GUILTY - Pope, Jesuit General, Queen of England, Tarcisio Bertone and more...Crimes Against Humanity

reply to post by ajay59


So basically your talking about angry mob mentality. Sorry dude, we don't get out pitchforks and torches and hunt down the town vampire anymore.

You're more than welcome to round up some of your crazy friends and try it -- I'm sure the Swiss Guard will just stand aside and let you right on into Vatican City...

That is, essentially, what you are calling for.

reply to post by vkey08

But even that doesn't change the fact that the moment we give into mob mentality, we lose the ability to be a civilized society.

...Or does this give society a way to cut out a cancerous mass? You would not want to remove something that offends you, or are you simply not offended by this?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


So, your solution is to let these people continue to abuse children and murder entire cultures? Have I got that right?

Anyone can get a .org website put together.

Geeze, I should try and sell people "informational packets" on "Galactic Law" that superceeds any Earthly laws. I'll claim it makes you a "Universal Citizen" with no debt, and the authority to do whatever, whenever you want without having to answer to any Earthly authority.

I could sell it for three easy payments of $19.99

If people believe in that website, apparently there are enough people that would buy into my scam and make me rich.

Sorry I can't resist.

Is it Patrick FitzObrien or...

Ryan Fitz Patrick...


Anyway Druid philosophy > Catholic propaganda making Irish go to war...

Know yourself before u lift a single firearm to any critter, big or small

If this is allowable, why then, did we go after Nazism, why did we go after communism, why did we go after terrorism? Do we need to tag an ism to child slavery, torture and sexual abuse to make it worthy of stoppage?

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

So, your solution is to let these people continue to abuse children and murder entire cultures? Have I got that right?

Did I write that? Plese don't gaslight and put words into my mouth.

There are systems and protocols for dealing with crimes like this. It takes immense effort to get the right people in the right places to listen, but it can happen.

I've never been any kind of fan of the Catholic church, but what you are proposing is pure luncacy at its finest. Have you even been to the Vatican? Do you realize how high those walls are? Have you seen how serious those Swiss Guards are?

I have. No thanks, I'll go the civilized and mature way and devote my time and energy with legitimate international courts and human rights organizations.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


What, was the question too hard for you to answer? Another chance. Just answer the question posed.

Until I see the name "Rothschild" I'm convinced the world will not get any better.

reply to post by Kang69
Maybe it is yet to come, brother. One step at a time.

Originally posted by vkey08

If you want to complain about how the trial was run that is your prerogative, but the defendants were given the opportunity to present themselves and make a defence and they choose not to.

What part of "they didn't HAVE to show up and defend themselves" do you not understand? It doesn't matter if Ratzinger was guilty of planting moonbeams up the rears of unicorns to kill off the whole race of them, this ICCS has no legal jurisdiction over anything, and in fact even the OP was confused before he edited his post and his original op included the line:

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations has found the following individuals guilty of crimes against humanity and given them a 25 years prison sentences:

When in fact this was NOT the ICJ, which is a real and permanent part of the United Nations, it was a kangaroo court made up of frustrated people. Did you read the whole ruling? They basically said, that all Catholics are no longer Catholic because the church no longer exists... They certainly don't have that power..

The ICJ is in fact an Ad Hoc grouping, to be convened when a party has a complaint. It is recognised by the UN, and as far as that goes and has no permanent judiciary. Outside of that it could be considered a Kangaroo court itself, and has been, I'm thinking here that the US itself has been of that opinion at times. The ICCS simply mimics the ICJ in every way. But hey, that's what makes it interesting, you can make the comparisons in what comes out of one organisation as opposed to the other.

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

What, was the question too hard for you to answer? Another chance. Just answer the question posed.

Ajay, his efforts with legitimate organizations to help stop those crimes may have more of an effect than what you are no doubt planning to do.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

I'll go the civilized and mature way and devote my time and energy with legitimate international courts and human rights organizations.

This is fine. This thread is more to raise awareness, to get people to press for a more legitimate case to be made against them. What is annoying to me is that people seem to be expressing too much apathy, that they are not willing to be doers and put their energy behind a legal process with teeth. What I am mostly hearing from the naysayers is to move along because there is nothing to see here.

Life is what you make it and of course up against such forces it is very difficult. For me I am interested in doers rather than people who quarter back from the side lines.

What I would definitely like to see from this trial is what was the evidence they presented. We should try to move on areas that are possible to take things a step forward at a time rather than just say the finish line is too far away so I won't bother to even start the race.

If the evidence is of any worth then what are the steps people can take to help get this out to more people, what are the steps for people to get this out to the grass-roots level to bypass the controlled MSM.

I think for this case to go anywhere further the evidence in the trial needs to be brought into the public domain where some of the people in question need to answer for it.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

yup.
People LOVE to be told what to think.

If we press the keys on our keyboards extra hard, curl our lips with indignity over all this , erm, um, indignity, and say all the words out loud making extra sure to spit all over our screens since we're really really really really mad about all these crimes against humanity, that might just make a difference ... right?

