It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maud Dib of 7/7 ripple effect acquitted on charges of subverting the course of justice

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
An interesting thing came out of the MD/AJH case and the link is below !
I posted this in another thread but for those interested and missed it here it is :-

www.henrymakow.com...



Peace




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by impressme
 


The point under discussion was whether it would be possible to silence all the broadcast professionals involved, so asking whether you would stay silent seems relevant. You must think it is because you even asked me the same question.



This is completely possible and is in fact a reality.


Then why has no journalist or broadcaster ever mentioned it? How can they keep thousands of people quiet? And why do stories, like those mentioned above, on MPs expenses or CIA complicity in arms dealing come out?

You can't say that some elements in the media are honest, because they would instantly blow the whistle on the control and censorship on other areas - like 9/11. So if the media can be silenced at will by TPTB why does it sometimes publish stories which damage TPTB?




How many critical, honest examinations
do you see in the MSM regarding the largest controversy in modern history i.e. 9/11


Ah, now I see your problem. 9/11 is not the largest controversy in modern history. There is "continued silence" because there is no real debate. The "OS" won years ago, and only a handful of people on the internet think differently.



The MSM is a sold-out entity but occasionally, under unpredictable circumstances,
stories like the canary wharf shootings (reported almost as it happened) unwittingly get out,
but are quickly suppressed and denied when injurious to their masters schemes and narratives.


How? Describe how this would happen. Because it appears to me to be practically impossible.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


It's interesting that among its many errors the article you link to claims that the verdict is an endorsement of "7/7 Ripple effect". This is clearly nonsense.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


'Many errors' ?
Care to elaborate please ?
Or is it just in your opinion ?
Not attacking you but would like you to explain ?
Cheers



Peace
edit on 063030p://06America/Chicago06 by ProRipp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Sure.

British monarchs are not "coronated". The veracity of their coronation does not rest on the "fakeness" or otherwise of the stone on which they are crowned. Notice this "fake" aspect isn't really pursued.

The authority of the monarch in cases like this is largely notional, not actual. In effect Regina stands in for the people and the CPS in bringing the case, so saying that she personally has no right to do so is just vexatious nonsense and makes the guy sound even more like a crank.

The internal logic doesn't even make sense. The piece says that she signed an oath, but implies that it was part of an illegal ceremony. So why would that oath be binding? If she wasn't the monarch in the first place how did she "cease to be the monarch" when she signed the first piece of legislation"?

It subsequently says she has broken the oath because of something the bible says. How can she break an oath that isn't legal, and why would anyone care what some obscure part of the bible says when brought to bear on British law?

And if the bible disallows the making of "man made" laws, how are laws ever made? How would fraud be illegal? How would you decide the penalty for murder? All laws are by definition codified by man.

Judges can in fact deny the request for a jury trial. And the idea that the judge was ruling in his own favour is specious. He may on paper derive his authority from the crown, but in any practical sense this is not true. The monarch is a figurehead only. Saying that you don't recognise her authority is pointless because in no practical way is she exercising it. Furthermore there was a jury in this case.

The piece then argues that only something called "God's Laws" should be used. How would this work for Hindus? Do we want a religious state? What does God say about internet piracy or hacking? Where in the bible does it say that juries are the only lawful form of justice? As far as I know trial by jury in the modern sense only goes back to about the 12th Century AD.

The US Bar does not "report" to the British monarch, nor recognise its authority. Finding Hill not guilty does not in any way endorse his "bullet proof defence" based on the monarchy stuff above - the opposite, since this wasn't why he was found not guilty. Nor does it suggest that 7/7 Ripple Effect is the truth. That's a flat-out lie
which the piece tries to sneak in. In fact he was found innocent - and rightly so - because his action wasn't a crime. I personally don't agree with the arrest or charges, but his defence is nonsense and his film is worse.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I assume you are aware of the freeman movement ?
There are only three common (gods) laws !
These three laws cover everything from fraud to murder !
All other 'laws' are ACT's of statute !
Only enforcable when given the consent of the governed !
There is a difference between Lawful and Legal !


Peace



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


That's fine, and one can take issue with the legal framework of the United Kingdom. It's just that that article does so in a manner that is spurious.

"The consent of the governed" also does not mean that you can just pick which laws you fancy obeying. I personally don't think that drugs should be illegal but society doesn't seem to concur with me. By their nature some laws are not going to meet with universal approval, but there is generally a societal dialogue around those questions.

