shed much light on this line of inquiry.


ps I've posted the Daily Mirror articles from 6 January 2004 to Data Dump.
You can read them for yourself, then ponder why it is that Stevens invariably misquotes her words.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 9358#99358

[antiaristo]

I hate to quote myself, but look at this from two posts ago - Wednesday:

In other words instead of serving the inquest, they have become a party to the dispute, fighting their corner, defending their interests against "substantial public criticisms", pissing away our money on Edmund Lawson.

It's our money. So what "appropriate legal advice had been taken"? Where does it say you can substitute a freelance investigation for the official Coroner's report? Are we not talking Treason Felony Act here, that law which makes felony any resistance to the will of The Queen?*

Now howzabout this:

14 January 2007 11:34
Home
> News
> UK
> UK Politics

Cash for honours row over legal advice to civil servants
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 14 January 2007

Government lawyers have provided legal advice to officials during the cash for honours affair, prompting accusations of a serious conflict of interest.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that lawyers from the Treasury solicitors department have scrutinised the law on the abuse of honours and even taken outside advice from leading barristers.

The involvement of government lawyers, who are accountable to the Attorney General, during the police inquiry is controversial because the Attorney General will play a key role in deciding whether the case should go to court. The revelation will also raise fresh questions about why the lawyers were called in on a Labour Party matter.

Senior Whitehall sources said that Edmund Lawson QC, a senior criminal barrister specialising in fraud, was among those asked for his professional advice by the government lawyers after the police launched their investigation into cash for honours. Mr Lawson refused to comment. But one well-placed Whitehall source said: "The Treasury solicitors were looking at this early on and were unsure of a point of law. They sought Edmund Lawson's advice."

The revelation, previously denied by Whitehall, will prove embarrassing to the Government. The Labour Party has now brought in outside legal advisers to officials, including some of Tony Blair's closest aides. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Liberal Democrat peer, is to table parliamentary questions about the involvement of government lawyers in the affair. "Why was taxpayers' money used to give legal advice which could benefit the Labour Party?" he asked.

The news comes as the police reached the final stages of the investigation and are expected to pass a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service by the end of the month.

In a measure of how seriously the CPS is taking the inquiry it has now hired a second barrister to act on the case. David Perry QC, the senior counsel in the case will now be joined by Robin McCoubrey a criminal barrister who will decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.

This week Sir Alistair Graham, the standards watchdog, is expected to call for greater transparency in political parties' declarations of loans in a report on the electoral commission.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 152471.ece

Again, I quote myself:
"What's happening here is that Her Majesty has so many different agents working the angles on this that they are coming into collision with each other."

I don't want to divert this thread from the Diana inquest (I'll put up another post later today), but I do want to stress how the same cast of characters keep on appearing in these investigations into fraud and corruption at the heart of the British State.

[madeupname452]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 152471.ece

Government lawyers have provided legal advice to officials during the cash for honours affair, prompting accusations of a serious conflict of interest.
...

The involvement of government lawyers, who are accountable to the Attorney General, during the police inquiry is controversial because the Attorney General will play a key role in deciding whether the case should go to court. The revelation will also raise fresh questions about why the lawyers were called in on a Labour Party matter.

Senior Whitehall sources said that Edmund Lawson QC, a senior criminal barrister specialising in fraud, was among those asked for his professional advice by the government lawyers after the police launched their investigation into cash for honours. Mr Lawson refused to comment. But one well-placed Whitehall source said: "The Treasury solicitors were looking at this early on and were unsure of a point of law. They sought Edmund Lawson's advice."

[antiaristo]

.

I feel like a terrible fraud.
Mum's OK. Sorry, Nationwide Building Society.

She has an old-fashioned passbook account. But she has three separate books.
One of them is empty. BUT NOT THE OTHER TWO.

I apologise to the forum: I knew she had three books.
But when she came on the phone, crying her eyes out, I just lost it and didn't think.
And yes. I feel terribly guilty about leaving her alone.

Thank you all for your messages of sympathy.
Mum is FINE


********************************************************************

PROPOSED DRAFT TO LEN DUVALL, CHAIR OF THE MPA.
To be sent January 15, after I've opened any post.


