antiaristo mini-interview

by **rothbardian** » Sun May 21, 2006 1:50 am

'anti'-- I've noticed some people here, arguing that your personal predicament has really nothing to do with the PTB...and that you've cooked up a big story for personal reasons. How do you answer them (or do you have a thread somewhere where you address that directly)? Also, I assume that your children have been lied to about your absence? Where is the thread where you were talking directly to your daughter ('rustyfork'?), in response to her sad words (that you quoted over at the Titanic thread). Also, I'm sure you must've addressed this before and if you want to simply link me to any previous explanation, please do so but...I was interested to know more about what you think would happen to you if you went back to Great Britain. Would you be in danger of jail time?

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 21, 2006 9:48 am

rothbardian, I'm really, really, really grateful for your invitation. This past year has been like trying to play tennis alone. (In front of a crowd hurling bottles!) What happened is that I made the biggest mistake of all. I caught powerful public figures in the commission of crime. The crime itself was quite simple. But the ensuing twelve years of fighting and cover-up have made for a tangled tale that is difficult for those not personally invested to follow. The simple crime was financial fraud. My employer was Anglia Television, and I worked at just below board level, reporting to the Chairman and the Chief Executive. Towards the end of 1993 the board was approached by a financial institution, and by January 1994 a sale of the company had been agreed, blessed by both boards, and put to the shareholders for their acceptance. Four months later a new Managing Director was announced publicly. That Managing Director proceeded to summarily dismiss one third of the employees of the company. I myself was given three days to get out. I knew that what was happening was unlawful and in breach of the agreed takeover terms. So I decided to fight. And what I discovered was clear financial fraud. I found out that the new "Managing Director" was in fact a fake. He had not been appointed to the board, let alone to the senior position he claimed. My own redundancy note, signed by Mr Wall as Managing Director was dated 24 May 1994. But Mr Wall was not to be appointed to the board of directors until 21 July 1994. What was going on? This is section 285 of the Companies Act 1985. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>285 Validity of acts of directors The acts of a director or manager are valid notwithstanding any defect that may afterwards be dicovered in his qualification or appointment.<hr></blockquote> That is good law, and is there for a reason. But it can be misused, as in this case. It can be misused to protect the directors of Anglia from any legal consequences of the fraud they commissioned. Because they did not appoint Wall until July 21 they are not responsible in law for his acts prior to that date. Yet because of s 285 his acts are valid in law - so long as the date of his appointment was a "defect afterwards discovered". Months or perhaps years later in court, how to PROVE deliberate fraud on the part of those well known personalities, rather than "an honest mistake"? Under normal circumstances it would be impossible. By shifting the burden of proof onto the victim, the law becomes the friend of the criminal. Are you with me so far? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/21/06 7:50 am

by **blanc** » Sun May 21, 2006 12:52 pm

I am interested in this also antiaristo - because though I have noted the points you make with ref. to the treason act, its meshing with your personal predicament has had me baffled. Also, as you know, the public figures I think you are referring to here, whom elsewhere you have accused of attempted murder if I have it right, seem to be shadows in the background of a very unpleasant organisation which I've been given first hand details of. So a fleshing out of the intimidation/threats/heavies aspect would be welcome. I hope you will cover the question of what connection you find between these individuals and the Woman able to wheel in the treason act - that is where I become most lost.

by **rothbardian** » Sun May 21, 2006 5:39 pm

anti-- My problem is that I'm somewhat limited in time. I can't afford to go too deeply into the details. I'm currently researching a wide variety of subjects in pursuit of a big picture of what the PTB are up to worldwide. I'm a big picture guy. I fully understand that you are deeply enmeshed in the details of this controversy, but if you can describe things in bigger strokes, that would be helpful to me. So to summarize briefly your last post-- you're saying that there were illegal shenanigans involved in the transitional activities of your company, that led (unjustly?) to your loss of a (fairly high level) job. Without getting too deeply into detail-- what connects this specific situation to the Queen and her people, again in broader strokes. By the way, Fritz Springmeier's research and the whole Marc Dutroux thing (which clearly indicates widespread cultic pedophilia among Europe's PTB) certainly go a long way to convincing me of the presence of a corresponding 'evil elite' such as we have in America. (I hope my aversion to greater detail isn't too off-putting for you.)

by **antiaristo** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So a fleshing out of the intimidation/threats/heavies aspect would be welcome.<hr></blockquote> blanc, The only way I can do that is to tell the story as it happened to me. I'm quite happy to do that, provided that you keep on listening and make some noise (like confirming you are still with me, or asking about anything that is unclear or confusing.

by **dugoboy** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:56 pm

go on ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Mon May 22, 2006 4:15 pm