Take for example the question of bank liquidity ratios. Where would your simplified rule of law put them? In actual fact governance of banks' lending is one of the most interesting and fascinating areas of modern law. It requires enormous amounts of consideration and thought and there is an ongoing debate about it. But how can a state that derives laws only from the bible even begin to formulate a strategy on such an issue?

And the bible is full of nonsense anyway. In Leviticus 19.19 we are told not to wear a garment with two types of material in it. You and I are probably both breaking that one right now.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Trick you have put up a very good argument. Respect you for that.
How ever, in regards to the queen signing a document. If I sign a document and then Im taken to a court of law. Then I would be crucified by the judge, as ignorance is no defense in law and I had signed it, this fraudulent document? I wouldnt have a leg to stand on. She was queen before signing it? Of course she was and if you didnt bow your head and tow the line. Then you would have been taken to her court and found guilty of treason. Then your head would have been chopped off. She has a very big and a well organised gang. Thats all it is, a big gang of thugs. Do what I say or else!!!
Can the media be silenced? Yes I think so.
In regards to the theiving MPs, this only came to light when an american woman, using the freedom of information act. Discovered these answers. I cant recall at the moment, but Im sure that they tried their level best to avoid releasing the info. It was a mistake on their part and they couldnt hide these facts. When you make mistakes like this you get punished.
7/7 I just cant believe that they were training for this exact thing, Bombs going off at the very same stations which were then bombed. Once the emergency servises were in place the drill was called off? Then these very same stations were attacked/bombed?
As far as Im concerned they can pull my middle leg as its got a bell on it.
Cause I aint having one bit of this story about them doing a drill for bombs, at the same stations which were attacked. No way hosay m8.
The media? Its controlled and is a weapon of the govt, to be used on the sheople for social programming.

edit on 6-6-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Trick you have put up a very good argument. Respect you for that.
How ever, in regards to the queen signing a document. If I sign a document and then Im taken to a court of law. Then I would be crucified by the judge, as ignorance is no defense in law and I had signed it, this fraudulent document? I wouldnt have a leg to stand on.


Well actually that's not the case. If you sign a fraudulent document you are protected under law. One cannot contract out of law - so if for example I got you to sign a document in which the small print said that you had to hand over your home to me if you said the words "nine eleven" this would be unenforcable.

The legal framework is essentially a series of quite complicated conventions. There isn't a big book somewhere where all the rules are written down. In the UK we don't even have a full written constitution. But on some level all laws are just notional agreements between groups of people. Their authority may theoretically derive from the queen, but to all intents and purposes that's irrelevant.

I don't know under what basis the article claims that her document was fraudulent. I doubt it's true, but it's also immaterial. The authority of the court no more derives in practice from the queen than the conduct of the armed forces - which are of course theoretically under her control. In practice of course they are not.

The subsequent point, about God's laws, is just theistic nonsense. Even if you believe fervently in Christianity you cannot with a straight face make the claim that by putting her official seal on laws the queen is somehow breaking divine "law". And in any case no such "divine law" exists in countries where religion and state are separate.

I get your point about the MPs not wanting to release the information, but that's exactly what I mean. You say they tried their level best not to let it out - and I agree - but then why are they able to silence the media in all other cases? How could they completely cover up Canary Wharf, and yet there was a media storm over De Menezes?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by impressme
 


The point under discussion was whether it would be possible to silence all the broadcast professionals involved, so asking whether you would stay silent seems relevant. You must think it is because you even asked me the same question.



This is completely possible and is in fact a reality.





Then why has no journalist or broadcaster ever mentioned it? How can they keep thousands of people quiet? And why do stories, like those mentioned above, on MPs expenses or CIA complicity in arms dealing come out?


Christopher story mentioned it and he ended up dead. The public are thrown bones to support
the illusion that the wheels of justice are well-oiled. Psy-ops 101.






You can't say that some elements in the media are honest, because they would instantly blow the whistle on the control and censorship on other areas - like 9/11. So if the media can be silenced at will by TPTB why does it sometimes publish stories which damage TPTB?



But the powers that be own the media. Do you doubt this?
As stated above, some bones are thrown to the public to act as convincers and also
dissenters can be villified and sacrificed to achieve a double whammy for TPTB, while at
the same time sending a clear message to the rest of their minions, keeping them in line.





