Expert Witnesses Sought in Brendon O'Connell trial

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

16 August 2010

My name is Brendon O'Connell and I am involved in a court case in Perth, Western Australia. I am looking for information on the contact details of possible expert witnesses to give evidence later this year in the Perth District Court, via video link if necessary, on the question of whether or not the "Jewish people" are properly classified as being a "racial group" which is defined in the Western Australian Criminal Code as meaning: "any group of persons defined by reference to race, colour or ethnic or national origins."

My position - having been charged under racial vilification laws in Western Australia - is that Jews are a religious group only, and I therefore contend that my alleged actions/words were directed towards a religious group on religious issues, not towards a racial/ethnic group on racial issues.

I believe Professor Shlomo Sand and Professor Paul Wexler could assist but I have been unable to make any contact with either of them. Also – Mr Michael Hoffman (http://www.revisionisthistory.org) who specializes in the religious study of so called "Judaism" is also a person of interest who has not returned any of my enquiries. People are encouraged to contact Mr Hoffman and enquire as to his interest in giving expert testimony in the same court as an Orthodox Rabbi.

Brother Nathaniel Kapner of Real Zionist News is another person of interest, as is Christopher Bollyn of http://www.bollyn.com. All costs of appearing via video link would be met by the State of Western Australia.

Please send correspondence to myself at – barrister.at.law.wa@gmail.com

Posted by FugaziQuo at 5:56 PM 0 comments
Labels: brendon oconnell racial villification jew jews stanley elliot keyser
Source: http://brendonoconnell.blogspot.com/201 ... ought.html

[jai_mann]

Well this certainly puts certain people's feet to the fire. I some how don't see any of those people contacting him back. I have hoffman's book, discovering judaism. But I have not made it the whole way through, and I can't agree with his approach to that criminal syndicate ("forgiving" is a good way to continue getting fucked over. Does a bully stop beating you for lunch money if you forgive him? Or does he stop when he gets his lights knocked out? I posit that entirely peaceful approaches are being pushed and attacks against physical force are being used to prevent an entirely productive response from the masses.).

I don't trust most of the people he cited. I've kept an open mind toward them but again, all I hear is this peace bullshit out of them. I've never been in a fight in my life, but the one time I stood up to a bully and prompted him to "beat my ass" as he had been threatening, he backed down. Is it possible that these people are producing 100% accurate, and publicly available information, and pairing it with the poisoned message of peaceful actions, which are impotent? I think it is possible, and quite probable. Thoughts anyone?

Surely these paragons of "truth" and honesty would rise to the occasion to support O'Connell with the facts they're telling every one else...

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well this certainly puts certain people's feet to the fire. I some how don't see any of those people contacting him back. I have hoffman's book, discovering judaism. But I have not made it the whole way through, and I can't agree with his approach to that criminal syndicate ("forgiving" is a good way to continue getting fucked over. Does a bully stop beating you for lunch money if you forgive him? Or does he stop when he gets his lights knocked out? I posit that entirely peaceful approaches are being pushed and attacks against physical force are being used to prevent an entirely productive response from the masses.).

I don't trust most of the people he cited. I've kept an open mind toward them but again, all I hear is this peace bullshit out of them. I've never been in a fight in my life, but the one time I stood up to a bully and prompted him to "beat my ass" as he had been threatening, he backed down. Is it possible that these people are producing 100% accurate, and publicly available information, and pairing it with the poisoned message of peaceful actions, which are impotent? I think it is possible, and quite probable. Thoughts anyone?

Surely these paragons of "truth" and honesty would rise to the occasion to support O'Connell with the facts they're telling every one else...

Michael Hoffman is a Christian and Christians often have difficulty knowing when is the appropriate time to "offer the other cheek" and when to fight. Believe me, it's not easy. I have his book too. Havent gotten through it all either.

[Christopher Marlowe]

the question of whether or not the "Jewish people" are properly classified as being a "racial group" which is defined in the Western Australian Criminal Code as meaning: "any group of persons defined by reference to race, colour or ethnic or national origins."

My position - having been charged under racial vilification laws in Western Australia - is that Jews are a religious group only, and I therefore contend that my alleged actions/words were directed towards a religious group on religious issues, not towards a racial/ethnic group on racial issues.

