News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

Could the Muad D'ib result blow the courts out of the water?

Started by ceylon, May 21, 2011, 12:41:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ceylon

this could blow the corts out of the water

precident set at john antony hill's case

http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html

mescalito


FOTLCKA Michael

#2
Without having seen a transcript of the judgment, but having read the defence put before the court by the falsely accused, I do not believe that the coronation stone argument is what brought about a just verdict. I believe it was the fact that the charges were completely unsustainable and it was therefore relatively straighforward for the jury to acquit an innocent man. It does create a legal precedent, but not one that sustains that particular defence, which was [if memory serves correctly] described as unimportant by the judge in any event.

That is not to say that the monarchy has any legitimate claim to these lands, but this has nothing to do with the stone the Queen was crowned upon, even if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was cognisant of the fact that it was a fake, but fraud by false representation is most certainly one of the charges that should be brought against the crime syndicate currently known as the House of Windsor, for the fabricated histroy it has used to brainwash the masses into believing that it has a legitimate claim to rule the lands its forebears stole from the indigenous peoples of Albien by genocidal conquest, following the decimation of these fertile islands by the debris of a comet that struck this planet in the year known as AD562 - the darkest point of Kali Yuga (Descending), otherwise known as the Dark Ages.

And that's before we even mention the mass murder of innocent men, women and children and the fact that every EU Treaty signed by or for & on behalf of the monarch is a breach of constitutional law and as such is considered a nullity. However, the tradition of crowning the monarch on the coronation stone is a constitutional convention, rather than a law, and as such adherence to it cannot be enforced by a court. In my humble opinion, this is the reason the judge did not consider that the substance of the defence was of any consequence, except in so far as JAH was able to clearly demonstate that he was not guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Namaste