UK ruling kills blogger anonymity

[MikeWB]

There goes anonymity on forums... how long before they demand that you use your real, trackable, identity online?

Thousands of bloggers who operate behind the cloak of anonymity have no right to keep their identities secret, the High Court ruled yesterday.

In a landmark decision, Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an order to protect the anonymity of a police officer who is the author of the NightJack blog. The officer, Richard Horton, 45, a detective constable with Lancashire Constabulary, had sought an injunction to stop The Times from revealing his name.

In April Mr Horton was awarded the Orwell Prize for political writing, but the judges were unaware that he was using information about cases, some involving sex offences against children, that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions.

His blog, which gave a behind-the-scenes insight into frontline policing, included strong views on social and political issues.

RELATED LINKS
Writer advised on how to evade long arm of the law
NightJack: My posts seemed to strike a chord
Nightjack: a blog that was simply superb
The officer also criticised and ridiculed "a number of senior politicians" and advised members of the public under police investigation to "complain about every officer . . . show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it".

Some of the blog's best-read sections, which on occasion attracted half a million readers a week, were anecdotes about cases on which Mr Horton had worked. The people and places were made anonymous and details changed, but they could still be traced back to real prosecutions.

In the first case dealing with the privacy of internet bloggers, the judge ruled that Mr Horton had no "reasonable expectation" to anonymity because "blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity".

The judge also said that even if the blogger could have claimed he had a right to anonymity, the judge would have ruled against him on public interest grounds.

The police officer, the judge said, had argued that he should not be exposed because it could put him at risk of disciplinary action for breaching regulations. But Mr Justice Eady criticised that argument as "unattractive to say the least".

He added: "I do not accept that it is part of the court's function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors."

He added: "It would seem to be quite legitimate for the public to be told who it was who was choosing to make, in some instances quite serious criticisms of police activities and, if it be the case, that frequent infringements of police discipline regulations were taking place."

The action arose after Patrick Foster, a Times journalist, identified the NightJack blogger "by a process of deduction and detective work, mainly using information on the internet," the judge said.

Hugh Tomlinson, QC, for Mr Horton, had argued that "thousands of regular bloggers . . . would be horrified to think that the law would do nothing to protect their anonymity if someone carried out the necessary detective work and sought to unmask them". Mr Tomlinson said that Mr Horton wished to remain anonymous and had taken steps to preserve his anonymity.

But Mr Justice Eady said that the mere fact that the blogger wanted to remain anonymous did not mean that he had a "reasonable expectation" of doing so or that The Times was under an enforceable obligation to him to maintain that anonymity.

Antony White, QC, for The Times, argued that there was a public interest in non-compliance by a police officer with his obligations under the statutory code governing police behaviour and also with general public law duty on police officers not to reveal information obtained in the course of a police investigation other than for performing his public duties.

Lancashire Constabulary said: "He has been spoken to regarding his professional behaviour and, in line with disciplinary procedures, has been issued with a written warning."

[LordLindsey]

You people in England let every single bit of this happen to you and you don't do a DAMNED thing to stop it.  You had ALL of your guns taken away from you--YOU DID NOTHING.  You had your free-speech taken away from you--YOU DID NOTHING.  You allow cameras to track your every move--YOU DID NOTHING.  NOW...EACH and EVERY blogger can now have his anonymity lifted by anyone *Zionists* who want to know who is telling the people the truth in a media forum, even though being kept anonymous as a source using a pen-name is something that has been occurring for as long as stories have been written.

Things are horrible in America, but shit people, those of you in England are in a much, much worse condition than America and you are COMPLETELY responsible for what has happened to you.  I simply can't believe what has happened to people in general, and this is as bad as it gets when journalists of any sort are in fear of telling the truth because of the repurcussions to them if they do--THAT is what makes this so terrible.

LINDSEY

[MikeWB]

Soon, you won't be able to buy a pointed knife. Only these types of knives will be allowed in UK...