Dear Sir,

I write further to my complaint to Sir Ian Blair, copied to yourself on 2 January 2007 (Registered post No. 28183 8ES). Another copy is enclosed herein, for your convenience.

I write again because, as of today, I've not had the courtesy of a reply from Sir Ian, nor from anybody else at Scotland Yard.

Do you think you could give him a nudge on my behalf? After my experience with Sir John Stevens in 2004 I have learned that tenacity is the better part of valour.

My understanding is that Scotland Yard was unable to complete the Coroner's report in time for the inquest. Three years is not enough? And I further understand that Edmund Lawson QC is retained - does that not make the Metropolitan Police themselves an interested party to an inquest they are meant to serve in a neutral capacity?

Is that the very same Edmund Lawson QC that has given advice to the Labour Party in the matter of "Cash for Peerages", currently under investigation by the Metropolitan Police?

What on earth is going on?
RSVP

(Note: this to be copied, along with the enclosure, to between six and ten Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority)

***************************************

Feedback welcomed.
The window is about fourteen hours

This is their website

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/default.htm

[antiaristo]

.

This sent today.
******************


C/Eusebio Navarro, 12
35003 las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Spain
15 January 2007
Len Duval AM
Metropolitan Police Authority
(Correos certificado 28351 6ES)

Inquest into the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales

Dear Sir,

I write further to my complaint to Sir Ian Blair, copied to yourself on 2 January 2007 (Registered post No. 28183 8ES). A further copy is enclosed herein, for your convenience.

I write again because, as of today I've not had the courtesy of a reply from Sir Ian, nor from anybody else at Scotland Yard.

Do you think you could give him a nudge on my behalf? After my experience with Sir John Stevens back in 2004 I have learned that tenacity is the better part of valour.

My understanding is that Scotland Yard was unable to complete the Coroner's report in time for the inquest. Three years is not enough? And I further understand that Edmund Lawson QC is retained - does that not make the Metropolitan Police themselves an interested party to an inquest they are meant to serve in a neutral capacity?

Is that the very same Edmund Lawson QC that has given advice to the Labour Party in the matter of "Cash for Peerages", currently under investigation by the Metropolitan Police?

What on earth is going on at the Met??
RSVP

Yours faithfully,



John Cleary BSc MA MBA

enc. Cleary to Sir Ian Blair 2 January 2007

cc (including attachment)

Reshard Auladin Elizabeth Howlet
Tony Arbour Jenny Jones
Richard Sumray Aneeta Prem
Rachel Whittaker Nicky Gavron
Karim Murji Peter Herbert

[blanc]

glad mum's ok
let us know if you get anything resembling an actual reply

[antiaristo]

Judge rules out jury for Diana hearing

The inquests into the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed will not be heard by a jury, it was announced yesterday. Lady Butler-Sloss, who was brought out of retirement to conduct the hearings, said she would sit alone in the high court in London as the deputy royal coroner. She rejected arguments made last week, including those from Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, for a jury. At a preliminary hearing last week she ruled out a jury of members of the royal household. She said intense media interest meant a "reasoned decision" from a coroner was preferable to using a jury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 05,00.html

Time to pile the pressure on Butler Sloss. She's now admitted to being a crook.

The woman has never heard an inquest in her life. She's there as the Windsor consigliere.

Can there be any doubt at all that the Windsors murdered Diana?

And that they cannot afford the Mishcon note to become public. Because it would explain WHY she knew she would be murdered.

"..In order to make the path clear for him to marry."

I doubt Butler Sloss can take much pressure.
She's a divorce judge. Which means that throughout her career she's had the option of secrecy whenever she wishes....

"For the children's sake"

Of course.

Also interesting is where the Guardian published this news.

News in Brief


Added on edit:

What I'd like to know is this: How can the presiding judge make a decision like this - indeed any decision - when she is not yet in receipt of the Coroner's report from the Metropolitan Police Service?

What information is she using to inform her decision?

[antiaristo]

.
Her decision is now published

http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk ... 012007.pdf

It's tortuous legal logic - she's stepping through a series of loopholes in the law. I've only skimmed, but this excerpt gives the essence of the many roles of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.

