by antiaristo » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:10 am
Hi Pam,<br>Glad to see you've been lurking. Thanks for the reinforcement - it's nice to see a spade so described.<br><br>The Brazillian move is good news. The word that comes to mind from this is "assertive"<br><br>12.15pm <br><br>---------<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Brazilian officials fly in for Menezes answers <br><br>Mark Oliver and agencies<br>Friday August 19, 2005 <br>The Guardian<br> <br>Brazilian officials will fly to London next week seeking urgent clarifications from the investigators examining the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by anti-terrorism officers.<br><br>A statement today from Brazil's foreign ministry said the disclosures leaked to the media this week over the killing of the innocent Brazilian had "outraged" the government.<br><br>Judicial officials will visit London on Monday to meet with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is investigating Mr de Menezes' death, and the Metropolitan police. The Brazilian foreign ministry said it expected the officials to "obtain ample clarifications".<br><br>The move follows a leak from the IPCC inquiry to ITV news in which it was revealed Mr de Menezes did not act suspiciously, was not wearing a heavy padded jacket, and did not run and vault a ticket barrier, as previously reported.<br><br>Lawyers acting for the dead man's family yesterday said that the Metropolitan police had either "lied" or been negligent over misinformation being circulated, or left uncorrected.<br><br>The De Menezes family today added to the pressure on the Metropolitan police and its commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, with a highly critical statement.<br><br>Allesandro Pereira, 25, a cousin of Mr de Menezes, who delivered the emotional statement at a news conference in London, said: "For three weeks we've listened to lie after lie about Jean and how he was killed."<br><br>He demanded answers to the misinformation that has surrounded the killing and said British police who visited the family in Brazil had not given a full and true account.<br><br>"I want Ian Blair to think how it felt having to ring Jean's mother and father, our family in Brazil, and tell them that their son was dead, that he was killed in such a way," he said.<br><br>"I want Ian Blair to imagine how we felt having to listen to the lies about Jean, about why he died, to see Ian Blair on television telling those lies. The police know Jean was innocent and yet they let my family suffer, they let us suffer, Ian Blair let us suffer."<br><br>Mr Pereira also asked whether evidence had been lost in the six days before the IPCC became involved. <br><br>Yesterday the IPCC said it had to "work hard" to recover lost ground after the Met had "initially resisted" the external investigation.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1552556,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...56,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>========================<br><br>I'm going to crave your indulgence and highlight another of my letters which I believe is very relevant to the Menezes case.<br>This was my reply to F Elens-Pasos of the European Court of Human Rights. That person had told me that my case (ECHR 24316/03) had been thrown out without considering the facts.<br>However, for the period it was in the system (mid October to 13 November) the effect of my case was to paralyse the Treason Felony Act. It is for that reason that I highlighted the unprecedented nature of these actions.<br>One other comment. The decision of the Court was made on 13 November, but they did not write to me until 25 November. During that window three things happened.<br>First, Bush went to Buckingham Palace. Second, the State Opening of Parliament. Third, Chirac went to London to sign the renewed Entente Cordial.<br><br><br><br>Dear Mr/Ms Elens-Passos,                                        3 December 2003<br><br>Thank you for your carefully (12 days worth) worded reply of 25 November.<br>I’m disappointed of course, but given the new Entente Cordiale I’m not really surprised. Corruption is the very reason I have taken the trouble to circulate these documents to those I consider to be my peers. They can decide for themselves on the truth of the matter and on the integrity of the Council of Europe.<br><br>But you cannot buck the market, Mrs Windsor. The market in expectations functions well, behaves rationally, has digested all publicly available information (including that contained in my own application), and has accurately discounted the future. Those “in the know” know that the Treason Felony Act of 1848 (TFA184<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> is dead meat. To quote Lord Steyn “The idea that s3 of the 1848 Act could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal.” And that changes everything.<br>Just look at the fantastic boosts to British liberties that have been achieved these last three months. The Windsors’ attack dogs – the police and the courts – can be de-fanged and de-clawed. And only time, and the Hutton Report, will show whether this Pandora’s box can ever be closed.<br><br>Look at the evidence. On 3 November the British legislature was informed that three hundred and twenty eight persons had died while in police custody or shortly thereafter during the last five years. Three hundred and twenty eight separate homicides, and never an apology, never an explanation. That is the Windsor interest masquerading as the public interest under authority of the TFA1848.<br>Then, completely out of the blue on 13 November, Sussex Chief Constable Ken Jones travelled to Liverpool to meet the family of James Ashley, who was shot dead on 15 January 1998. The family’s solicitor, Jane Dyson, described the Chief Constable’s apology as “unprecedented”, and she is entirely correct. <br><br>The same is true for the prisons. You can see from my application how the Windsors tried to do murder to me in January 1995 and then again in April 2000. How could they hope to get away with it? Easily. Over the past thirty years more than a thousand human beings have been murdered whilst incarcerated in a British prison. Overwhelmingly they were male, working class and ethnic minority. So I fit the profile quite well.<br>Now this is very useful if you have a problem and make a habit of telling your servants to “make it go away!” So can we really feign surprise that our Most Gracious Lady the Queen should use her dictatorial powers to suppress all information about individual homicides? So no apologies, and never an inquiry in all these thirty years.