DAMN IT! I LOST THE WHOLE POST ON FLOOD ALERT! roth, I've scrawled thousands of words by hand. But I know in my bones that I won't fullfil what you want. Let me explain. What we are facing is a shadow operation. It subverts by reversing natural law. That is one of its techniques for exercising power withot detection. It intervenes, but causes the agent/agency not TO DO something, but to NOT DO something. It leaves not footprints, but the absence of footprints which ought to be there. Do you understand what I'm getting at? ACD and the dog that didn't bark? The nature of the evidence is different, more nebulous, slippery, even. You've probably seen these quotes from`powerful Americans. "A conspiracy so subtle..."; "A monstrous conspiracy..."; "Nothing happens by chance in politics...". A HIDDEN POWER Let me point you towards two threads. 1 This is that hidden power, and its source. There is a case example of how that power was used to bypass the normal rules of evidence in the Iraq aggression <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=93.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=93.topic</a> 2 This is the future of that power. There is a fight going on over that power today (and it includes your friends in the Vatican, but in a peripheral role) <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm29.showMessage?topicID=191.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=191.topic</a> When you get a bit of time have a look at those two threads. If you come to conclude that I'm nut, that's OK. You'll have looked at the case and the evidence I've put forward, weighed them, and made up your own mind. That's all anybody can ask. Does it have any relevance for the USA? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>They were prepared to show how top U.S. officials, also cronies of Clinton, were in the dope traffic from S.E. Asia, "the Golden Triangle", including George Herbert Walker Bush, retired Pentagon official General Colin Powell, and former Pentagon official Richard Armitage.<hr></blockquote> Four names in that sentence: Clinton, Bush, Powell and Armitage. And ALL FOUR hold a knighthood from (and therefore swore an oath of allegiance to) Queen Elizabeth. I believe you call that batting one hundred? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>May his soul rest in peace. anti, maybe you can repost your "batting 100" bit onto rothbardian's mini interview in order for him to understand the Big Picture?<hr></blockquote> ps rustyfork left footprints, here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=7.topic&start=21&stop=26">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=26</a>

by **rothbardian** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:12 pm

anti-- You may have misunderstood me a little. Firstly, I am totally with you on the concept of evil cabals perpetrating conspiracies etc. I also see a connection between European PTB and USA PTB. Just starting with the founding of our country and all the weird Masonic indicators (an obvious import from European PTB). I was just wondering about any interesting 'moments of truth' in YOUR personal experience. Some 'smoking gun' indicators that show how directly your situation is tied into the Queen and her henchman. You know...some attention-getting tidbits that would make someone say- "Wow, you really were/are up against the real bad guys." In short (or fairly short), how did you originally make the connection between your predicament and the PTB? I also was interested in you family's plight and whether you might be in danger if you went back to Great Britain. In that regard you provided the original link of your daughter's post. I'll have to read that. Thanks. Again, my heart goes out to you.

by **blanc** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:28 am

Yes, crack on with answering Rothbardian's last question antiaristo, it'll probably answer mine at same time, and if not I'll chip in again.

