David Icke and Alex Jones no longer try and push their own agenda through their individually made films they are infiltrated into well worded professionally made NWO films to continue to give themselves credibility despite endless exposures of their complicity with the very agenda they claim to expose and AT AN ENORMOUS PRICE .

This one sees Icke pop up about midway through the video and then Jones comes in at the end trumpeting the usual guff with his loudhailer.


Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
Case No: CO/7741/2011


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

B e f o r e :

- and -

First Defendant
Second Defendant

The Claimant appeared in person
Suzanne Lambert (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 25 August 2011

1. On 25 August 2011 I heard an application by the Claimant for a writ of habeas corpus. He also applied for bail pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal. I was also asked to consider (by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis) whether or not it was open to me to hear an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing I announced that the application for habeas corpus was refused; that the application for bail pending appeal was refused and that I declined to consider an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. I also announced that my reasons for these decisions would be given in writing and handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 August 2011. I decided to take that course so that there would be a written record, available generally, of my reasons for making the orders which I announced in court.

History of proceedings
2. The application for habeas corpus was made by a claim form issued on 12 August 2011. I was asked to consider the claim and the supporting papers as a matter of some urgency and on 15 August 2011 I made an order specifying that there should be a directions hearing on 18 August 2011. I directed that the Claimant should appear at that hearing by video link since it seemed to me to be the most efficacious way of ensuring that a meaningful hearing took place on 18 August.

3. On 18 August 2011 the directions hearing took place before me. The Claimant appeared by video link. I was addressed by the Claimant at some length and I was also addressed by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis. At the conclusion of the hearing I directed that the application for habeas corpus should be heard on 25 August 2011; that the Claimant should, again, appear by video link and that the proceedings should be served not just upon the Governor of HMP Armley but also that the Secretary of State for Justice should be served.

4. At the hearing on 25 August 2011 I was addressed at length by the Claimant. Mr Jarvis also made representations on his behalf. I was assisted by a written skeleton argument and supporting documentation prepared by Ms Lambert. The Claimant was provided with those documents shortly before the hearing was due to take place and I accept that he had little time in which to respond to them. However, no application for an adjournment of the proceedings was made and in the light of the representations which were made both by the Claimant and Mr Jarvis I am quite satisfied that the Claimant suffered no prejudice by reason of the fact that the skeleton argument on behalf of the Defendants with supporting documents was not provided to him until shortly before the hearing.

5. A key document provided on behalf of the First Defendant was a copy of a court order dated 26 July 2011. This case has proceeded on the basis that on 26 July 2011 before HH Judge Rose, sitting in the Bradford Crown Court, the Claimant was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment. A copy of the court order provided to me confirms that to be the case.

The issues
6. Despite the substantial documentation filed in support of the application for the writ of habeas corpus comparatively little detail was provided about what had occurred in the Bradford Crown Court which had caused HH Judge Rose to find the Claimant to be in contempt. However, during the course of his oral submissions the Claimant explained to me what had occurred. He told me that he had been sitting in the public gallery when it had been reported to the judge that he was recording the proceedings. My understanding is that there followed a hearing in which the judge concluded that this constituted a contempt of court and that for the contempt a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment should be imposed. Ms Lambert was unable to provide any further information about what had occurred before the judge. She accepted, however, that the judge had apparently dealt with the alleged contempt summarily.

7. The Claimant was not represented by a lawyer and, according to the Claimant, he was unsure whether or not the recording equipment which he was using was actually working at any material time.

8. Set against this background the Claimant complains that the proceedings before HH Judge Rose were in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Claimant also alleges that the fact of his imprisonment and/or the conditions in which he is held constitute breaches of Articles 2, 3, 7, and 10 of the Convention. Mr Jarvis made short submissions in support of those contentions. The submissions made by the Claimant were much longer but the thrust of the reasons why he alleged that his imprisonment was unlawful was a complaint was that his human rights had been violated and that HH Judge Rose had been biased.