Anti-stab knife

[LordLindsey]

This is exactly what I am talking about and the people don't do a damned thing to stop what is happening to them.  "What happened to you?  Did your balls drop off?"  That's the best question that needs to be asked to the people of England because simple ignorance or stupidity doesn't answer this question any longer.  The same for Australia...you even had your REAL "Crocodile Dundee" murdered by police when he refused to give-up his guns.

You people should be ashamed of what has happened to you; at least in America we have a little longer before the people reach the level that England ALREADY has.  If you think that I am angry, you are RIGHT.

LINDSEY

[Anonymous]

You are either "defending" or 'prosecuting" when in court.
NEVER, EVER go to court "defending" a matter.
ALWAYS, without failure go to court "prosecuting".

So...if one disagrees with the court then serve notice upon the agency who enforces this new legislation.
drag their lousy ass into court....ITS FUN!!!
The only man the authorities respect is the "Belligerent Claimant."
All others are viewed as "wounded dogs laying in the corner licking their nuts." :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Anonymous]

A sample of what I served on the courts and now all they do is throw me out of court when brought up on charges....

Notice of Claim of Right to Contravene an Act of Parliament and Disobey Court Orders


August 18, 2008


Canada Post registration # _____________________________________

To Whom It May Concern, including but not limited to, the "Provincial Court of Saskatchewan", it's agents, sheriffs, prosecutors, justices and all justice system participants therein,

"I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both."
Furthermore,
Please regard this as legal notice of the claimant's lawful excuse, [pursuant to the claimant's claim of right,] to contravene Acts of Parliament and disobey court orders.

TO WIT;
Source: Department of Justice Canada

Criminal Code  All highlighting done by claimant

Obedience to de facto law

15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 15.

Defence of Property

Defence of personal property
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
Assault by trespasser
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.
Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

Disobeying a statute

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Attorney General of Canada may act
(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Disobeying order of court

127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Attorney General of Canada may act
(2) Where the order referred to in subsection (1) was made in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government, any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene that order may be instituted and conducted in like manner.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 127; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F); 2005, c. 32, s. 1.

Pursuant to the claimant's established, uncontested (NiHIL DICIT), [Latin, He says nothing. It is the failing of the defendant to put in a plea or answer to the plaintiff's declaration by the day assigned; and in this case judgment is given against the defendant of course, as he says nothing why it should not. Vide 15 Vin. Ab. 556; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.]  and perfected "Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right" as of the date February 16, 2007, this notice is hereby served on all concerned and affected parties through the principals, TO WIT: Confirmation of the aforementioned contract in full force and effect may be viewed at the holders in due course at: The Mayors office at city of Saskatoon, office of Saskatoon City Counsellor for Ward 2 Pat Lorje, office of MLA for Riversdale Lorne Calvert and the office of Carol Skelton M.P. for Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar or Saskatoon Police Chief Clive Weighill's office.
Furthermore,

Anyone who, acts in such a way to contravene this "Notice of Claim of Right to Contravene an Act of Parliament and Disobey Court Orders" either directly or by proxy does so at their own peril and is subject to the penalty provided under the Laws of Canada, the claimant's right to convene his own court dejure and the right to bill under protest pursuant to the FEE SCHEDULE in place in the aforementioned claim of right.

Please respond within 3 days or it will be deemed by the claimant under protest that this notice is to issue and is in full force and effect.
In Pure Trust and without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Dated; August 18, 2008 and signed in the city of Saskatoon, province of Saskatchewan.


Claimant:__________________________________________________
                       Claimant/claimant's agent all rights reserved

Claimant:
Jackie-Grant-Vel'oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th Street West,                                                                                                                                                                               Saskatoon city, Saskatchewan province.
Free-man-on-the-Land, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.

[Anonymous]

What I am saying above here is in effect: "either they show up at the party with their clothes on and their cards showing or they can remount the donkey they rode up on...do a 180 degree turn and fuck off back to where ever the hell it was they came from!!" :twisted:  :twisted:

[MikeWB]

You are either "defending" or 'prosecuting" when in court.
NEVER, EVER go to court "defending" a matter.
ALWAYS, without failure go to court "prosecuting".