It's time you went to bed, "People love to be told what to think"?? Having a look at the world today just proves the opposite, what you are trying to get away with is an anachronism, if it was ever real.
As for the second, have a look at who is responsible for, "All these crimes against humanity"

What really gets me is all these people who keep saying, "use the system in place, it can be done through the system" and all that kind of crap! What is glaringly obvious to me is this "system" is what allowed this to happen in the first place and actually attempted to cover it up for decades! Why are some people so set on everyone sticking to the system in place? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
As it is, I guess it's not so much a hoax as a joke?

they are serious but the rest of the world sees it for what it is, a joke.

I'm no fan of the pope and I do believe that his stepping down and being sheltered by the vatican in his retirement is a means of keeping him distanced from the abuse and sexcapade issues that are popping up. I also believe the church should be held accountable for the lives they've wrecked by protecting the pedophile priests and I do belive he actually looks evil. I also believe that, in a court of law (the real kind, where the trial is real, the outcome is real) the church might not be victorious in many of the crimes they should be held accountable for but this was a pretend court and the decision is a pretend decision and, worse, these fantasy court room players are suggesting that people make a citizen's arrest on the people they declared pretend guilty.

You get one yahoo who believes this nonsense to take up arms and try and arrest the queen or the pope or whomever and you might wind up with some kind of ugly scene. The people who held their mock trial should stick to their law school classroom trials and stop pushing suggestions on others that are bound to cause trouble. There are too many less wise people out there, one of them is bound to act on this crap and the pretend legal team will not step up and admit responsibility if, and when, something goes wrong.

" and I do belive he actually looks evil." WTF, I can't believe such a mention, Ted Bundy would not be pleased, and all this in the air of legality. No way would I go with that statement. In essence, you are also saying something is not right, yet nobody is dealing with it, except these armchair guys. So, what happens when the ICJ may get their nebs on this, and say make it 'official'? all the nut jobs will fall out of their trees big time anyway, at least by your reckoning.

reply to post by Crakeur

I also believe that, in a court of law (the real kind, where the trial is real, the outcome is real) the church might not be victorious in many of the crimes they should be held accountable for but this was a pretend court and the decision is a pretend decision and, worse, these fantasy court room players are suggesting that people make a citizen's arrest on the people they declared pretend guilty.

I am glad that the story has at least caught the attention of site admin and am sure your views are expressed by many of the staff at ATS.

How about we together along with the ATS staff put our thinking caps on and try to flesh out what we can actually do with this story. Firstly, there seems to be a lot of mystery that surrounds the details of the case and the evidence presented. Would it not be possible for some ATS Staff using the authority of this website to seek some kind of comment/interview/podcast from the agency involved in this trial. I am sure the ITCCS will be interested to get this story out to people and will want to add legitimacy behind what they have done. While it might not end up being legitimate we can at least explore the options and the resources available to us to perhaps take the story another step or two down the road.

Would the ATS staff be interested at all in pursuing an option like that to seek proper comment from the ITCCS?

ATS is a valuable resource and to me it would be a shame to not use a vehicle like this if we can shed clearer light on the subject.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by Crakeur

 

I also believe that, in a court of law (the real kind, where the trial is real, the outcome is real) the church might not be victorious in many of the crimes they should be held accountable for but this was a pretend court and the decision is a pretend decision and, worse, these fantasy court room players are suggesting that people make a citizen's arrest on the people they declared pretend guilty.

I am glad that the story has at least caught the attention of site admin and am sure your views are expressed by many of the staff at ATS.

How about we together along with the ATS staff put our thinking caps on and try to flesh out what we can actually do with this story. Firstly, there seems to be a lot of mystery that surrounds the details of the case and the evidence presented. Would it not be possible for some ATS Staff using the authority of this website to seek some kind of comment/interview/podcast from the agency involved in this trial. I am sure the ITCCS will be interested to get this story out to people and will want to add legitimacy behind what they have done. While it might not end up being legitimate we can at least explore the options and the resources available to us to perhaps take the story another step or two down the road.

Would the ATS staff be interested at all in pursuing an option like that to seek proper comment from the ITCCS?

ATS is a valuable resource and to me it would be a shame to not use a vehicle like this if we can shed clearer light on the subject.

I think you misread Crakeur's comment. While he is saying that the Church should probably be tried in a REAL courtroom, this "agency" and I use the term loosely is nothing more than some people that got together and declared themselves such and it's not actually a real agency or body of any Government or State Body.. Or the UN.......... So why would they want comment from a few people that decided to play trial?

reply to post by vkey08

why would they want comment from a few people that decided to play trial?

Why would they want to seek clarification on what people can do with the trial?

Why would they want to seek clarification on what evidence was presented at the trial and if we can see it?

Why would they want to bring to public attention the testimonies of the victims?

Why, because they can and know that they are a large enough information outlet to get to the bottom of what could be a very explosive story.

Who else in the alternative media space could do a good job of this?
Very few

If very few can do much about this due to the state of the world then it falls on to the shoulders of the few who have power enough to act to make a positive impact. This website is about disclosure of truth and fills a niche left by others.

ATS should make some formal inquiries to see what they can do

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
it is that they were found guilty.

Actually, why ignore that they all appealed to the "International Common Law Court of Justices Higher Court of Appeal, and all their "convictions" were overturned, and that appeal court found everyone involved in the International Common Law Court of Justice guilty and they were all sentenced to 100 years imprisonment....