If you do an information search on this topic, you will find that there is a predominant feeling that Judaism is a religion, and obviously there are those who believe the contrary. But this is beside the main point, which is that there should be any question at all:

It makes no sense to prosecute someone for a criminal action when it is unclear if a law has even been broken.  Surely the policy should point to leniency if the law is unclear.

Ubi ius incertum, ibi ius nullum:  Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.  

Arbitrary judgment is offensive to a society of settled laws, and what could be more arbitrary than a vague law that changes to suit each new occasion?

While it should be useful to find an expert who can say that Judaism is a religion rather than a race, this will only lead to a contest between opposing experts. The real issue is that there should be any question about the status of Judaism. If it is unclear to the average person as to whether Judaism is a race or religion, then the law is vague as it is being applied in this instance. Period.  

THE VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

["Although it is unlikely a criminal will consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning be given the world, in language the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed" (O.W. Holmes)]

    This doctrine, so eloquently put by Justice Holmes (in McBoyle v. U.S. 1931) in the opening quote at the start of this lecture, has ancient origins, in the form of maxims, such as the maxim of uncertain law, in the form of legal history, that no law comes down to us unrevised from the Romans, and there are numerous cases in American jurisprudence that lay claim to establishing the doctrine. Frequently cited formulations include:

    "Any statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (Connally v. General Construction Co. 1926)

    "Any statute, on its face, which is repugnant to the due process clause, [where] specification of details of the offense would not serve to validate it...No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids" (Lanzetta v. New Jersey 1939)

    "To have available, through a sufficiently precise statute, information regarding the standard of criminality before being charged with the alleged commission of a crime" (Watkins v. U.S. 1957)

    "A state may not issue commands to its citizens in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them" (Raley v. Ohio 1959)

    It is not enough to challenge a law on the basis of imprecise words alone. A number of tests have been developed to tell when such attacks will be successful or not:

      Would a layman, or common person, know that the conduct in question is so wrong that it is likely to carry a criminal penalty? This is the most common test, and one in which judges must resort to an understanding of public opinion, culture, and custom.

      Is the statute capable of more precise language, without asking the legislature to do the impossible? This is sometimes known as the conjecture test, which looks at whether lawmakers seemed to leave things to the imagination.

      Is the statute more uncertain than other statutes, or is it part of a whole group of unclear statutes? This test gets at the bulk of criminal law in a certain area, and it is indeed possible for judges, collectively, to have a problem with some whole specific area of law.
http://www1.apsu.edu/oconnort/3010/3010lect01a.htm

[CoZ]

Well I can be an expert witness for O'Connell -- witness to the fact that he's a complete dickhead, a pathological liar, a raving, screaming nutjob and a violent loon. Actually, my whole street could testify to that.

O'Connell loves courtrooms. I'll be in one with him next month, at a hearing scheduled due to his futile desire to contest the restraining order I took out on him after this incident. I'm guessing he wants some footage of a "Jew" infringing on his right to rock up to my house and give me the shits, for a bombshell video exposé in a desperate attempt to resuscitate his flatlining career as Perth's premier Palestine solidarity movement saboteur.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well I can be an expert witness for O'Connell -- witness to the fact that he's a complete dickhead, a pathological liar, a raving, screaming nutjob and a violent loon. Actually, my whole street could testify to that.

O'Connell loves courtrooms. I'll be in one with him next month, at a hearing scheduled due to his futile desire to contest the restraining order I took out on him after this incident. I'm guessing he wants some footage of a "Jew" infringing on his right to rock up to my house and give me the shits, for a bombshell video exposé in a desperate attempt to resuscitate his flatlining career as Perth's premier Palestine solidarity movement saboteur.

O'Connell backstabbed me too.

[Ognir]

More details Tim

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Ognir, we were friends back on another forum. He befriended another user and became extremely paranoid. He then turned on me and virtually everyone else, calling us all Zionist shills. He also became obsessive with certain things. He really took exception to me exposing Freemasonry. Regardless of his shitty behaviour, I support what he has done and, of course, his court case.

[CoZ]

If you do an information search on this topic, you will find that there is a predominant feeling that Judaism is a religion, and obviously there are those who believe the contrary. But this is beside the main point, which is that there should be any question at all:

If there exist people who would argue that Judaism is not a religion, it's news to me. Judaism is a religion -- fact, end of, done. However, if you read what you quoted, O'Connell makes no mention of Judaism. He intends to argue that the "Jewish people" are not an ethnic group but an exclusively religious group. So let's do your information search.