Decision 9
105. I shall take the necessary steps as assistant deputy Coroner to Surrey under section 14 to request the transfer of the inquest of Dodi Al Fayed from Surrey to the Royal Household. As deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household I shall consent to that transfer. I shall make the transfer before the proposed hearing in early March.

But the most important (in my view) emerging scandal is the role of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The Met are required to be neutral. They are there to asist the inquest.

But look at this.

THE RT HON BARONESS BUTLER-SLOSS, GBE

Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey

In the matter of the Inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales

Interested Persons:

The Hon Lady Sarah McCorquodale (Executor and on behalf of the Spencer Family)
Not represented

Major Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton (On behalf of the Royal Princes)
Not represented

Mr Mohamed Al Fayed
Represented by Mr Michael Mansfield QC and Mr Patrick Roche (Instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP)

The Parents of M. Henri Paul
Represented by Mr Richard Keen QC(Instructed by Stuart Benson Solicitors)

President, The Ritz Hotel Paris
Represented by Mr Ian Croxford QC(Instructed by Barlow Lyde and Gilbert
Solicitors)

Mr Trevor Rees
Represented by Mr Ian Lucas MP (Stevens Lucas Solicitors)

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Represented by Mr Edmund Lawson QC (Instructed by Mr Naz Saleh, Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services)

Sir John Nutting QC and The Hon Hugo Keith appeared for the Attorney General
(Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)


Mr Ian Burnett QC appeared as Amicus
(Instructed by the Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household)

The only reasoning I can find is this.

Decision 5
45. I shall not summons a jury of officers of the Queen’s Household.

Submissions of Mr Lawson QC

46. Mr Lawson made short submissions. He informed me that the Commissioner wished to be an interested person in both the inquests. Mr Lawson understood from his solicitors who had been in the New Cross inquests, that the documentation in the present inquests was actually greater than in the New Cross inquests.

47. Mr Lawson also expressed concern about the substantial public criticisms made by Mr Mansfield of the decision to publish the Stevens Report in the form in which it was published indicating or at least alleging that the Report had led to a serious risk of jury prejudice. Mr Lawson also pointed out this had been said without the appropriate notice being given and asked that in future appropriate notice should be given.

The Commissioner as an interested party???

The man charged with producing the official Coroner's report wants to be a party to the subject of that inquiry???

That's clearly a no no.

So look at the diversion being created.

Mr Lawson understood from his solicitors who had been in the New Cross inquests, that the documentation in the present inquests was actually greater than in the New Cross inquests.

So THAT'S why he missed the deadline!

The documentation in the present inquests was actually greater than in the New Cross inquests.

So I can only assume that the Met also fucked up in the New Cross inquests. Whatever they were.

Methinks the insiders know exactly what is going on in this classic Windsor Productions full-length feature

[Byrne]

From Wikipedia, the New Cross Fire was a devastating house fire which killed 13 young black people during a birthday party in New Cross, south east London on Sunday January 18, 1981. The black community were shocked by the indifference of the white population, and accused the police of covering up the cause which they suspected was an arson attack motivated by racism; the protests arising out of the fire led to a mobilisation of black political activity. Nobody has ever been charged in relation to the fire.


Shaphan Blog has more on the Operation Paget Report.

Keep diggin Anti, I appreciate your efforts.

[antiaristo]

THIS IS FUCKING ASTONISHING.

Anybody with a brain can see what's been going on with the Coroner's report. They tried to pass off an impostor (Stevens) as the legitimate Commissioner.

THE FUCKERS ARE DOING THE SAME WITH THE JUDGE.

They are trying to pass off an impostor (Butler-Sloss) as the legitimate Coroner.

Read this.
Then look me in the eye and say I'm wrong.

Royal coroner resigns Diana inquest after FOIA revelation shows he had no jurisdiction

4.07.06

Coroner Michael Burgess resigned from the inquest into the death of Diana, princess of Wales, hours after the government admitted that he had no jurisdiction.

He was carrying out the inquest in his role as “coroner for the Queen’s household” after his predecessor, the late Dr John Burton, had assumed responsibility for the Diana inquest on a false basis.