Article 6
9. Superior courts, such as the Crown Court, have jurisdiction to deal summarily with all types of contempt, including contempt "in the face of the court". Contempt "in the face of the court" has been interpreted broadly and is not restricted to contempts actually seen by the judge. I have no doubt that it was open to the judge to investigate whether a contempt of court had been committed once it had been reported to him that the Claimant was recording proceedings. The recording of proceedings before a court is capable of amounting to contempt if no permission has been obtained for that course. In my judgment it was open to the judge to conclude that contempt had been committed. Certainly, there is nothing in the papers before me to justify a conclusion that the judge acted unlawfully when he concluded that a contempt had been committed.

10. As I have said the Claimant was not represented before HH Judge Rose. There is no evidential basis put before me to suggest that the Claimant sought legal representation. I accept that it would have been desirable had a lawyer been appointed to represent the Claimant in what were summary proceedings for contempt. Nonetheless I am not persuaded that the fact that the Claimant was unrepresented of itself constitutes an infringement of his rights under Article 6. Throughout these proceedings the Claimant has displayed utter contempt for all lawyers and judges. In my judgment it is unreal to suppose that the Claimant truly wished to have a lawyer to represent him before HH Judge Rose.

11. I am also unpersuaded that the fact that the judge invoked the summary procedure infringed the Claimant's rights under Article 6. No authority was drawn to my attention for that proposition and in the absence of clear authority binding on me I am unpersuaded that I should find that the Claimant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention were breached by the procedure which was adopted at the Crown Court.

Articles 2 and 3
12. As I have said the Claimant complains about the conditions of his incarceration; he also complains that the First Defendant has failed to provide him with appropriate medication. It is also submitted that incarceration, of itself, is a breach of Article 3 given the Claimant's age (he is 85) and his state of health.

13. I accept the submissions of Ms Lambert that to the extent that this claim is directed to the conditions of the Claimant's imprisonment habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy. If the Claimant has a genuine complaint about the conditions of his incarceration he should make a formal complaint through the procedure available to him at the prison. If his complaint remains unsatisfied he might consider an application for judicial review. In any event he may consider bringing a private law claim against the First Defendant.

14. I do not accept that the Claimant's rights under Articles 2 and/or 3 are infringed simply by virtue of his imprisonment given the state of his health and his age. As is obvious, it is regrettable that a man of 85 should find himself in the predicament which the Claimant faces. His age, alone, however, cannot be a reason for saying that his incarceration breaches his rights under Articles 2 and 3.

15. The Claimant has asserted to me that his health is poor. However, there is no medical evidence before me and throughout two hearings the Claimant seemed capable of robust argument and steely determination to put over his point. While, of course, that does not demonstrate that he is not suffering from some ill health it is a factor which is properly to be taken into account when seeking to determine whether it is proper to infer that such is the state of the Claimant's health that his imprisonment constitutes breaches of Article 2 or 3. The reality is that there is simply no proper evidence from which it would be permissible to conclude that the Claimant's rights under articles 2 and 3.

Articles 7 and 10
16. The Claimant mentioned Article 7 but nothing he said began to explain how there was a breach.

17. A contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Unauthorised recording of court proceedings has long been held to be capable of constituting a contempt. The rights conferred by Article 10 are not unrestricted. There is no arguable basis that the Claimant's rights under Article 10 have been infringed.

18. The Claimant asserted that HH Judge Rose was biased. That was a theme he returned to time and time again in his submissions. There is no evidence to support this allegation. The Claimant seems to have formed the view that the action taken by the judge against him was explicable only by bias because, according to the Claimant, others have been engaged in recording court proceedings in other parts of the country but have not been dealt with in the same way. That is no basis for a conclusion of bias, real or apparent, on the part of the judge. The reality is that the Claimant considers all (or at the very least most) judges who have dealings with him are biased against him.

Conclusion on habeas corpus
19. In the absence of any basis upon which it would be proper to conclude that the Claimant has been imprisoned unlawfully or that his imprisonment has become unlawful I could not grant the writ of habeas corpus. As I sought to point out to the Claimant in the hearing on 15 August 2011 his interests are much better served by an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I am satisfied from documentation referred to by the Claimant and sent to me in the post either by the Claimant or persons acting on his behalf that the Claimant has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is that court, in my judgment, which should adjudicate upon whether or not the finding of contempt of court and/or the sentence imposed for the contempt should remain.

20. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point which the Claimant made during the course of a speech which lasted about 45 minutes. I have, however, dealt with all of the points made which I considered had any bearing upon whether the Claimant was detained lawfully.

Purging contempt
21. During the course of his oral representations Mr Jarvis raised the possibility of the Claimant applying to me to purge his contempt. In some ways this was a surprising application since in his own representations to me the Claimant demonstrated nothing but contempt for the order made by HH Judge Rose and, indeed for the judge himself. Nonetheless I felt it my duty to consider this possibility. I did so upon the assumption that I had jurisdiction to entertain an application although Ms Lambert was not able to confirm that I enjoyed such jurisdiction. I reached the conclusion that assuming I had jurisdiction to deal with the matter I should decline to do so. It seemed to me that the appropriate forum for any such application would be the judge who had found the contempt proved and who was, far better than me, in a position to judge the seriousness of the contempt and the genuineness of the Claimant's application to purge his contempt. Alternatively, such an application could be made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a possible outcome of the appeal that the court will uphold the finding of contempt and also determine that a sentence of six months' imprisonment was an appropriate one. Even in those circumstances, however, the court might be prepared to entertain an application to purge the contempt. I raise that possibility for the Claimant to consider. Whether he makes such an application and whether the Court of Appeal entertains it is not for me to determine.

22. I satisfied myself that the Claimant has instituted an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I directed that the hearing of his appeal should take place on the first open date after 2 September 2011. In those circumstances I declined to grant bail. Bail pending an appeal against conviction/sentence is rarely granted especially when there is a real prospect that the appeal will be heard in early course. None of the circumstances surrounding this case persuade me that it was appropriate for me to grant bail. There was little information available to me about the circumstances in which the contempt had been committed and I had no information about the Claimant's antecedent history. I should say for completeness that I assumed I had jurisdiction to grant bail not as the judge who had determined the application for habeas corpus against the Claimant but, rather, as a judge of the High Court who is authorised to sit in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and to whom an application (albeit very informally) had been made for bail pending appeal.

  • Scarth v UK Application no. 33745/96
  • Norman Scarth Blog
    Norman Scarth’s case was presented today at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Norman attended by video link from Leeds, was in good mental health, and he presented his case to the judge in very respectful and polite terms.

    Judge Wyn Williams DENIED NORMAN DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. He adjourned the case until next week, sending Norman back to prison. There was coverage by Russian TV, and a few members of the press. The judge ordered that Norman be allowed to have contact with legal representation, which the prison has been denying him. However, he refused to order that Norman be given his prescription medication, thereby forcing Norman to be kept in torture for a further week. The judge did not release Norman and there were loud shouts and cries from the public gallery. Judge Williams was seen to be shaking.

    Judge Wyn Williams has summoned Kenneth Clarke, Minister of Justice to Court next week, along with the Prison Governor, Paul Baker of Leeds Prison, who was supposed to have been present today, but was not. Norman’s supporters are calling for the public WORLDWIDE to sign the public petition to FREE NORMAN, Arctic Convoy veteran hero, 86 years old who is being denied his human rights and medication in Leeds Prison, UK. Will the public please help Norman Scarth by signing the petition as quickly as possible and telling all their friends? Will you please help with the campaign by spreading the word far and wide, contacting the media with this story, and any and all contacts you may have so that this will go viral and we will get more names on the petition. We need many more by next week.

    david duke


    David Duke is on a roll, rapidly producing powerful videos exposing Jewish supremacism. His warning against Zionist influence is urgently needed. Similarly, his alarm that mass immigration threatens to overwhelm white and Christian culture is a wake-up call. Yet Duke is an evolutionary racialist whose videos still express his ultimate dream: gradually purging from America and Europe “less evolved” non-white foreigners. There is little doubt Duke sees the ideal future in terms of a strictly enforced racial division of the world. Utopia and national happiness for Duke mean freedom from minorities.

    Duke’s gospel is of national salvation through whiteness, not righteousness. This is dangerous. In his video “Zionist Terrorism in Norway” Duke is confident that someday America and Europe will be nations of whites only. At the video’s end he luxuriates in the vision of an America where, after Zionism is but a memory, civilized and cooperative whites bask in their racial purity, smiling at a universe of creative possibilities!