<br><br>Until the fight put up by the family and friends of Zahid Mubarek, a nineteen year old first offender who was murdered on 21 March 2000. Lord Woolf and two others had ruled that under English law no inquiry was mandated. Yet on 16 October FIVE Law Lords were hurriedly convened to overrule Woolf and effect an historic volte-face. Again, this is wholly unprecedented.<br>So we are starting to get information now about some of the dirty deeds done by agents on the Windsors’ instructions. And these three months have also been marked by the free flow of information about the Windsors themselves. We have learned from Paul Burrell of how Diana Spencer knew she would be killed, in order to clear the way for a Charles/Camilla marriage. We know from George Smith that crimes of violence and domination have been suppressed and hidden by the royal household. We have learned that life does indeed imitate art in the ambiguous, ambivalent relationship between the Prince of Wales (Edward Fox) and Michael Fawcett (Dirk Bogarde). This 24-carat horror story resonates profoundly with my own experiences at the hands of this wicked family. <br><br>Now compare all this to what happened to Kitty Kelley’s book on the Windsors in 1997, when Elizabeth Bowes Lyons was in her pomp and brandishing the TFA1848 at every opportunity. This book by a world-renowned author is still not available in the United Kingdom, but that ban now has no basis in law.<br><br>Developing further the subject of bans with no legal foundation, I’m sure you know all about the Public Interest Immunity certificates scam (PII). The British State secures a criminal conviction by preventing the victim from defending himself in a court of law. And having secured the conviction the poor unfortunate victim is rendered helpless within the prison system. And we know what goes on in there.<br>The most notorious use of the PII was probably in the Matrix Churchill case, where the British State was looking for patsies to take the blame for selling armaments to Sadam Hussein (déjà vu). But the system is employed with increasing frequency because it works! The procedure calls for a minister of the crown to sign a document certifying that specific information is injurious to the public interest. This specific information just happens to be the core of the defence: but that, as they say, is show biz.<br><br>Under the authority of the TFA1848, and by the device of a PII signed by a minister, the interest of the Windsor Mob morphs into the public interest. That is why David Shayler was prevented from using the public interest defence, and was convicted under the Official Secrets Act, even though he had revealed a crime.<br><br>Now the public interest and the Windsor Mob interest are two very different things, often diametrically opposed. You only have to look at the smash and grab raid on Iraq to see the truth in that contention. The Windsor Mob wanted invasion while the general public did not. That’s a pretty raw difference. Yet when passed through the upside down, back to front, positive to negative filter that is the TFA1848, then the public interest lies in not being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is better for us if we do not know about such things.<br>Yet with the TFA1848 in suspense there is now no continuing legal basis to underpin these rank abominations. And what’s more, the public interest defence is now available to those whose actions are truly in the interests of the general public. I certainly hope the courageous Kathy Gun learns that what was denied David Shayler cannot be denied to her.<br>All this is evidence enough of a fait accompli. The damage to the Windsor dictatorship has been done. There is now no reason to persecute me apart from the vile and miserable vindictiveness of the Windsors, their Lords and their Knights.<br><br>All this filth and corruption, all those victims, all of this pain and suffering and desolation. And for what? So that Charlie’s girlfriend can lord it over the peasantry as our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. And leave Charlie to wow his boyfriends with his enormous royal prerogative. Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense.<br>Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense. Shame on him who thinks ill of it. That’s the medieval equivalent of “You’re with us or you’re against us.”<br>Those were the words on the lecterns before Bush and Blair, when they stood shoulder to shoulder in London to deny their war on Islam.<br><br>This is the motto of the Order of the Garter. The Knights Templar. The Crusaders.<br>“From the 18th century to 1946 appointments to the Order of the Garter were made on the advice of government. Today the order has returned to its original function as a mark of royal favour. Knights of the Garter are chosen personally by the sovereign.” The garter was returned to its cabalist roots by our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. She was acting on the instructions of the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley. It is important to understand that the Order of the Garter is not a Christian body. St George’s Chapel is not a Christian church and not a part of the Anglican Communion, but a reproduction of the Temple of Solomon. Everything is back to front with these people, so it is not difficult to deduce that they worship the Prince of Lies. These Crusaders, like the last, have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.<br><br>In January 1991 White House correspondent Sarah McClendon reported overhearing George HW Bush say “If the people knew what we are doing they would chase us up the street and hang us from the lamppost.” Knights of the Garter include Harald of Norway, Juan Carlos of Spain, Carl Gustaf of Sweden, Beatrice of the Netherlands, Margarethe of Denmark and Jean of Luxembourg. And of course Bonesman George HW Bush. Warrior knights who send others to die on their behalf. Knights of the Temple of Solomon, out to destroy Islam and take possession of Jerusalem. And the only way to stop them is to destroy the British Monarchy. The only way to save democracy may lie with Ari Fleischer’s well-directed bullet.<br><br>In 1994 the wicked old witch of Windsor cast an evil spell on my family and me. In 2002 I broke that spell, only to have the Knights of the Prince of Lies deny there was ever such a spell in the first place. When you tell me this decision is not subject to appeal you speak a higher truth than you understand, for this bad faith cheating by the Council of Europe invites only violence in return.<br>Yours sincerely,<br><br><br><br>John Cleary BSc MA MBA<br>cc Amnesty International (Irene Khan); Liberty (Katharine Gun)<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>