The department for constitutional affairs (DCA) finally admitted, following a request under the freedom of information act (FOIA) for material relating to the choice of coroner, that Burton made a mistake when he assumed this responsibility.

The false claim of jurisdiction for the coroner for the Queen’s household is crucial because it enables, exceptionally, the jury to be made up entirely of royal staff members. The prospect of such a jury raised questions about the independence of the inquest.

The official reason given for Burgess’s resignation on Friday was his “heavy and constant” workload as the coroner for Surrey.
In his role as Surrey coroner, Burgess was conducting a separate inquest into the death of Dodi Al Fayed, who was buried in his district after dying with Diana in the infamous road crash in Paris in 1997. Burgess also resigned from conducting that inquest on Friday.

He is understood to have complained privately about pressure over his conduct of the two inquests from royal aides, the government and Dodi’s father, Mohamed.

Some six months after receiving the FOIA request, and after granting itself ten extensions to the 20-day statutory limit to supply the material sought, the DCA finally released its reply on Friday making the admission that the royal coroner was carrying out the Diana inquest on a false basis.

Hours later, Burgess announced his resignation from both inquests.

In its reply, the DCA’s head of current coroner policy, Judith Bernstein, says: “The body of Diana, Princess of Wales, was repatriated in the course of the early evening of August 31, 1997 to RAF Northolt in the district of the then West London coroner, the late Dr John Burton.

“Dr Burton arranged for a post-mortem examin-ation to be held at the public mortuary within his West London district at Fulham. The body of Diana, Princess of Wales, was taken after the post-mortem examination to lie in the Chapel Royal, St James’s Palace within the jurisdiction of the coroner for the Queen’s household.

“At that time, Dr Burton understood the body of Diana, Princess of Wales, would be buried in Windsor Castle or its grounds which are also part of the district for the coroner of the Queen’s household.

“However, there is no evidence to support Dr Burton’s understanding, and as Dr Burton is no longer alive, there is no way of clarifying his reasoning on this point. Dr Burton therefore transferred jurisdiction to himself… in his capacity as coroner of the Queen’s household.”

Bernstein adds that Burton, who died in 2004, retired as West London coroner in 2000, but remained as royal coroner until 2002. Burgess, who was already Surrey coroner, took over the role as royal coroner.

The DCA also released a home office circular to coroners from 1983, which sets out the procedure that determines which coroner has jurisdiction for a British citizen who dies a violent, unnatural or sudden death abroad.

It makes clear that the choice of coroner depends on either the body’s point of entry into the UK or where it “lies”.

This suggests that Burton, or his successor, as coroner for the district containing RAF Northolt had a duty to carry out the Diana inquest. In the current circumstances, where this has not happened, the inquest should be carried out by the coroner whose district includes the Althorp estate, where Diana was buried.

The established procedure has flexibility to allow, for example, an inquest to be carried out in the district where the body lies, instead of the point of entry into the UK, to enable it be conducted near where the relatives live. Alternatively, if more than one Briton has died in the same incident, a joint inquest can be carried out in the district where the bodies entered the UK.

Newspapers often wrongly assume that the royal coroner has responsibility because Diana was a member of the royal family. This is wrong because, first, she was no longer a member of the royal family at the time of her death and, second, even if she were, it is not in itself a relevant factor in determining which coroner has jurisdiction.

The royal coroner might, however, have respons-ibility to conduct an inquest where a body lies in his “district”, such as in Windsor Castle, which would generally apply to members of the royal family.

Burgess opened the Diana and Dodi inquests in 2004 and adjourned them to a date to be fixed.

Friday’s resignation of Burgess from those inquests comes a month before he was due to receive the report of an investigation by the metropolitan police into Diana's death.

The inquest was expected to be held next year, but may be further delayed as a replacement coroner is found.

Burgess has suggested that the lord chancellor appoint a “senior judicial figure”, such as a retired high court judge, to become his deputy in order to conduct the inquests, although this would also not be in line with the established procedure for selecting a coroner.

http://www.foiacentre.com/news-diana-060724.html

The Butler-Sloss document is quite comical when it tries to deal with this. All sorts of "recently discovered" documents to "prove" that Dr John Burton made "an honest mistake".