Wikipedia (Yes, we can trust it to tell us what a Jew is -- just don't go there to read about the Kosher tax):

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ "Yehudim" IPA: jɛhuːdiːm), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8]

"Who is a Jew?," Wikipedia asks itself.

Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.[25]  Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.[26]

The prosecution will have no trouble demolishing O'Connell's position, which is that "Jews are a religious group only". Jeff Blankfort, Philip Weiss, Nathanial Kapner, Max Blumenthal, Gilad Atzmon, Jim Lobe, Richard Silverstein, Israel Shamir and this guy (10:20 into the video) all identify as Jews, and we consider them Jews, even though they aren't religiously Judaic. Everyone reading this right now, without exception, would consider a person born to Jewish parents as being a Jew. Mike Rivero is considered a "Marrano Jew" by Chris Bjerknes, even though technically he's less than 1% Jewish, and Bjerknes himself is - you guessed it - a Jew.

It's a self-evident fact that the "Jewish people" are comprised of those both inside and outside the Judaic paradigm. So basically O'Connell's fucked, with or without "expert witnesses".

Ognir, we were friends back on another forum. He befriended another user and became extremely paranoid. He then turned on me and virtually everyone else, calling us all Zionist shills.

Shit man, you did quite well then. One minute I was a great bloke who he wanted to "work together" with, texting and calling me every second or third day, and the next I was a Jew, a homosexual, a drug dealer, a meth addict and a police informant. You didn't give him your address, did you? You wouldn't want him to "expose" you on video, like he did me -- that shit's nearly as devastating as being accused of anti-Semitism by Adam Holland. : )

[Ognir]

I'll stay with my first impression, Hot-Head!
and I think the  s in Oz will make him do time

If I'm to believe what I heard the other night, from someone in contact with him, or so he said
he still has the gag order on him, yet the person that spoke to me seems to be up to date and what was going on

So let me get this straight, he's got the no talking on the internet gag order
yet I hear he's been email and skyping about his case WTF?

Seems he was also pissed off as he wasn't getting many donations, which I replied, which site would you go to donate anyway

Very strange

[mchawe]

Maybe O'Connor is an arsehole or maybe he isn't. That is not the issue. The issue is his defence in court under racial vilification laws.
Rather than getting an expert witness, wouldn't it be better for him to get a copy of the Talmud. Is it obtainable ? I don't know. You then produce a definitive document and dispense altogether with the expense of such a witness.
I have never seen one but I have somewhere seen some lurid quotes out of it.
I am new to this site and am learning all the time. So I don't have the answers. But that is the direction I would be going.
If you  were on trial and unless the judge is a Jew, reading a few passages might swing things in your direction.
There is also a quote from Eustace Mullins in his "New History of the Jews" that says, (Page 10)
".......every book written by a Jew to explain  anti-Semitism comes up with the same answer — "The gentiles
don't like us because of our religion." From the beginning of time, this is the only answer that the Jews have ever been able
to offer to the problem of anti-Semitism."
Mullins unfortunately doesn't mention any Jewish writers, so O'Connor would have to find such writers and quote them.
It is like turning the ammunition used by Jews against THEM.  Again you dispense with the expert witness.

[CoZ]

Don't get me wrong: the case has implications for all Australians, including and especially people like myself, so I support a not guilty verdict. I don't support O'Connell in any way, shape or form, but the case is about Australian law, dangerous precedents and freedom of expression, not Brendon O'Connell.

If I'm to believe what I heard the other night, from someone in contact with him, or so he said
he still has the gag order on him, yet the person that spoke to me seems to be up to date and what was going on

So let me get this straight, he's got the no talking on the internet gag order
yet I hear he's been email and skyping about his case WTF?