    Our people will secure our own borders. We will live in the harmony of our heritage . . . We will be enriched by our own heritage, nurtured by the best in it. And each generation will grow more beautiful and stronger in the image of the best of us, and the future will be ours and the universe will lay in the grasp of our outstretched arms.

    When Duke describes full realization of “the harmony of our heritage” he is portraying the “harmony” of a white civilization untroubled by the “discord” created by the presence of minorities such as Jews, Blacks and Latinos. As an evolution believer, Duke assumes our white forbearers surged upward during man’s 4.6-billion-year ascent from slime and that whites developed instincts and capacities for civilization not acquired by blacks. Like propagandists of the Third Reich, he repeatedly shows pictures of happy and wholesome white couples and families as inhabitants of his new white order.

    There is nothing wrong with pride in white heritage, so degraded by reverse discrimination. But it is unsettling that Duke’s utopian images show not one person with almond-shaped eyes or dark skin. (Another Duke video does show smiling Asian and black families, but in the context of where he thinks they belong—outside North America and Europe!) In the videos I watched Duke doesn’t broach the possibility of a white culture with even a token presence of racial minorities allowed. Is Duke afraid any concessions would “infect” us again? Clearly, he wants to solve the race problem with racial purity, period. True racism includes belief that certain minorities, being inferior, should be excluded from full rights and participation in the dominant society. The Anti-Defamation League says Duke asserts that the entire removal of blacks is the ultimate solution. I wouldn’t put it past ADL to misrepresent Duke, as they have me. Yet the ideal of forced extradition of black Americans to Africa has always permeated the hard-core southern racism out of which Duke has emerged.

    Making Duke’s Vision Happen

    Duke proposes first an end to all immigration. He says non-whites should be trained by the West to use their skills elsewhere, presumably in Asia, Latin America or Africa. What if hundreds of millions of non-whites don’t want to leave? (Abraham Lincoln wanted to repatriate blacks to Africa but was received with an icy “no!”) In the videos I watched, Duke did not deal with minority refusal to leave what has become their homeland. Thus, he doesn’t deal with the obvious outcome: To realize his white utopia, minorities must be removed as Hitler removed them—by force. This would mean denial of human rights, social chaos and anguish on an even wider scope than Israel’s terrorist expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948. (Duke does reject any force or violence to facilitate his dream.)

    Duke’s vision, predicated on emphasis of white superiority over other races, is bad for all. For whites, accepting Duke’s ideas means ego-inflation and self-congratulation for racial and even moral superiority. Duke says that, in contrast to rioting violent black youth, whites come from peaceful European villages. He thus suggests whites are inherently rational, law abiding and peaceful. Yet for at least five millennia, Western Europe epitomized Duke’s ideal of a white-only society and it was far from peaceful. “Racially pure” northern nations, such as Scandinavians (Vikings), Anglo-Saxons, Gauls, and the Germanic tribes, reveled in warfare. They viewed battle as one of life’s greatest joys! In recent centuries, “peaceful” German villagers supported governments that precipitated fierce and unnecessary wars, the last three including the Franco-Prussian war and first and second world wars. Even the French, often viewed as victims of Germany, through Napoleon terrorized early 19th century Europe from Spain to Russia to North Africa. Whites, as much as any other race, have documented themselves as fallen, sinful creatures, fully capable of the most despicable acts. Duke is right that, in general, Caucasians and Asians have proven themselves most genetically gifted in building civilizations and pioneering science and technology. But that very intellect has only created more sophisticated manifestations of the sin nature: weapons of mass destruction.