So...if one disagrees with the court then serve notice upon the agency who enforces this new legislation.
drag their lousy ass into court....ITS FUN!!!
The only man the authorities respect is the "Belligerent Claimant."
All others are viewed as "wounded dogs laying in the corner licking their nuts." :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 
A Belligerent Claimant
by Michael H. Keehn
November 22, 2006
I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors.  He was charged
because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
doing their jobs and answering some basic questions.  In the world of legal issues, there is this
1
rule called tacit admission.  Which government uses against 'we the people' on a regular basis.
The rule works as follows:
Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
speeding or driving without a valid drivers license.  If we do not contest or dispute this
accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
TACIT ADMISSION.
In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
determinations that were asserted.  A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
policeman writing you a ticket for speeding.  The officer has asserted a legal determination that
you were speeding.  It is no different.  You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
as they do.  
And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you've asserted,
then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact.  This
is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally.  In my friends case,
they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.  
the question here proposed is 'what to do if faced with a similar experience?'  Fortunately we
occasionally have a judge that is on our side.  We don't always see them as such, but, at times,
they are truly trying to help us.  Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee.  In U.S. vs.
JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person."  McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
171, 175 N.E. 876.
In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed.  He has said that rights are not
accorded the passive resistant.  Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
rights.  Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
simply doesn't care.  And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
claim your rights for you.  Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
represent you.  Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
person.  He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
to engage in sustained combat.  
There you have it.  You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him.  And in a pre-trial motion
hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife.  That
you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
home.  Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house.  While this might seem a reach to
you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
this is the type of logic you can expect.  It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
structuring of his defense.  Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
all possible.
While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
have paid for time in court.  You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
were never heard or approved.  And when you are ruled in contempt you still don't give up.
Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don't give up... remember, sustained
combat.  You've paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts.  You become that
Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
secure your rights.  Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
It's your life.  You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case.

[veritasvincit]

It seems as thought the Zionists have used the U.K. as their testing ground for all socio and economic manipulation starting with economics back in the 1800's.

[MikeWB]

It seems as thought the Zionists have used the U.K. as their testing ground for all socio and economic manipulation starting with economics back in the 1800's.

Ever since Rothschilds took over the UK's banking, Zios have had control over the whole of UK. Their power is so strong there that they've even convinced  the Royal family that they are somehow a Jewish offshoot. They use UK for their imperial aspirations.

But what baffles me is how the heck did they allow such a huge muslim population there? Is that a fluke or are they planning on having a war within UK.

[AK3N470N]

This is exactly what I am talking about and the people don't do a damned thing to stop what is happening to them.  "What happened to you?  Did your balls drop off?"  That's the best question that needs to be asked to the people of England because simple ignorance or stupidity doesn't answer this question any longer.  The same for Australia...you even had your REAL "Crocodile Dundee" murdered by police when he refused to give-up his guns.

You people should be ashamed of what has happened to you; at least in America we have a little longer before the people reach the level that England ALREADY has.  If you think that I am angry, you are RIGHT.

LINDSEY

Most people in the UK are under a different mindset. It is a nation that has always had much supervision from its masters. The veteran bloodlines of England would have been the ones who stayed put when America was being formed. That or they would have been fighting Americans to get them to return to the Queen. So like I said, this is the mindset and lifestyle that they are used to.

America on the other hand, your country was formed through revolution. Your ancestors were the ones who took off from Europe and wanted a different lifestyle. So it is YOU and your American brethren who should be asking the question, "What happened to you?  Did your balls drop off?". Simple stupidity or ignorance is intolerable with Americans this late in the game. You people have a law that allows you to bear weapons, you still have your free speech, and enough guns were sold in America in the last few months to make a dent. Yet you sit here, posting frequently as your country goes to shit. What is the excuse? Your anger should be pushed towards doing more than ranting on a forum to people who know just as much as you do. I spend my time on forums where people haven't got a damn clue about Zionism or the concept that the world doesn't run itself.