Here's an even bigger WTF. He threatens me in writing on June 13, discussing intimate details of his case and his life and the gag order, and then shows up at my house the very next day to get himself arrested when he's already out on bail for the vilification thing. Later at the cop station, according to the arresting officer, he admits to showing up at my house with the intent to provoke a conflict (why?). After asking me who this guy is, how I know him and what his problem is, the police ask me if I want to press assault charges and I decline, so they advise me to take out a restraining order. O'Connell has been to my house to cause shit three times by now, on one occasion going next door to hassle my neighbour and his family when I wasn't home, so I take their advice. O'Connell contests the restraining order, which compels him to stay outside a 100M radius of my house, even though it doesn't go on your record and has no other legal ramifications of any kind. Why? WTF?

Rather than getting an expert witness, wouldn't it be better for him to get a copy of the Talmud. Is it obtainable ? I don't know. You then produce a definitive document and dispense altogether with the expense of such a witness.
I have never seen one but I have somewhere seen some lurid quotes out of it.

First of all, O'Connell is seeking expert witnesses for a directions hearing on whether or not the Jewish people constitute a religious group, an ethnic group, or both (any competent prosecution will easily argue to the court's satisfaction that it's both). The Talmud won't help him with that, for obvious reasons.

Secondly, what O'Connell doesn't seem to understand (or pretends not to in order to solicit donations) is that the Talmud and international Jewry are not on trial -- he is. He's repeatedly said that he plans to expose Judaism "once and for all", that it's going to be the trial of the century and that not "since the court of King Louis XI" has there been such an opportunity. See the 'Regarding Donations' link I posted earlier:

Please understand – I am going to expose their disgusting little religion and "bad habits" in court for the first time since the 13th century. Think about that.

Yes, let's think about it. O'Connell has been charged with a committing a crime, and in his case it's incitement to racial vilification. The trial will be about determining whether or not he's guilty of that crime, and like all court cases, only relevant evidence will be heard. Here's a quick definition of relevant evidence as it pertains to Australian law.

1. Relevance

Relevant evidence is defined as evidence that could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. If the evidence is not relevant, then it is not admissible.  This means that if a barrister asks something that would have no impact at all on the assessment of whether or not somebody had committed a crime (e.g. a barrister asking about a witness' income in a rape trial is probably not going to be relevant in determining whether or not a rape was committed), the opposing barrister may object by standing up and saying 'objection, relevance'.

So if O'Connell tries to present evidence that Judaism is a racist, supremacist religion (eg, quotes from the Talmud), regardless of how valid that evidence is, the prosecution will object on the grounds that it isn't relevant to the case. The presiding magistrate won't allow it. It'd be like arguing that the deceased person in a murder case was a real prick; it has no bearing on whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder.

Narcissism, delusion, deception, who knows. Same with the stuff about me having his phone tapped, the Jews killing five people because of him, overseas friends' animals tasered and tortured, marijuana plants poisoned by Jews, suffering a stroke at Toben's house after being poisoned by the Mossad, "intense hacking" of his computer, emails remotely deleted, people in his roof, brake lines cut, people following him, etc etc. I don't know whether he actually believes this shit or not, I can't work it out.

[Christopher Marlowe]

If you do an information search on this topic, you will find that there is a predominant feeling that Judaism is a religion, and obviously there are those who believe the contrary. But this is beside the main point, which is that there should be any question at all:

If there exist people who would argue that Judaism is not a religion, it's news to me. Judaism is a religion -- fact, end of, done. However, if you read what you quoted, O'Connell makes no mention of Judaism. He intends to argue that the "Jewish people" are not an ethnic group but an exclusively religious group. So let's do your information search.

Wikipedia (Yes, we can trust it to tell us what a Jew is -- just don't go there to read about the Kosher tax):

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ "Yehudim" IPA: jɛhuːdiːm), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8]

"Who is a Jew?," Wikipedia asks itself.

Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.[25]  Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.[26]

The prosecution will have no trouble demolishing O'Connell's position, which is that "Jews are a religious group only". Jeff Blankfort, Philip Weiss, Nathanial Kapner, Max Blumenthal, Gilad Atzmon, Jim Lobe, Richard Silverstein, Israel Shamir and this guy (10:20 into the video) all identify as Jews, and we consider them Jews, even though they aren't religiously Judaic. Everyone reading this right now, without exception, would consider a person born to Jewish parents as being a Jew. Mike Rivero is considered a "Marrano Jew" by Chris Bjerknes, even though technically he's less than 1% Jewish, and Bjerknes himself is - you guessed it - a Jew.