How many critical, honest examinations
do you see in the MSM regarding the largest controversy in modern history i.e. 9/11



Ah, now I see your problem. 9/11 is not the largest controversy in modern history. There is "continued silence" because there is no real debate. The "OS" won years ago, and only a handful of people on the internet think differently.


Well, if that is your real conviction, i would be wasting my time attempting to convince you
otherwise trick. You are either a fool or something else, and reading your posts, i am sure you
are not a fool.



The MSM is a sold-out entity but occasionally, under unpredictable circumstances,
stories like the canary wharf shootings (reported almost as it happened) unwittingly get out,
but are quickly suppressed and denied when injurious to their masters schemes and narratives.


How? Describe how this would happen. Because it appears to me to be practically impossible.



Building 7's collapse on 9/11 was relayed 25 minutes before the actual event by the BBC.
They obviously reported prematurely on a pre-prepared script. The shootings in canary wharf
on 7/7 were not scripted and reported very soon after the event, they not being made aware,
due to the emergent circumstances, of the connection of the shootings to the bombings.
edit on 6-6-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Maud Dib? Like as in the book Dune? Paul Atreides?

WTF?


edit on 2011/6/6 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Building 7's collapse on 9/11 was relayed 25 minutes before the actual event by the BBC.
They obviously reported prematurely on a pre-prepared script.


Or reported what firefighters were saying was about to happen.

What I don't understand about this is why you would have a preprepared script released to news agencies. What would be the point? Why risk them making a mistake, or risk someone who wasn't supposed to know about it seeing the "script"? Essentially you're saying that they involved hundreds more people in the conspiracy for no reason at all.



The shootings in canary wharf
on 7/7 were not scripted and reported very soon after the event, they not being made aware,
due to the emergent circumstances, of the connection of the shootings to the bombings.
edit on 6-6-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)


But how were they able to cover them up when they were unable to do so with the De Menezes shooting? And why were they not able to prevent the item being broadcast in the first place? If they have the control you envisage then even if we leave aside the question of why no journalist has ever blown the whistle on the situation, why didn't they stop the broadcast before it went out?

Surely as soon as the suspects were shot the clean up would have involved ensuring media silence? Canary Wharf is extremely busy and any operation that could silence witnesses and remove dead bodies without even shutting the tube is going to find it pretty easy to keep the news out of it. Especially if they're as all powerful as you suggest.

Think about how it would work. A couple of workers at Canary Wharf phone the BBC to report a shooting. A reporter is probably dispatched and it's keyed up for broadcast.You don't think the editor - who is a fully paid up NWO shill - would check that this should go out? He knows about and is participating in a massive false flag event that he must have seen the script for and rehearsed before. He may even know that the suspects have gone off track. You think he'll just let the story go out? It seems highly unlikely to me.

You're asking people to believe that thousands of journalists are fully aware that major news events are often scripted, and that none of them ever mention it to anybody. As if that wasn't far fetched enough, they also are occasionally allowed to report things correctly by mistake. Coincidentally this only occurs when the event is question is something you want to believe happened.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Muad'Dib has produced a new documentary. Included in the movie is a proposition to occupy Houses of Parliament on November 5th, 2012. This is serious business.

The official message is below:




jforjustice.co.uk...

Released: 5th of November, 2011. Muad'Dib's latest hard-hitting documentary about the innumerable crimes of the Ashke-Nazi Banksters.

From their historical origins down to their planned genocidal future, Muad'Dib tracks who THEY* are, how THEY operate, and most importantly, how to get rid of them once and for all.

Muad'Dib is calling on millions of people to peacefully surround the Houses of Parliament in London, England -- on the 5th of November, 2012 -- to clean it of corruption and treason, making it a day that present and future generations will never forget.

After being wrongfully arrested and falsely and maliciously imprisoned for making His "7/7 Ripple Effect" film and defending innocent people, Muad'Dib is back with no mercy for those who've shown none to others.

Cutting to the root of the problem, with the only solution. Come and be part of it.

For those of you that are DOers rather than talkers, please see the flyers at the download link below and do your utmost to distribute them far and wide. Both UK and USA versions are included.
www.multiupload.com...

* The Hierarchy Enslaving You – THEY.

www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join