I know it is easier to complain about the British or the Australians but surely you must know that the object of the game is to destroy America, the one with all the guns...

[Anonymous]

Here is what I think happened to the British, Americans, Canada and the world in general....

Modern "Commercial Law"
Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
In chapters 17 &18 of Revelation in the Bible it is Revealed that a particular Religious Jurisdiction is recognizable as a "Great Prostitute" who "Rules over the Kings of the Earth" through the use of "Deception", "Magic", & "Merchants". This "Great Prostitute" who uses Deceptive Magic is clearly labeled therein as "BABYLON".
With reference to such reputable modern textbooks as "Historical Jurisprudence" by Guy Carlton, Lee of Johns Hopkins University in 1922; Babylon's Religious Priesthood is commonly recognized as the source of the modern so-called "Laws of Commerce". These "Laws of Commerce" are shown to be a specific body of Codes, which authorize the Administration of Compelling Force in Efforts to uphold Contracts, mostly for Payments of Debts. The ancient Babylonian Priests were involved because Contracts were deemed to be a form of "Oath" entered into by the contracting parties; & the approval of the Gods were invoked so as to more effectively legitimize the entire process in the minds & the consciences of the contracting parties & all public witnesses. These Babylonian Religious Codes recognized the ability to buy & sell contracts between merchants in "Commerce". They bought & sold "slaves & the souls of men" in the time of Christ, & before & after. Under this system of Babylonian Codes, contracted-debtor-people were Forcibly Compelled to perform the contract regardless of Conscionability, or who was the contract-creditor. This Babylonian Religious Commercial Code embodied a sub-codification which is modernly recognizable as "Master-Servant Relationships", which apes", which are also the source of modern Employer-Employee Codes. This is all Babylonian Religious Code, whereunder, "Temporary Slavery" is facilitated. People were not recognized as people thereunder, but were items in Commerce. The Slave could be arrested for not showing up for work on time. Textbooks say that "The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle". ... "Of ... these Rome was ... possessed from the earliest period ... " ("Historical Jurisprudence" - Lee)
History seems to tell that many Israelites had been captured into Slavery in Babylon, but by the time of Christ Jesus, many had returned. The Babylonian Commercial Merchant Codes seemed to infect Israelite society at the same time, & to undermine greatly the Godly Principles of the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees had schools in Babylon "from soon after 586 before the Christian era to the year 1040 after the Christian era - 1626 years.". Here J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi - 1934) reveals) reveals the source of the material which is Codified within their "Babylonian Talmud". This is that source-repository from which the modern Talmud draws its historical roots. J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi) & others of the same belief are all comfortable referring to it amongst themselves as the "Babylonian Talmud". He states: "The style of the Babylonian Talmud ... is at no time "easy reading"." As the name signifies, the "Babylonian Talmud" contains much of the Commercial Slave-Trading Mercantile Codifications of "Master-Servant Relationships" which originated in Babylon.
The "Babylonian Talmud" refers to those not of the Pharisaical Faith as "Goim" or "Gois", which translates to be "Human Cattle". This is just as the textbooks refer
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
to the Babylonians considering their Slaves. Though direct citations are thin in eluding it to Slavery itself, the "Babylonian Talmud" does set forth some such evidence showing clearly that non-Pharisees are to be treated with all of the "Contempt" of Slaves. "All things pertaining to the Goim are like desert, the first person to come along & take them can claim them for his own." Babha Bathra 45. It is permitted to deceive a goi." Babha Kama 113b. And though citations are not clear that this is directly from the Talmud, Pharisaical Literature at A. Rohl. Die Polem. P.20 states "TP.20 states "The Life of a Goi & all his physical powers belong to a Jew." And articles published by Henry Ford's newspaper, the Dearborn Independent in 1920 - 1922 discuss the "Kol Nidre" as a Pharisaical: "prayer, named from its opening words, "All vows"," (kol nidre). It is based on the declaration of the Talmud: "He who wishes that his vows & oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year & say: 'All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of "no value.' " The list goes on & on. Coke & others have defined these People as "Infidels", precisely because History has clearly shown to the more reputable men that the "Oath" of such others means nothing to them. They