    Duke’s Dream Begets Offense

    Duke’s evolutionary racialism does not end racial strife but breeds more of it. I have been the patient of three doctors over the past three years, of Latino, Asian, and African American heritage. Just imagine how my doctor would react if I said what Duke preaches: “Doctor, you come from an inferior, incompletely evolved race. You should go back where you belong!” Duke believes, as did Hitler and Nietzsche, that the fittest should dominate, at least in their own territories, largely to the exclusion of other races. He believes supremacy of the most successful winners in the evolutionary struggle, so essential to breeding dogs and roses, is a beautiful and logical law of nature and therefore true and workable in human society. But human beings are not made in the image of an ape but of God. We each possess a conscience and dignity as a creation in His image and design. Duke’s underlying message degrades us. Despite his new rhetoric of “mutual respect” and “tolerance,” Duke’s core beliefs militate against such breadth and encourage white separation from our “inferior” fellow humans. Duke says whites should be tolerant and appreciative of minority cultures and that by ending immigration and separating whites from other races we end racial strife. Yet he also sends the abrasive, denigrating message to blacks that they are poorly evolved and should go back to Africa. This is the schizophrenic element in Duke's agenda which causes thinking people to wonder whether he really advocates racial cooperation or race war. The danger of evolutionary racialism is not that it will convince western governments to persecute or deport “inferior races.” That will not happen. Instead, the danger is that its prideful emphasis will burrow into the unstable impulses of fanatics who will respond with violence.

    Such incorrect and exclusivist thinking also gives fodder to our ideological opponents. It will be exploited, if possible, to eventually discredit all who oppose the Zionist new world order. Let’s consider a truly Christian response to the threat of Jewish supremacism and its twisted bastard child, artificially stimulated and illegal mass immigration.

    Christian Response to Immigration Abuse

    The primary threat facing us is brutally simple: Jewish supremacists want to take over the world and establish their anti-Christ world government, centering in Jerusalem, Babylon the Great. (See, 'Babylon the Great' is Israel) But the white race contains proven characteristics of leadership, empire building, invention and originality. How do the elders of Zion intend to weaken and destroy such characteristics that might empower future revolt against their Zionist masters? It is undeniable that Jewish activists have encouraged genetic and cultural race-mixing. Through civil rights laws, media, academia, and on all social levels, Jewish supremacists have sought to dilute and disempower white and Christian culture and to promote multiculturalism and multiracialism at every level. This is irrefutable and well documented by Jewish historians. The Bible indicates that this agenda does not stem from benevolence. Instead, it is part of a diabolical anti-Christ attempt to create a more malleable, less independent world population whose societies are less inclined to defend themselves. The Book of Daniel says that under anti-Christ world government the “iron” people will be genetically united with the “clay” peoples. (Daniel 2:41-43) The Jewish multiculturalists will succeed. Christians must oppose the Jewish religious/Talmudic vendetta against Christianity, white culture and even American borders. Yet our enemy is not the various non-white peoples who are seeking a better life! (To his credit, Duke also acknowledges this.)

    Christianity teaches that all individuals and all races are equal where it really matters—in God’s love for them and their equal opportunity to make free will choices for Him, resulting in eternal life in heaven. The starving, AIDS-infected baby dying in Sudan is no less valuable to God than a Jewish or Gentile child playing in a cozy New York townhouse. The great equalizer in Christianity is the enormous power that Jesus gives to all who trust in Him, regardless of our natural gifts, to perform acts of love and deliverance. It is not just the most intelligent who should guide society, but the most loving and compassionate. At the same time, the Bible teaches that God has legitimized the general “bounds” of races, the right of founder peoples or religions to predominate in a nation or region. This has been universally respected through history. For example, most in the West without question accept Israel’s extreme immigration controls, defining itself as a Jewish and a religiously Orthodox nation. It is the right of Christians to demand enforcement of America’s immigration policies and deportation of illegal aliens. At the same time, Christians should respond to fellow Americans of minority races with friendship and respect. Emphasis should be placed on the good qualities of all races, not the differences between them. Evolutionary racism maximizes negative comparison, promoting the desired separation of the “lower” races. Christianity doesn’t deny racial inequalities, but it minimizes such differences, leading to peace and cooperation.

