***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

COURT HEARINGS

At Warrington Magistrates Court at 12 midday on Friday first, 17 July 1998.

Geoffrey Scriven is charged with committing criminal damage costing £5. The arresting officer made it £2 but the desk sergeant said; "You'd better make it £5". Evidence is being withheld from the defence. This is not in the same category as the Kevin Taylor case where Greater Manchester Police were forced to fork out £6 million in costs and damages after Kevin had been framed to discredit his friend John Stalker who was about to make a breakthrough is his shoot-to-kill enquiry. Mr Scriven has been openly critical about what he calls the "Jewish Mafia" in and around Manchester High Court and is currently pursuing the Lord Chancellor and senior judges for having failed to discipline errant judges. This had nothing to do with the two Manchester judges who are being investigated for being members of a paedophilia ring or the judge who is a compulsive gambler and who could be tempted to accept an inducement for favourable treatment. Mr Scriven has already made one appearance in court. This second hearing is for a pre-trial review.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

WE REQUIRE INFORMATION ABOUT HELLMANN PARCEL SERVICES

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

LETTER TO LONDON EVENING STANDARD ON 3 JULY 1998

From Barrister Nigel Ley, Gray's Inn Chambers, Gray's Inn, London WC1

<<I READ your article (Call for end to barristers' higher court monopoly 25 June) about the Government wishing to give full rights of audience to Crown prosecutors in the Crown Court.

The Government says it is to save money. However it has the greatest possible constitutional implications.

From the treason trials during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, right down until the Matrix-Churchill trial of this decade, the Government of the day has used perjured evidence to try to get convictions of the innocent.

In addition, it uses the tactic of withholding from the defence documents and other evidence that support their protestation of innocence.

The problem with withholding evidence, from the Government point of view, is that at the present time it has to use self-employed barristers in private practice who are not prepared to go along with such tactics.

It is difficult to conduct a case without allowing one's own lawyer full access to one's documents. Using only civil servants to prosecute they can be ordered to doctor evidence and to withhold from the defence documents they are entitled to use.

I am not suggesting any impropriety would happen in the majority of cases that are routine, only in those prosecutions where the Government itself has an interest in the outcome of the case.

To insist upon the prosecution having to use independent barristers to ensure a fair trial is not special pleading on my behalf.

If a trial lawyer was an independent barrister he would make certain that the witness in court said what he believed to be true, not what the Government wanted him to say.

It would be different with an in-house lawyer. His promotion, and indeed his job, would depend on compliance with the orders and wishes of his employer, i.e. the Government.

Therefore, Lord Irvine's proposals must be rejected. Let him choose his own wallpaper but do not allow him to introduce measures which will lead to the conviction of the innocent.>>

Comment:- Not only does the government have innocent people convicted of criminal offences it also stops its cronies and its own members from being prosecuted. Further it can release convicted felons from prison without explanation (Michael Howard and the drug dealers).

No solicitor or barrister can oppose government diktats without risking damaging repercussions. There are a few brave or foolhardy solicitors and barristers who will oppose corruption and act frequently pro bono publico. (Gareth Pierce?, Jim Nicholls, Nigel Ley, Michael Mansfield).

Nigel Ley misses the main area of corruption in the legal process. There are far more miscarriages of justice in the civil courts where solicitors and barristers make a killing and judges are secretly briefed by the civil servants in the Lord Chancellor's department.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

CRONYGATE

You were warned, before you voted, that New Labour would sell you down the river. The current scandals are but the tip of the iceberg. The Scots did not take long to see through New Labour with its Bilderberg agenda. The Scottish National Party is now 14 points ahead of Labour in the latest opinion poll. The government is so busy polishing up its image, feathering its own nest and spinning tales which are too clever by half that it is missing all the signs of unrest. Not quite. The Masonic Orangemen are on the march in Ulster. Let us form an English National Party dedicated to cleaning up politics and the judiciary.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

CARTER RUCK>DEREK JAMIESON>BILL ROACHE OF CORONATION STREET

We write from memory and will correct any mistakes, if advised, in our next issue. Carter Ruck is proud of his Masonic membership. He is solicitor to the Privy Council. He is the acknowledged expert on libel and rarely loses a case.

Derek Jamieson (Editor of the Mirror?) engaged Carter Ruck with a view to taking some form of action against the BBC for having ridiculed him in one of its programmes. Derek sued for libel, lost the case and was ruined. Carter Ruck claimed that he had advised Derek to sue for libel on the advice of counsel (Eadie?). Counsel went public and contradicted Carter Ruck. Counsel had advised that libel action was not a good option. A long time secretary of Carter Ruck resigned in protest at Derek's treatment.

Bill Roache engaged Carter Ruck and sued the Sun for libel. The Sun offered Bill £50,000 in settlement before the case came to trial. Bill won the case. The jury awarded him £50,000 damages. This meant that Bill was liable for the costs of the action that would be greatly in excess of £50,000. Tom Shields, QC, who acted for Bill in the libel action, gave evidence against him in his case against Carter Ruck. We do not know whether that was in breach of confidentiality between Barrister and client.

The judge in the case against Carter Ruck was Mr Justice Newman who, in our view, should be removed from the Bench. He was the judge who heard the Nicholas Haralidis case against the Manchester Health authority. See VOMIT 25/98. After Haralidis left the hearing the recording machine was left running. The transcript showed that Newman had conspired with the opposition to have Haralidis silenced not only in the case before Newman but in another case that he should not have known about.