It's a self-evident fact that the "Jewish people" are comprised of those both inside and outside the Judaic paradigm. So basically O'Connell's fucked, with or without "expert witnesses".

and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.
Obviously in this case, those persons could be considered "Jews" ONLY on a religious basis. --> That is Point one.  For these people, their Jewishness is only religious.  

Jeff Blankfort, Philip Weiss, Nathanial Kapner, Max Blumenthal, Gilad Atzmon, Jim Lobe, Richard Silverstein, Israel Shamir and this guy (10:20 into the video) all identify as Jews, and we consider them Jews, even though they aren't religiously Judaic.

The people in this group could be considered "Jews" only on a cultural or similar basis. --> That is Point two.  For these people, their Jewishness is only cultural.  

How about an objective viewpoint? Are there people who objectively believe that Judaism is only a religion?

For the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform - Judaism is, first and foremost, a religion. True, the three streams of Judaism have differing opinions on how that religion should be practiced - but they are in agreement that Judaism is, primarily, a religion. In fact, the early reform Jews in Germany were adamant in their belief that Judaism was only a religion. They held to the belief that their nationality was German, their culture was German, and their ethnicity was German. They were Germans like all other Germans, except that their religion was Jewish.

http://www.rainbowbythesea.org/5765sermon.php

It is a floor wax, and a dessert topping.  

It is not difficult to present society's beliefs regarding Judaism as a Venn diagram; well actually is is difficult, because I don't have that software and no idea how to use it on TIU.  But iffing I did know these things, I reckon there would be a big Religion circle, and a big cultural circle, and perhaps some other circles. And these circles would intersect where people believe both, or more ideas about Judaism. And of there would be portions of the circles that represented people who felt that Judaism did not encompass any other aspect.  Brandon OC is making the point that he is one of these people in the non-encompassing part of the religious circle.  

Your point is well taken, that Mr. O'Connell should not say that "Jews are a religious group only", but rather that it is HIS BELIEF that Jews are a religious group only and that HIS CRITICISM of Jews was only in regards to their religion. Place the burden on the State to show otherwise.

So if O'Connell tries to present evidence that Judaism is a racist, supremacist religion (eg, quotes from the Talmud), regardless of how valid that evidence is, the prosecution will object on the grounds that it isn't relevant to the case.

I thought that this case was about Australian racial vilification laws.

a "racial group" which is defined in the Western Australian Criminal Code as meaning: "any group of persons defined by reference to race, colour or ethnic or national origins."

My position - having been charged under racial vilification laws in Western Australia - is that Jews are a religious group only, and I therefore contend that my alleged actions/words were directed towards a religious group on religious issues, not towards a racial/ethnic group on racial issues.

If a person is charged with a crime under a statute, the state has to prove conduct in violation of the statute.  I haven't read any case law dealing with interpretation of this statute, but "religion" is obviously not mentioned in the definition. Brendon OC is saying that his actions were directed toward a religious group, and therefore were not in violation of the statute. The definition of Judaism as a religious group would therefore be very relevant.  It seems that the State should have to show that OC was directing his actions towards the racial/ethnic group.  

If you ask me, all of this "hate speech" garbage is just making inroads upon freedom of expression. The state begins with trying to make it look like they're just trying to make everyone get along. But by degrees our free speech becomes hate speech of some form or another. In the same manner, the internet gets shut down by trying to control hate speech, baby porn, or terrorism. It's all done by the Masters getting the slaves to STFU.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Coz, why did he threaten you?

[CoZ]

Chris, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

Your point is well taken, that Mr. O'Connell should not say that "Jews are a religious group only", but rather that it is HIS BELIEF that Jews are a religious group only and that HIS CRITICISM of Jews was only in regards to their religion. Place the burden on the State to show otherwise.

Exactly. That's how O'Connell should argue his case, because he could win that way. But for whatever reason, he's not. And as I've tried to show, he doesn't seem to be placing much importance on the outcome.

If I were out on bail for these charges -- charges which have potentially serious consequences for freedom of expression in Australia -- and I'd already been portrayed by the media as a "serial pest", I wouldn't go out of my way to get arrested again before the trial even begins. I'd take one for the team and lay low for a while.

Brendon OC is saying that his actions were directed toward a religious group, and therefore were not in violation of the statute. The definition of Judaism as a religious group would therefore be very relevant.