    As Paul enjoined, Christians “must seek peace and pursue it.” As I mentioned in a recent appearance on racialist talk show “The Political Cesspool,” (posted below) it is highly significant that the church age began with the apostle Phillip bringing the gospel to an Ethiopian black. The New Testament does not dramatize differences but collapses them in an emphasis on the spiritual unity and responsibility we have in Christ. In authentic Christianity, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor slave, male nor female [and I might add, black nor white]: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:29) True Christian ethics applied to the thorny issues of race and immigration reform dismantles racial hatred, division and pride. God’s love in us is like oil on the abrasive clanking gears of an engine, creating goodwill and harmony like nothing else can. Our family, for example, has financially supported Christian relief efforts in Haiti and welcomed a Haitian pastor as our brother in Christ to speak at our church. Our love, like God’s, should know no barriers or borders, certainly no barriers of racial difference. I believe He himself has created racial differences to test us: Will we respond with high-sounding yet abrasive schemes of denigration, isolation, and repatriation? Or will we transcend as God desires, on the wings of love?

  • Duke's controversial racist video 'Zionist Terrorism in Norway' (VIDEO)
  • Jeff Rense backs David Duke's racism in his video 'Zionist Terrorism In Norway' (VIDEO)

    We personally dont give a f*ck what this dickhead says but we have been warning the public for longer that most about this cunning and devious Zionist infiltrator into the movement. He is an Alex Jones supporter and uses similar style of megaphone politics that NO ONE else could get away with thanks to a nod and a wink from his buddies in the met.

    love police

  • Why Charlie Veitch Changed his Mind on 911
  • Edinburgh Academy: Where all the rich masons sons are groomed like Charlie Veitch
  • Veitch sells his soul to the Devil or in other words the BBC
  • Veitch is a sell-out and a coward
  • WTF Charlie Veitch??? (VIDEO)
  • Scrub The Internet of Charlie Veitch (As we had warned a long time ago )
  • Charlie Veitch Is Either An Idiot Or A Bought And Paid For Shill
  • Charlie Veitch Imprima employee promoting law firms, investment banks and private equity firms
  • Veitch about himself
  • Cveitch Masonic Hand Shake (VIDEO)

  • WWII Veteran Jailed for 6 months – for Audio Recording in Court
  • Norman Scarth Blog
    HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC
    Trial Judge
    Cardiff County Court

    23 June 2011

    Your Honour,

    Re: Request to Cancel Listing of pretrial 11&12 July 2011 hearing until highest courts determine what is to be heard and give direction on “ALL” legal issues raised in “ALL” my court documents of 2010 & 2011 now criminal allegations are laid.

    In the light of new evidence of criminal conduct committed by the Defendant I write to express the strongest objections to listing the pretrial hearing, on 11 & 12 July 2011, prior to my having opportunity to go through the full process of law that may allow me to consolidate my grievances against the Defendant, from 1992 to the present day and still ongoing situation. Further criminal allegations have been brought, following my arrests by the south Wales Police , designed purely to frustrate the Claimant, with, as usual, the criminal allegations against me either being later withdrawn or embarrassingly lost in the criminal courts due to HMCS and CPS abuse of process. It is recognized, in case law, thatcases can be before the Courts where the facts have not yet settled. Developments and facts central to my grievances have also occurred since the narrower issues that are to be examined on 11 and 12 July 2011. The facts of my case are still developing.

    For example, the Lewis machine gun case, brought by the Defendant and similar criminal conduct by Dr Tegwyn Williams, falsifying medical records, was an attempt to having me shot and if that failed, to obtain imprisonment, IPP in Broadmoor high security prison show such malice, manipulations and an abuse of the imbalance in power, by the Defendant(s), that their mindset and deeds in 2009 to 2011, form new evidence to reconsider all of the Defendant’s conduct since 1992. It is not just criminal law that now has to be considered but updated incremental change to both public policy and case law. It may help to say that I need time to detail my grievances as legal cases there being, also, cases that now exist and that are relevant.