Highly recommended

This also explains why Butler Sloss ruled out the "Royal Jury" from the outset. And why the Queen (the top crook) was represented at the inquest.

But the newspapers have all lied to the people about this.

They said Burgess had stood down due to pressure of work.

Even though this FOI had been in the public domain since July last year!

[antiaristo]

A few questions arise.

First, if the royal coroner did not hold valid jurisdiction, why didn't Al Fayed do something to challenge the illegal actions of Dr John Burton?

The Butler-Sloss document gives the answer

28. In a later short submission Mr Mansfield explained why there had not been an earlier challenge to the decision of Dr Burton and reminded me of the reluctance of Dr Burton to recognise that his client was an interested person in the Diana, Princess of Wales proceedings. With concurrent inquests that point was now irrelevant but in 2004, after an opinion from counsel, the present coroner still did not recognise Mohamed al Fayed as an interested person so Mr Al Fayed was unable to take the issue of jurisdiction any further at the opening of the inquest in to the death of the Princess.

Pretty good, huh?
It's called "Possession is nine tenths of the law".

The "royal coroner" is king of the castle, whoever he or she may be.
And never letting go.

Al Fayed had no standing for years.*
But Sir Ian Blair has no such problems.


And now one for the ladies.
You thought that when you divorced that useless man, that was the end of it?
You were free?

Not so.
YOU do not have that power.
Because Her Majesty decides.

The Treason Felony Act in operation.**

Decision 3

32. I am satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to transfer the hearing of the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales from the Royal Household to Surrey.

33. Mr Mansfield suggested that Diana, Princess of Wales was no longer a member of the Royal Family. I was informed by Sir John Nutting that the suggestion was incorrect and that the Queen had announced, in a news release on the 28th August 1996, that Diana, Princess of Wales would continue to be regarded as a member of the Royal Household.

Decision 4
34. I am satisfied that at her death, Diana Princess of Wales continued to be considered as a member of the Royal Household.

* Al Fayed did finally win the right to be an interested party. He did so by taking action in Scotland.

In Scotland the people are NOT subjects, and have rights. Unlike England.

** That is how decree works.
The Queen announces, the judge obeys.
That's how it works in England.


And by the way, WHO is representing the deceased?

Somebody that simply wants to forget....

Interested Persons:

The Hon Lady Sarah McCorquodale (Executor and on behalf of the Spencer Family)
Not represented

snip

3. Prior to hearing submissions I read out two letters. The first was from the Major
Lowther-Pinkerton, Private Secretary to Prince William and Prince Harry. On their
behalf, he expressed no view on the legal and procedural issues. He wrote and I quote
“The Princes have asked me to indicate that it is their desire that the inquest should
not only be open, fair and transparent, but that it should also move swiftly to a
conclusion.”

A letter from Lady Sarah McCorquodale supported the letter written on behalf of the Princes.

I've gotten into several disputes on this board about the motive for the murder. Given what we now know about the Mishcon note of '95, the Diana letter of '96 and the Scotland Yard minute of '97 it is pretty clear she knew she was a marked woman. An that at some point she would be dealt with.

But I think the timing does come back to Al Fayed and the marriage plans.

For as soon as she married, the Al Fayed family would have had a legitimate interest. The royal coroner would be unable to take possession of the body and jurisdiction over the resulting inquest.

The inquest would be timely, not ten years late.

And Lord Mishcon still around to stand up for the law against the Windsor family.

No wonder the Americans had her under surveillance. They KNEW when she was about to announce her engagement.

And passed it on to the Brits.


_______________________________

"And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God."

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

[antiaristo]

.
ADDED ON EDIT

The penny has just dropped.

She can't hold an inquest hearing until she receives the official Coroner's report from the Commissioner of the Met.

That's why all this activity is labelled "pre-inquest".

It's a complete dog's breakfast!

end of edit


.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss may have a fancy name and the right pedigree, but she's a Mickey Mouse judge.

And a Mickey Mouse judge runs a Mickey Mouse inquest.

Evidence?