Yes, it's relevant for the directions hearing that he's seeking expert witnesses for. The directions hearing is about establishing whether or not Jews are a racial group, a religious group, or both. If O'Connell argues his case successfully, his barrister will move to dismiss the charges. If he fails, the trial will proceed and the Judaism thing will be irrelevant.

I thought that this case was about Australian racial vilification laws.

It is, but O'Connell doesn't seem to realise that. Trial of the century, not since the court of King Louie XI, first time since the 13th century etc. He thinks he's going to put the Jews on trial. It's a fantasy.

[CoZ]

Coz, why did he threaten you?

Sorry mate, I missed that. I have no idea, but he believes, or claims to believe, that I have his phone tapped and I'm part of the conspiracy -- a "Jew", a "criminal informant" etc. In the email he talks about an "orchestrated smear campaign", which is another fantasy. I posted some comments to his "Israel did 9/11 - some street activism for you" video at YouTube pointing out that he'd misquoted Alan Sabrosky by telling people on the street that Sabrosky wants Israel "wiped off the map" thereby evoking the Ahmadinejad disinfo touted by the Western media, and that his bullshit was more like sabotage than "activism". Yesterday the video was still on YouTube, today it's gone. That could've been it, but his beef with me goes back much further than that.

Here's his email.

Hello Mr Linton

You made reference to my private telephone conversations on your 2 part video - Goodbye Mr Lintonstein? So the obvious question is - how do you know the contents of my private phone conversations? It's a simple question?

People must ask - WHAT was the point of you having that "soapie" playing in the background? WHAT was the reference to gang killings about? WHAT was the constant voice dropping out all about? WHAT was it ALL about Mr Linton?

To the outside observer it would all mean nothing. To someone who knew the contents of my private phone conversations it would be PLAINLY OBVIOUS what you were doing.

The point is - HOW have you done it - as in...HOW do you know the contents of MY "PRIVATE PHONE CONVERSATIONS" with an emphasis on "PRIVATE". Simple question.

And whats more - just how would you possibly think you were going to get away with it?

Mr Linton, you seem to have the impression that you are somehow untouchable. Why would you have that impression? You appear supremely confident of your position. Why?

I would suggest you are supremely confident because you are a criminal informant for the Australian Federal Police. You live in the HEART of the jewish community in Perth at 135, 5th Avenue Mount Lawley. You love to blaspheme and defame and mock Christ and Christians but I have never seen nor heard of you mocking the foul and depraved religious habits of jews. Now why would that be? Whats more - your self admitted friend (Steve Johnson) and partner in crime admits he is a jew - we know this because he sent an e-mail to Jim Kerr where he states..."you dont like me because of my religion." Now WHICH religion might that be? You profess a love for abortion. You admitted to me at your home that you were an I.V Meth user. Now Mr Linton - YOU and I both know this :-) And it must grate on you that you had to get out of that one now did'nt it? :-D But such are the habits of the I.V Meth user - a big mouth whilst high. You also stated to me on that day that you had a friend who was a "cook" (Meth) and that he had brought around a syringe full of "grade A" Meth. Thats what you stated to me and watching you deny that online gives me an intense feeling of satisfaction.

We could go on and on about these bad habits but that is enough.

What I find most interesting is the screenshot of you attempting to threaten me with your next door neighbor who you claim to work in the Lifestyle/Income analysis section of the Australian Federal Police - Gary. You claimed you could use him to find me - thats a big call. Now, that would usually be enough to end the internet career of ANY shill but not you. You are still here. For the Meth addict, such a giant hiccup is but a minor detail in the fantasy world of the "Tweaker" who cannot be "touched" by the hands of drug dealers out to put down a "dog" OR apparently by the police - for whom he works and no doubt gets paid as you are not on the dole and claim to live off an "inheritance" - yeh, I've heard that one before from drug dealers..."inheritance", "i'm a professional gambler", "i play the stock market"...and on and on :-D

You are a funny little Tweaker :-)

When I remember you I remember the Tweakers from the Emergency department of Royal Perth Hospital - slightly amusing but incredibly sick in the head. From the Meth or simply a character trait no one really knows.