    They include:

    1. Kirk v South Wales Police, the ‘machine gun’ conspiracy 10 year imprisonment CF1CF03546

    2. Kirk v Dr Tegwyn Williams, Professor Roger Wood and South Wales NHS CF with Cardiff court

    3. Regina v Kirk Royal Courts of Justice ‘contempt of court’ 28th June 201004016C1

    4. Regina v Kirk Cardiff Magistrates ‘common assault’ 21st Sept Judicial Review CO/4298/2011

    5. Kirk v Chief Constable , HM Court Service & Dr Tegwyn Williams 29th June Cardiff Magistrates

    6. Kirk v South Wales Police Court of Appeal hearing 29th July CF 101741+ 3 others

    7. MAPPA disclosure CF 101741+ 3 others

    I believe listing 11 & 12 July, for a pretrial hearing, does not allow me to even list the true severity of my grievances for the early stage of consideration before the Courts and that would seem to be a most profound denial of access to justice and a blatant attempt to deny me ‘Remedy’ for the true extent of my difficulties as extreme and indefinite. Only by examining early grievances, is a way to hide my best evidence, of the Defendant’s mindset would seem to me to surely be a denial of a fair trial, which can be unfair and so unlawful in UK law. It is also a breach of ECHR Article 6 & 14. A priority is the much awaited ruling by you for the release of further Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements minutes identifying further evidence of the conspiracy by the Chief Constable to having me shot. Please cancel the pretrial listing of 11 & 12 July 2011 in favour of supporting me in an ongoing process of law to appeal to the high courts that I be allowed to consolidated cases from 1992 to the present day ,to be heard outside Wales and before a jury.

    Yours Maurice J Kirk BVsc

  • Criminal Charges against Barbara Wilding, Dr Tegwyn Williams and Adrian Oliver Royal Courts of Justice 28th June & Cardiff Magistrates 29th June at 10 am

    Brian Haw was never a hero but a one man band who failed to connect with ALL of the other protesters at Parliament Square. Despite protesting for peace there was never any peace due to the infighting that was created when Brian thought he was the only soul entitled to protest on the square. Despite endless bad press now the very media that attacked him has turned him into some sort of hero.That he never was.
    kevin annet On the verge of his addressing a major public rally in London against child trafficking by church and state, Rev. Kevin Annett was arrested and detained in an immigration prison at Stansted airport last night for over 12 hours, and then deported from England without due cause.

    Border officials detained Kevin at 8 pm Sunday night upon his return from speaking in the Netherlands, and deported him the next morning, after fingerprinting, photographing and jailing him in a crowded immigration prison cell. “The only reason they gave for denying me re-entry into England was that my giving public lectures was not an appropriate activity for visitors to that country, if you can believe that” Kevin Annett said today in a press statement. “But I’ve repeatedly mentioned my lecturing work to customs people whenever I enter England, and it’s never been an issue before now. And the cop who detained me admitted that the decision to deny me entry came after he consulted his supervisor and the computer files about me.”

    Kevin was detained by British customs police and members of the private security firm Reliance, which operates the airport detention facilities and growing numbers of prisons in England. While detained, Kevin was denied the right to communicate with others, and the arresting officers refused to give him their names or badge numbers. This morning, Kevin was sent back to his departure point in Eindhoven, Netherlands. “This was obviously aimed at our ITCCS tribunal, to prevent its convening this September in London. But nothing will halt our campaign for the murdered and tortured children. This only shows how scared these villains are of exposure.”

    A complete description of the incident, and Kevin’s public statement, will follow shortly. Issued by the Executive, The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS)


    The filthy fiction calling itself the Crown of England finally vomited me from its midst this week, only five days before I was to speak of its crimes at the annual Against Child Abuse Rally in London's Trafalgar Square.

    I am proud to have shared a British prison with many freedom fighters over time, including my own ancestor Peter Annett; but also alongside nameless men and women who are caught today in the claws of the police state called Britain.

    *Here is what happened: *

    The room is small, unventilated, and foul-smelling, and crammed with ten of us. I am the only white person there. A Malaysian mother with her four year old daughter sits in one corner, sobbing uncontrollably. Incarcerated for half a day, she's one of the luckier ones: a young Turkish man called Farid has languished in here for nearly three days, isolated from his four children. Farid has lived in England for eleven years, doing sweat jobs and loyally paying his taxes, but tomorrow he'll be deported over a technicality in his work visa. There is no appeal allowed. His children will not accompany him. This is the Immigration Prison in Stansted airport, outside London. The date is the early hours of May 30, 2011.