What's new
17 January 2007
Pre-inquest hearing set for the 5th March 2007

Date Nature of Proceedings Location Time
5 March 2007 Pre-inquest hearing Court 73, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL 10am
8 January 2007 Pre-inquest meeting Court 4, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL 10am

http://www.butler-sloss-inquests.gov.uk/index.htm


Now here's the thing.
Michael Burgess opened and adjourned the inquest on January 6 2004.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss inherited Burgess's authority as Coroner. She is a continuation.

So the Butler-Sloss inquest is the inquest that opened in 2004.

So it is not possible to hold pre-inquest hearings. It makes no sense.

Yet, there they are

Only a Mickey Mouse judge could make a "mistake" like that.


Hugh, if you read this.
What do you think of her domain name?
This is her first ever inquest
She and Stevens are two of a kind.

_______________________________

"And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God."

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

[antiaristo]

.

From my dictionary

preliminary
adjective
the discussions are still at a preliminary stage preparatory, introductory, initial, opening, prefatory, precursory; early, exploratory. antonym final.

pre- |pri?| |pri|
prefix
before (in time, place, order, degree, or importance)

You can see the difference. Preliminary refers to the early part of a thing: that is, a part of that thing. But the prefix pre- means before a thing: that is, separate from that thing.

Bear that in mind when perusing these two quotes about the decision to hold these "hearings" in public.

Fayed challenges judge's decision to hold Diana hearings in private
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 01/12/2006

Secret inquest hearings into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales are planned for next month, it emerged last night.
**************
Lady Butler-Sloss, the retired senior judge who will sit as the coroner, wants to hold preliminary hearings on Jan 8 and 9 without the press or public present.
*****************
At a preliminary hearing, the coroner would normally set a timetable and decide who should be legally represented at the hearing.
********
Section 17 of the Coroners Rules requires inquests to take place in public unless it would be in the interests of national security for the public to be excluded. But the Department for Constitutional Affairs said there was "no statutory requirement for pre-inquest hearings to be held in public."

The problem facing Lady Butler-Sloss is that the inquest into the princess's death was opened and adjourned by Mr Burgess in January 2004. If next month's proceedings are to be regarded as a continuation of that inquest, it would follow that they should be held in public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iana01.xml

6.15pm

Diana pre-inquest hearing to be public
Jason Deans
Thursday December 7, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

The former senior judge overseeing the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales today backed down over plans to hold the preliminary hearings in private.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the high court family division who will act as coroner for the Diana inquest, has now decided to hold the meetings scheduled for early January in public.

A spokesman for the judicial communications office said she had been persuaded to change her mind because of public interest in the case.

The preliminary hearings will be held nearly 10 years after Diana was killed in a Paris car crash.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 03,00.html


Can you see that the journalists and the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) are talking about different things?

The DCA says the B-S hearings are pre-inquest.

B-S herself says the same thing on her website:

What's new
17 January 2007
Pre-inquest hearing set for the 5th March 2007

But the journalists know that the inquest is already open. So the journalists refer to "preliminary hearings"

The outcome from the squabble is that the "hearings" are held in public. But they remain "pre-inquest"

This is important.
If these are pre-inquest they are not part of an inquest. Which means that B-S can do whatever she wants and is not constrained by the laws concerning the inquest process.

I would have said that this is impossible. But we've seen exactly the same with the Stevens report. Because the Stevens report is not the official Coroner's report, he can write whatever he wants. Including barefaced lies.

Looking further afield, this is exactly what happened to us at Anglia Television in 1994. Malcolm Wall was a fake at the time he locked-out the workforce (like Stevens). And Ashurst Morris Crisp re-started the legal process (just like Butler-sloss) when caught committing additional crimes, thereby excluding those crimes from the matter of the trial.

These corrupting legal manoevers are the standard modus operandi of the Freemasons under the control of the Windsor family.

The net outcome of all this is that these hearings have no legal standing. But they are taking place in the glare of full public scrutiny.

Is that not the textbook definition of "political theatre"?

Have we all not been conned into emphasising the lesser sin (secrecy) above the greater sin (not actually an inquest)?

Why does Al Fayed go along with this?

postscript

I'd really like to hear what others think about all this. Equally I can understand why others may not wish to get involved.

If you prefer, send me a private message and I will keep your name out of this. Or send me an email at john.cleary@tele2.es

_______________________________

"And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God."

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss