Historic 9/11 Case Brewing as AE911T Presents Evidence in Court Against BBC!

page: 1
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+38 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial.


www.ae911truth.org...
www.infowars.com...

Yes siree, and hopefully the issue with the BBC broadcasting that WTC7 fell, way before it actually did, will be brought up in that case. Cause that has never been satisfactorily explained to my mind. I still think it was planned, and screwed up on the BBC's part, indicating their potential complicity in the grand scheme.


Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:


Professor Niels Harrit
Tony Farrell
Richard Gage

To name a few, but there are others, and they all have more descriptions. Visit links for more info.


The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.


Excellent! Who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and get an impartial judge, who will side with the defendants- if the evidence presented holds enough water, that is. Cause just about everything I've seen from the BBC involving 9/11 smells of coverup. Just like all other MSM, for that matter. Important case!

If by some miracle he were to win this case, and it was shown that the BBC DID misrepresent facts and mislead the public on some of the 9/11 issues, to me it might open up a whole new can of tasty prosecution morsels, and set a base precedent. That precedent could then be used to start a massive snowball rolling.

I rarely call for flags, but this might be one of those times, folks- to help spread the message about this court case to truthers in the UK who'd like to show up for support. Or perhaps just to be aware and follow up. Would be GREAT if an ATS member over there could get involved, and give us the reports firsthand!
edit on Tue Feb 19th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



+13 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Pretty amazing. That's an extremely novel way to get before a judge: Refusing to pay the TV license fee on the basis that the BBC is in contravention of an anti-terrorism law; and then, when charged with the crime of refusing to pay, he's afforded the opportunity to present his 9/11 case. Brilliant, when you think about it....



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
The series both emphasized CONSPIRACY surrounding 9/11

So... the IRONY that so many MSM presentations about 9/11 as a factual documentary are *not being sued..

it's so hush hush.. STILL! like the survivors dying off after surviving, thus silenced, perhaps so they couldnt present mind blowing evidence like their witnessing explosions before the planes hit, fireman being instructed by the building owner (some jewish guy, forget his name) that the building would be demolitioned just minutes within the explosions/impacts for billion dollar insurance reasons, etc



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
; and then, when charged with the crime of refusing to pay, he's afforded the opportunity to present his 9/11 case. Brilliant, when you think about it....



Not so brilliant.
I doubt he's going to get a chance to air any of his political beliefs.
The magistrate will only be concerned with whether he paid his licence, and all that 911 stuff will, almost certainly, not get 10 seconds before the Magistrate shuts it down as irrelevent to the case before him.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3 is not relevent to the case before the Magistrate on that day at that time.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The guy is going to a Magistrates Court to answer the charge that he has been using his tv without paying the licence fee.

The only matter at issue for the magistrates is whether he is guilty of that or not. I can't see them allowing hours of irrelevant waffle about BBC coverage of 9/11 which has nothing to do with the case.

They will have plenty of other high profile cases to deal with like parking offences, speeding, drunk and disorderly etc !



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Richard Gage


I am sure the judge will be fascinated by this effort by boxboy.



+3 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The guy is going to a Magistrates Court to answer the charge that he has been using his tv without paying the licence fee.

The only matter at issue for the magistrates is whether he is guilty of that or not. I can't see them allowing hours of irrelevant waffle about BBC coverage of 9/11 which has nothing to do with the case.

They will have plenty of other high profile cases to deal with like parking offences, speeding, drunk and disorderly etc !


Umm, why would a magistrate allow him 3 HOURS to present evidence then to support his claims? There is no question here at all that he did not pay the fee. He didn't pay it. The magistrate could have just looked at the unpaid bill and granted judgement for plaintiff (BBC). BUT HE DIDN'T.

AND FURTHER: Why would Gage and all these people be willing to prepare and go present the evidence if they were NOT given the three hours time? It's going to take at least that long for presentations from all of them. Or even for just one of them speaking for all, and doing a summary for everything they all have cumulatively.