As you may well be aware I have a COMPLETE GAG ORDER placed on me. I have had this gag order since November the 20th 2009. Now that was in interesting day in court. ON that day I stood up and had a go at Senior D.P.P Prosecutor Mr Alan Troy and accused him of colluding DIRECTLY with the jewish community and Channel 9 to defame and slander me and pressure me into a guilty plea. Alan Troy RESIGNED that week and the local production of "A Current Affair" was axed a week later.

Then things got really interesting - first, a close supporter of mine in the U.S had their brother die in an office fire. Then, on December 25th another close friend in the U.S had their brother in law die of a heart attack (mid forties) and the next day his father died. Then that same close friend had an Aunt drop from a stroke but she survived. Then a close friend here had their close friend drop dead in his apartment here in Perth in early January (he was 34). Then on January the 16th one of my very best friends had the guy he was best man for die in an office fire here in Perth...
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 5820342539
It is now an official murder investigation.

On that day (January 16th) I flew out to Dr Fredrick Tobens house to stay a while. On January the 18th I got in the early morning to go to the toilet and felt immediately nausea's. I wanted to vomit and my head began to throb. I made it to the toilet and then collapsed - waking flat on my back on the floor with a gash to my forehead. I know a stroke when I have one - I worked on a stroke unit and have worked in I.C.U and C.C.U's and E.D's.

Then - the day before an important hearing (Feb 8th) I got word from my Mother that my sister Jacquie had collapsed from a stroke and was not expected to live. My mother flew out that night to her bed side in North Queensland. She had taken the dog to the Vet and then complained of nausea then vomited then collapsed. She was dead as she hit the floor. An off duty Paramedic revived her in front of her kids. She had suffered a massive cerebral bleed. She then suffered another as she lay in intensive care on a ventilator. It was turned off after 3 days and her organs donated as she wished. I was close to my sister and was looking forward to staying with her after the court case was over and I gained back my Nursing Registration and left the State for good. Now I am going to stay here and make every single person pay. Every one. Every one who has threatened me, slandered me, mocked me, stalked me, harassed me. Every single person.

And you are top of that list.

This I sware - till my dying breath, I am going to hunt you down and make you pay. You took part in a co-ordinated harassment campaign against me and the poster known as "america" in the U.S. You are a jew who lives in the heart of the jewish community. You are an A.F.P criminal informant and drug addict and drug dealer.

I will be seeing you. Soon.

If you feel threatened in any way please call Inspector Barry Shelton of State Security and Counter Terrorism. We had a nice chat 5 weeks ago about a few issues. If Barry wont speak to you then go for Detective Sergent Tim Paini of the State Security Investigation Group. He already knows about you and your friend "SAINTHITLER" aka: Mike Mazzone whom you have been in intense contact with. I believe you and your heavy metal friends here in Perth were going to burn down our Orthodox Christian Chappel? Never saw you? Oh well - maybe I will see you soon anyway.

The video camera is far mightier than the sword and you crossed the line sonny. You crossed a line into a world where it is not ones feelings being hurt but ones life at stake. The year has seen a Foreign Intelligence outfit harass me and my friends which includes personnel from Campbell Barracks doing the stalking. It has included brake line cutting and open death threats online from people that simply stated..."we will poison you and your family." And maybe they did. In fact I'm quite sure of it.

Smile James Linton. Smile.

135, 5th Avenue Mount Lawley.

I note that it has not changed hands for a LONG time that house. Well over 30 years as it does not appear on records as having been sold in that time. Hmmmm...thats interesting. I wonder who owns it? I'll find out.

I forgot to add that you will be front and center on a Blog that gets 3-4 million hits a month. Just thought you would like to know that :-)

The next day he showed up and was hauled off in a paddy wagon.

[CoZ]

The video that has him convinced I'm listening in on his calls is here.

[CoZ]

O'Connell's YouTube account is now "closed":

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrBrendonoconnell33

His girlfriend's YouTube channel is "not available":

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingamerica

A Google cache of her channel is still viewable. Here's a screenshot for posterity; note the link to the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) Support group:

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/6668 ... merica.jpg

Also see the 'Books' section.

Tanya, Torah, Bible, Talmud

A few months ago she showed up at my YouTube channel and accused me of "hate speech". I can't work these fuckers out.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I don't know, but I found O'Connell more normal before he got involved with this "America" person.