cannot be "Bound" by "Conscience", & they habitually "Lie" at every turn which may serve their own self-serving interests or those of their "Synagogue of Satan" as referred to by Christ Jesus at Revelation 2:9 & 3:9. This is the nature of their "Law", among these would-be Slave Masters. They cannot be expected to be bound to tell the truth to those other people whom they feel En-Titled by the Authority of their Evil God to control such unsuspecting other men as Slaves. Such "Infidels" were expelled from almost every country in Europe between the 13th & 15th centuries for this precise reason of their tenacious adherence to this Babylonian Master-Slave system of Human Conduct Codes, & their relentless lying & deceit. The Sadducees apparently stood strong against this corrupting influence, but their days were numbered, for after the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 AD, the religious belief system of the Sadducees had met genocide & extinction. The Pharisees (on the other hand) were conspicuously left in the position of authority over all Jews who did not profess Christianity.
The Jewish Encyclopedia: (1905 Page 665) shows that the ancient Religion of the Pharisees have been in continuous total control of what is fashionably recognized as the "Jewish Religion", ever since the destruction of Solomon's Temple. "With the destruction of their Temple ...Henceforth, Jewi/u , Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees ... Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism & the life & thought of the Jew for all the future." With the extinction of the Sadducees, the only Jewish entity which thereafter stood in opposition to the Pharisees & their Babylonian Codified Talmud were the Christians. The powers in Rome were compromised by this influence. As revealed elsewhere, this Religion of the Pharisees continues to this day under their self-proclaimed banner of "Judaism" or "Jews". They are not true "Jews" but rather they are of the "Synagogue of Satan", precisely as Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 state. They merely proclaim such out of strategy to effect their purpose. Approximately 85% of them are not even of the "Semitic" bloodline, but rather are of Ashkenazi background/race. They adopted the Pharisaical-Babylonian Talmudian Religion in about the year 350 or so, out of convenience. They know this but they scream "Anti-Semite" with spine chilling fervor whenever it suits their evil agenda. Modern descendants of these same Pharisees look to the same "Babylonian Talmud" code of Master/Slave Laws as the principle source for written guidance as a Code of Conduct for their lives. Textbooks show plainly that Rome is the
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
source of English & American Civil Law. Civil Law is recognized in Black's Law Dictionary as synonymous with "Municipal Law". Rome is well recognizable as an Aggressively Warring & Conquering nation. Textbooks say that the conquered cities "were compelled to pay the war-tax" ... "a town thus treated was known as a municipum or "burden-holder"." Many of the conquered peoples were reduced to Slaves. The Roman merchants engaged in much Slave Trade. They established Slave-markets. Contracts exchanged hands among merchants for the delivery of Slaves. The Codes which governed these contracts for Slaves was based on the same Codes which the Babylonians had developed. "Of ... these Rome was ... possessed from the earliest period ... ". ("Historical Jurisprudence" - Lee).
Such Babylonian Master/Salve so-called "Law" is modernly still recognizable under either term of "Civil" or "Municipal" Law. The majority of reputable Biblical Scholars recognize Rome to be the 6th head of the 7 headed "Beast" described in Revelation upon which the "Great Prostitute" sat & which was in existence at that time of Christ, the Civil/Military government of Rome. The 7th head is similarly recognized as then prophesying of our modern Anglo-American Civil/Military government.
**********Norman Conquest**********
The Norman (French) Conquest over the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic people of England in 1066 is vastly under-rated in its significance to understanding modern considerations of good government. From Rome, it had the "Solemn Blessings of the Pope". The Pharisaical system of "Babylonian Talmudian" based "Commercial Law" was at that time Forcibly Imposed over the Christian-Common Law English People. An article in "The Georgetown Law Journal" V. 71, P 1179 - 1200) "The Shetar's Effect on English Law" by: Judith A. Shapiro sheds much light: "The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England ...brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce & a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. ... Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement - shetar, or Starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. ... Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding. ... Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land." "Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class.). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock & F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469... (alien to English law 'for creditor not in possession of land' to have rights in it)."