We do not know whether the jury was aware of the £50,000 offer by the SUN or whether there was a Mason on the jury. Or was it just another Masonic twist? What we do know is that Bill Roache was singularly unfortunate in his choice of solicitor. We suspect that the judge was specially selected for the case. That is Freemasonry for you!

In our area Masonic corruption is widespread and Carter Ruck has been involved sending threatening letters to whistle-blowers. In one instance people made written objections to an application for a Vehicle Operators Licence. The Transport Commissioner, a Mason, instructed his clerk to expunge the objections from the record while Carter Ruck threatened libel action if the objections were repeated. The objectors were frightened off. In fact the objections should have been dealt with at the public enquiry where the applicant could or could not have disproved the allegations.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

THE DEBASED BBC AND WATCHDOG

See VOMIT 26/98. Complain about the impartiality of the BBC and, in particular, about "Watchdog" and you'll be threatened with legal action. Watchdog can ruin businesses and can protect its own from exposure. Let us quote from the Times of 4 July 1998.

<<In recent times, the programme (Watchdog) has been accused of lowering its journalistic standards. Earlier this year the travel company Airtours accused it of smearing a hotel used by British package tourists by overemphasising its shortcomings.

Last month, the BBC apologised and paid undisclosed damages for libel to the distributor of an anti-ageing cream for alleging that the company had concealed from researchers its intention to publicise the results of clinical trials it was funding.>>

At one time the BBC was admired worldwide by friend and foe. How the mighty have fallen! Birt should resign before the BBC reputation falls further.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

WHO DID KILL DIANA?

Comment:- The Sunday Telegraph, on 5 July 1998, sank to a new low in gutter journalism with a top of the front page headline in large letters "MI5 demolishes Fayed assassination claims" and on page 2 "MI5 rejects Fayed story". The Telegraph rubbish simply reinforces the allegation that Princess Diana was a victim of our security services.

The Telegraph relies upon a yet unpublished blurb by MI5 in which it claims that it does not engage in dirty tricks or murder and does not use agents to do the killing on its behalf. As Mandy Rice-Davies once famously said in court "They would say that wouldn't they?" Unbelievably there is no mention of Diana or of Mohamed Al Fayed in the MI5 article and the article has still to be released. MI5 must have supplied the Telegraph with an advance copy in return for its putting the spin against Mr Al Fayed. Why? Because Mr Al Fayed is right! Remember Henri Paul's carbon monoxide level! Mr Fayed did not invent that!

To anyone familiar with British Justice and with police corruption it will be obvious that Mr Al Fayed, like Asil Nadir, is not going to get a fair crack of the whip in a British Court whether it is civil or criminal. Both are Muslims and both are wealthy. Neither, unlike Jewish businessmen, is likely to collaborate with the Bilderberg crooks.

Note that the manipulators in our security services are MI6 (abroad), MI5 (UK) and Special Branch and that they stick together like shit to a blanket. If our security services were involved in the death of Diana it would be MI6 and not MI5. Who framed Colin Wallace if it wasn't MI5? Who decided on shoot-to-kill in Ulster and who was responsible for the Bloody Sunday killings if it wasn't MI5? Who ordered the killing of the three IRA members in Gibraltar if it wasn't MI6? Then there is the Dr Gerald Bull killing in Belgium probably by Mossad but why do the Belgian authorities want to question the MI6 men who were in Belgium at the material time? Who was responsible for the framing of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four if it wasn't MI5 trying to justify its existence? You may not believe what we have just written. You would not believe what we could write about MI5 and its use of professional people including members of the medical profession. It is a mistake to think that MI5 is involved only in security. If you are involved in litigation you can be targeted by MI5/Special Branch and then be arrested by the police on trumped up charges. If MI5 says that you are a security risk you will never get a fair trial or an impartial judge in a British Court. Our security services toe the Bilderberg line.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

THE OBSERVER

This organ requires new management quickly. Nevertheless it has made a good start to the finish of New Labour with its exposure of Crony Phoney Tony Blair. Fork tongue defends himself by stating that there is not one iota of truth in the allegations against the government. The Observer did not make accusations against the government but against lobbyists who shared the beds of government ministers and their mouthpieces and offered access to them and their documents in return for cash.

In the same issue we have Andrew Marr boosting the ego of the Lord Chancellor; constitutional reform, Freedom of Information, a Bill of Rights, legal reform etc. Marr does not mention the secret briefing of judges or the fact that the Cardinal appoints judges. There are only two reforms necessary. The first requires the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's office and his political control of the legal process. The second requires the formation of a lay body to investigate malpractice and criminality of judges and to punish them severely with long prison services.

Also in the same issue there is an article by James Meek on anti-Semitism, racism and fascism in Russia. Is Mr Meek another Jew like his colleague Melanie Phillips? Anti-Semitism is universal and is developing its own momentum. The remedy lies with the Jews themselves. In the UK the main source of hatred of Jews is the legal system. However, as with Masons, Jews will take no advice from the profane. As long as the money rolls in to hell with the consequences for Jews and Gentiles alike.

***BILDERBERGBLAIRBILDERBERGBROWNBILDERBERGSTRAWBILDERBERGIRVINEBILDERBERGWOOLFEBILDERBERGBINGHAM***

Published by J M Todd, Misbourne Farmhouse, Amersham Road, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks. HP8 4RU