I don't know what all you are on about...Or well....Maybe perhaps I do. Let the case play out man....sheesh. We already have people in here trying to discredit Gage. :shk:
edit on Tue Feb 19th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I would be interested to know where the "3 hours" has come from. I suspect that is the total sitting time for the court, i.e. 10 to 1, which would be the norm for a magistrates court. But if the defendant thinks all that is going to be devoted to him then I think he is deluded.

Btw, magistrates don't decide cases, based on paperwork, pre-hearing.


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


To anyone who understands the extremely simple concepts being demonstrated in the "falling box" videos, and how nothing more complex than a couple children's toys is required to show what happened to Building 7, your condescending response is delightful irony. Thanks for the smile =)
edit on 19-2-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by hellobruce
 


To anyone who understands the extremely simple concepts being demonstrated in the "falling box" videos, and how nothing more complex than a couple children's toys is required to show what happened to Building 7, your condescending response is delightful irony. Thanks for the smile =)
edit on 19-2-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)


The demonstration was pathetic and deservedly made Gage a laughing stock. I could have done it with custard and got a totally different result but just as relevant.

Btw he is not attempting to demonstrate building 7.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Brilliant news! I'll never forget seeing the BBC report that WT7 collapsed 20 whole minutes before it did!

We could still see the building standing!!! LMA Ffffing O!!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 




We could still see the building standing!!! LMA Ffffing O!!

You actually knew which one was building 7 at the time??
Back then I didn't know that WTC had more than 2 buildings in total.
I wouldn't expect someone from across the pond to know 7 from 6 or 3 from 2.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I see a payoff to the judge and a lot of valid reasons to dismiss the evidence. That said, it is never-the-less ingenious. I specially appreciated the slant on the accusation that BBC is aiding and embedding terrorists by covering up evidence that could lead to the apprehension of more parties involved with the 9/11 incident.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

Pretty amazing. That's an extremely novel way to get before a judge: Refusing to pay the TV license fee on the basis that the BBC is in contravention of an anti-terrorism law; and then, when charged with the crime of refusing to pay, he's afforded the opportunity to present his 9/11 case. Brilliant, when you think about it....


Exactly my thoughts as well !!

At first I thought he's trying a cheap way out of his TV fees, but who knows, after all that's exactly what he planned in first instance and stopped paying intentionally lol



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think if this garners any serious attention, the judge will be under intense pressure by the establishment.

We'll see what happens.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Could you post a video demonstrating the "crush-down crush-up piledriver" theory? Does one even exist?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
I think if this garners any serious attention, the judge will be under intense pressure by the establishment.

We'll see what happens.


There won't be any Judge, this is a Magistrates Court. Local worthies who are not legally qualified decide minor cases with the guidance of a legally qualified clerk.

All they have to decide is whether or not the defendant has been using his tv without paying the licence fee.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





There won't be any Judge, this is a Magistrates Court.


Ah sorry, my mistake!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Alfie1
 





There won't be any Judge, this is a Magistrates Court.


Ah sorry, my mistake!


Actually it is absolutely the same thing. It's a Judge without a jury. Someone has to place a signature on the decision, and it won't be the clerk.

Odds are though, the persons involved are already selected and are receiving advice.

"Cases are heard by a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) or by a bench of three Magistrates (lay judges); there is no jury at a magistrates' court"
Magistrates' Court - WIKI

edit on 19-2-2013 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I`m surprised that the court will even let him introduce 9/11 "evidence" in a defense for not paying his T.V. bill.

He wasn`t forced to watch those 2 shows on BBC, just because he didn`t agree with the content of the shows is not a defense for not paying his T.V. fee.

I don`t like watching commercials on T.V. so, If i see one and disagree with the content and claims being made in the commercial can I be excused from paying my T.V. fee?





new topics
top topics
 
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join