by **antiaristo** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:55 am

blanc, roth, dugo, OK. Here's what I'm going to do. First, I'll give roth some shorthand answers. Then I'm going to review the fraud and how it works. This is important. Then I'm going to tie it in to Tony Blair. Then I'll go back to telling a chronological story. There is a thread I will refer to with regularity, and it is called "The Return of the Vampire of Finance". The URL is <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=2221.topic&start=1&stop=20">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=1&stop=20</a> (Note: that will change when Jeff moves the thread into Data Dump) roth asks essentially when did I know something REALLY BIG was going on? 13 February 1995 when I received a FORGED court order in Dublin. 15 March 1995 when John Major was questioned on the first Anglia inquiry in the House of Commons. His reply to Dale Campbell-Savours MP was <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lord Archer is my friend. Lord Archer has been my friend. Lord Archer will continue to be my friend.<hr></blockquote> 25 March 1995 when I learned that THREE different English police forces were looking for me (Metropolitan, Norfolk and Staffordshire). The pretext given to my wife was that I was MENTALLY ILL. 15 May 1995 when the first two men came after me late at night in Cork City. October 1995 (approximately) when the SECOND inquiry was closed down with the announcement that "No action is to be taken against any of the parties." That second report was all about me and was NEVER PUBLISHED. It remains a State secret today (see the Vampire of Finance thread, post number 20 for an Observer story) Now I'll recap the fraud. (i) The directors of Anglia Television had a formal duty of care to protect the employees and their pensions. But they chose to evade that duty. This they achieved by introducing a new incumbent into the most senior office in the company (Managing Director) but not formally appointing him. Since he was not formally appointed, the board of directors is not legally responsible for his actions. This is important to understand. It is important to understand because I later discovered it has been used as a tool of Statecraft. IF AN OFFICER IS NOT FORMALLY APPOINTED, THEN THE BOARD IS NOT LEGALLY LIABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. (ii) Once the board subsequently appoints that same man his acts become legally valid ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE, A "DEFECT AFTERWARDS DISCOVERED". The board is safe because they enjoy the presumption of innocence under s 285 of the Companies Act 1985. Tony Blair Blair is implicated in this affair in two ways. First, he was put into control of the Labour Party with money from the same source that had put Malcolm Wall into Anglia Television as a fake Managing Director. The name of that "same man" is Lord Clive Hollick. The reader is referred to posts no. 105 and 106 of the Vampire thread. Blair was in on this fraud from the very beginning. He was and is an ally of the criminal Lord Clive Hollick. If you doubt this I suggest you read the whole of the Vampire thread. You will see favours, honours and privileges showered on the creep. Second It turns out that Blair was doing the same thing as Malcolm Wall! Blair was operating as "prime minister" WITHOUT HAVING BEEN FORMALLY APPOINTED. He was ULTRA VIRES from 1997 to 2000. This did not emerge until June 2000, so you will have to wait a bit until I reach that point in the chronology. But for this period of time (1997 to 2000) Blair's signature on a document is completely useles and in no way binding on the British State. Now let me get back to the chronological account. I said in my first post that "Months or perhaps years later in court, how to PROVE deliberate fraud on the part of those well known personalities, rather than "an honest mistake"? Under normal circumstances it would be impossible." But these were NOT "normal circumstances" I knew that what was going on was unlawful. I made the point above about working "just below board level" not to impress with my personal achievements in life, but because I knew those people personally. I attended the meetings of the board. I knew all the Anglia directors socially. They knew that I had been responsible for the Anglia application to renew the license, and that I had delivered. Now these same people had turned round and broken the law in order to cheat me. I could not understand it. Throughout June 1994 I bombarded the Anglia (and MAI) directors with letters of complaint. I got a single reply, from Lady Mary Archer, wife of Lord Jeffrey Archer. I bombarded the Anglia Company Secretary, a personal friend, with demands for information (I was also a shareholder, and so legally entitled to the information). Robin Stephenson was scrupulously honest in responding to my factual questions, and avoided offering any personal opinions. What I'm getting at is that these were NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, because I could PROVE this was no "honest mistake", no "defect afterwards discovered". I had those replies to my complaints, dated from before his date of appointment. The loophole that the directors of Anglia had opened for themselves had been closed, because I took action AT THE TIME. Is everybody still with me?

by **marykmusic** » Tue May 23, 2006 11:27 am

I'm paying attention. But I'm running out of time (summer job elsewhere with no computer.) --MaryK

by **dbeach** » Tue May 23, 2006 4:19 pm

"What we are facing is a shadow operation. It subverts by reversing natural law." queen lizardbeth ,her US viceroy GHW Bush , the various bush related cabals like carliars ,the euro /american royalty and of course the mossad MURDERED JFK BK MLK JFK jr stole 2 elections with their pals IN S.& B. They are collectivley an intergenerational bloodline who activley worship lucifer /satan and both clinton and hitler are in the bloodline DO your own research and make your own conclusions We are fortunate to have ANTI here who brings his own logical insights into the current crisis