    The net fell on me suddenly the night before, as I made my way through the border control desk after disembarking from the Netherlands. A banal little twit in a uniform scanned my passport through his computer, and quickly looked shocked as he peered through thick lenses at the screen. He scuttled off to speak to his supervisor, who I watched through the glass window of his office as he looked at his own computer, nodded his head and said something to the twit.

    Triumphantly - I guess he got extra points for bagging a suspected enemy of the state - Twit boy returned and informed me with a whine of condescension that my giving public lectures was "unusual" for a tourist, that I was "suspect", and would therefore be barred from entering England.

    "What exactly am I suspected of doing?" I asked the guy. "But first you are to come this way" he motioned, ignoring my question like I hadn't said anything, and we walked to a tiny holding cell. The Twit left me alone in there for a half hour, I guess to make me sweat, but when he returned I was calmly whistling an Irish melody that seemed to annoy him to no end.

    "I bet you find your job difficult," I ventured to the Twit as he fiddled with his papers. Attempting a smile, he answered, "No, actually one meets very fascinating people in this line of work," he replied. "People like you, then?" I said, but I don't think he got my joke. The Twit refused to give me his name when I asked, nor could I know the name of his supervisor. He also wasn't wearing a badge number, although later he made a gaff when he donned another coat and I saw his number: 6676.

    "You'll be in here tonight, until we can send you back from whence you came," Twit informed me, gesturing to a white door. He knocked, and a stern young guy answered who wore a vest labeled Reliance: the private company that profits off incarcerating people all over England. Despair gazed back at me from the sad eyes of my fellow prisoners who lay or sat around the room. A TV was blaring mindless crap at them so I walked over and shut it off. The young Turkish guy, Farid, looked surprised. After my obligatory finger printing and photographing - I asked the Reliance guy if I could have aa copy of the picture, since I looked pretty good, but he said no - I was locked into the sparse room with everyone, and told not to speak to any of them since that was against the rules. I just smiled.

    Most of the detainees didn't want to talk. It was nearly midnight by then, and like anyone, they had adapted to their incarceration and were mired in themselves. But Farid was too filled with grief about being robbed of his children to settle into apathy. "I will never see them again. They will be put with other families and then anything can happen to them. My youngest son is only a baby." I remembered reading the day before how 586 children placed in the foster care system in England had somehow disappeared over the past year. Local child welfare officials had given no explanation concerning their fate.

    Farid taught me some Turkish words that night, starting with "I love you" - it sounded like "sselly sev yurum". He laughed for the first time when he commented how the phrase might come in handy if I ever came to his country, but not if I said it to a man. "That's not what I hear" I replied, and he laughed even harder. We held back the demons together during those slow and weary hours, as the others tried to sleep, and didn't, and the Malaysian woman sang to her daughter while the Reliance thugs stared at us through a thick pane of glass.

    It ended for me at 6 am, when I was taken to a plane that would fly me back to Eindhoven. I said goodbye to Farid and wished him luck. He took my hand and said "Allah", pressing his other hand against his chest, and then pointing to my heart. I recalled then the last words in George Orwell's book /Homage to Catalonia/, in which he describes briefly meeting an Italian militia man who like Orwell was fighting Franco and his fascists during the Spanish civil war. They couldn't speak one another's language, but they shook hands and departed in different directions for the front lines, and Orwell never saw the Italian man again.

    In memory to this unknown stranger who had briefly taken his hand in comradeship, and who had probably died, Orwell wrote a poem to him that concluded, */But the look I saw in your eyes, no power can disinherit./ /No bomb that ever burst shatters the crystal spirit./*

    The night after my deportation, I stood in a crowd of singing and laughing revellers in a Dublin pub, tasting my freedom like a soothing ale, and thinking of where Farid might be. I never felt unfree in jail; nor did anything there or in his own agony stop Farid from laughing. As someone commented to me today, the more they repress us, the sharper and stronger we get. I feel inwardly clarified after the ordeal, and from the sounds of things, what happened to me is simply boomeranging back on the British government and its obvious and quite clumsy attempts to stop our Tribunal this fall.

    So be of good cheer, and let that hope propel your body and your life to continue to accompany your words. But never forget Farid, and his children ... and that which is trying to jail all of us.

  • Hidden from History
  • Hidden no longer