by **dugoboy** » Tue May 23, 2006 4:52 pm

im still here. ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:27 pm

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm belabouring this. One thing I've learned is that sometimes you must keep on repeating something. Often the point is missed on the first go. I want to make sure y'all understand the nature of the fraud. That is the underlying crime. Everything that happened subsequent to that, including many more serious crimes, were about covering-up this underlying crime. If you don't understand that underlying fraud, and its ramifications, none of the rest will make any sense. The ramification is jail-time. Two members of the House of Lords (Lord Hollick and Lord Puttnam) The wife of another Lord (Lady Archer) The Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and Knight of the Garter (Sir Timothy Colman) And many other prominent personages. The risks are ridiculous. Until you see the loophole. They thought they were safe. They just had to get through to July 21, when Malcolm Wall would be properly appointed. And Lord Clive Hollick was known as "the human calculator" for his ability to squeeze a little bit of profit out of any business (now we know how!). In spite of all my efforts to talk them out of it, they went ahead and consumated the fraud on July 21 when they elected Malcolm Wall to the board, as Managing Director. The prospect for talking was gone. It became a test of strength. I wrote that letter to Blair on July 25. I appointed solicitors. We sued in August 1994. Then the bombshell came out. Lord Jeffrey Archer had been caught insider trading on Anglia TV shares. Caught red-handed. He bought about half a million dollars worth in the days following the board meeting that decided to accept an offer from MAI plc, in early January 1994. Two weeks later the deal was announced to the Stock Exchange. Anglia shares rose by about a third. Lord Archer had sold the shares immediately following the announcement, and trousered a profit of about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Lord Archer's wife was a member of the board that had accepted the MAI offer. That was insider trading. It had also taken place during a "close period" when directors or spouses are prohibited from trading (within a certain number of days of annual profits announcements). That was two criminal offences. The Department of Trade and Industry had launched a formal investigation into Archer's insider trading. Roger Kaye QC and Hugh Aldous FCA had been appointed under s 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. But there had been no public announcement, which was very unusual. From February to July 1994 Kaye and Aldous had been investigating insider dealing by the husband of an Anglia director. That explained so much! It explained why the Anglia directors had been powerless to help us. They had been interviewed by the inspectors and SWORN TO SECRECY. Their own legal advisors would have forbiden any contact with me - they could end up putting themselves into legal jeapourdy. Their hands are tied. And it explained why it was, of all the directors, that only Mary Archer had replied to me. I had a better relationship with other directors. But it was her fault that the directors as a group were in this predicament, because it was her husband that had triggered the investigation. Next I'm going to post some material from Hansard. The minister replying for the government is Margaret Beckett, the new Foreign Secretary. At the time she had the fancy title of President of the Board of Trade, but she was really just the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Beckett had come into this position with the Blair government that took office in 1997. Something else you should know. Blair appointed one of his "Special Advisors" into the Department of Trade and Industry right at the beginning. The man he appointed? Lord Clive Hollick. The very same man that had instigated the fraud at Anglia Television. The man that put in Malcolm Wall as the fake Managing Director! So in all fairness to Beckett, that is who was looking over her shoulder when she gave all those misleading replies about the inquiry into Anglia Television. (coming up next)

by **antiaristo** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:44 pm

Hansard 15 July 1998 <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mrs. Beckett: The investigations into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc were matters which were begun and completed under the previous Administration. Reports on allegations of insider dealings are never published, as there are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such investigations. I would consider opening a further investigation only if substantial fresh information became available, and if it was considered to be in the public interest to do so. In accordance with normal practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of insider dealing investigations (unless there was some overriding public interest in doing so) no announcement was initially made of the appointment of inspectors on 8 February 1994 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group Plc between 10 and 21 January 1994. On 7 July 1994, however, it became apparent that the media had detailed knowledge of the inspection, and the then Secretary of State accordingly decided that acknowledgement was in the public interest and confirmed that an investigation was being undertaken into the dealings in Anglia shares and that Lord Archer was one of the persons concerned. The inspectors reported on 19 July 1994, having conducted formal interviews with 22 witnesses. The then Secretary of State's decision to take no further action was announced on 28 July 1994. The original investigation had attracted widespread media coverage and speculation continued in the press and a number of further allegations were received in the Department about other dealings in Anglia shares. On reviewing this information in the spring of 1995 the then Secretary of State concluded that the inspectors should be re-appointed to investigate this new information. The then Secretary of State also decided, in line with normal practice, that this re-appointment should not be announced and that no further public statement should be made. The inspectors were re-appointed on 4 May 1995 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia between 20 December 1993 and 21 January 1994. On 26 July 1996 the inspectors submitted their report on the second investigation, having conducted formal interviews with 32 witnesses. They concluded that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be founded. Although the second investigation was a matter of some discussion and speculation in the media at the time, the re-appointment of inspectors has not previously been publicly acknowledged; and answers to recent parliamentary questions refer only to the first investigation. However, in order that there should be no misconception on this matter, I now consider it right to confirm the re-appointment of the inspectors in 1995. No papers relating to these two reports from the previous administration, and neither of the reports themselves have been seen by present Ministers. However, my officials have considered whether recent information constitutes new evidence which I ought to consider with a view to deciding whether to re-open the investigation. They have advised me that it does not, and I have accepted that advice; I have similarly accepted their advice that no useful purpose would be served by referring this case to Counsel or to the DPP.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980715/text/80715w09.htm">www.parliament.the-statio...715w09.htm</a> OK I got some dates wrong. The information leaked right at the end of July 1994. And the second investigation was shut down in July 1996. Two months after I fled Ireland and came to the Canary Islands. Beckett is very vague about the second inquiry, no? That second inquiry was all about me. But she cannot say that, can she? Next I'll explain what triggered the second inquiry. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/23/06 5:47 pm

antiaristo mini-interview

antiaristo mini-interview

Re: antiaristo mini-interview

interested

big picture

Re: antiaristo mini-interview

Re: antiaristo mini-interview

Re: antiaristo mini-interview

your personal connection to it all

still here

Re: still here

Re: still here

Re: still here

Re: still here

Re: still here

Margaret Beckett in the House of Commons

Who is online