The Pharisees worked with the Normans under the "Blessing of the Pope" of Rome & its Roman Civil Municipal Codes, all so as to establish this "weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric" of the society of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic peoples. These are words of Ms Shapiro as they appear in the
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
Georgetown Law Journal. The aggressively warring nature of that Babylonian-Talmudian based Code of Pharisaical Conduct is not in question among that circle of scholars. It is a body of Slave/Master Codes. It "tears at the fabric" of that society which it targets. The "Shetar" is a corruption of the word "Star" & refers to the famous "Star Chamber Courts". "The name star chamber ... has been thought to be ... because the roof was originally studded with stars, because the Jewish covenants (called starrs or stars ... ) were originally kept there." Bovier's 1860. "Starr or starra. The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews, being a corruption from the Hebrew word "shetar", a covenant, ... & Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was thence called the "Star-Chamber"." "Star Chamber: A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed by one party, ... that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. ...
In the reign of Henry the 8th, & his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended to such a degree (especially in punishing the kings arbitrary proclamations) that it became odious to the nation, & was abolished." Blacks 5th: These courts of Pharisaical Commercial Master/Slave Codes became heinous in part for their "Secret Proceedings" & their infliction of "Cruel & Unusual Punishments" that they were abolished. They were the essence of the so-called Equity Jurisdiction. It was all run by Chancery Priests, & referred to in deceptively as "Courts of Equity", the only thing being "Equal" about them is that all Conquered "Slaves" thereunder are treated more or less Equally. "Courts of Chancery" is a more honest name, as it was great "Chance" taken to go before such.
"The whole of equity jurisprudence prevailing in England & the United States is mainly based on the civil law", so says Bovier's Law Dictionary of 1868. "Civil Law" is from Rome. There was no "Equity Jurisprudence" in England prior to the Norman Conquest. The Norman Conquest had the "solemn approval of the Pope" of Rome according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Other sources conform the Roman Pope's support & blessing.
The conclusion to Reasonable Men is that the Norman's "War of Aggression" was jointly backed by the Christ Killing Pharisees & the Pope of Rome, so as to Forcibly Impose the Roman Civil/Municipal Codes of Babylonian- -Talmudian based Master/Slave relations. These were mere Tools for Slave Control which was early imposed by Evil Men with great influence within the Pharisaical & Catholic religious communities. Any Truly Godly Spirituality which may have existed within either of those religious organizations was most assuredly bound & gagged by the more d by the more powerful forces of Evil therein at the times of the Norman Conquest. As at the Crusades. As at the Inquisition. These entities have very bad track records.
Evil men Aggressively made Religious War against the Christian/Common-Law - Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Peoples of England in 1066. The "Babylonian-Talmud" was completed well before the Norman Conquest of 1066. It's all the same basic Master/Slave Commerce form of Code of Human Conduct. It all treats living breathing People as "Merchandise" in Commerce to be bought & sold as those "Slaves & the Souls of Men" as referred to in Revelation 18:13. This entire body of Codified Human Conduct is all so amorally lacking in fidelity to the Supreme Laws
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
of "Love of Neighbor" from YHVH as taught by His Son Yeshuah as to be clearly a policy of the "Synagogue of Satan" as referred to at Revelation 2:9 & 3:9. It is easy to summarize that this is that precise same Code of Human Conduct of which the Pharisee "Money-Changers" were using to corrupt the Temple in Jerusalem, & of which Christ Jesus overturned their tables& drove them out of His Father's House with the whip. It is easy to summarize that this is the Code of Conduct upon which the Pharisees moved to whip up the mob into such a fervent state of Anarchy's to abort "Due Process of Law" & to have Yeshuah the Christ Lawlessly nailed to the Cross (or stake).
This Code of Conduct embodied within the "Babylonian Talmud" is very large, but it contains specific portions which are designed to "Tear at the Fabric" of the society which is its target. These are the words of Ms Shapiro, as set forth in the Georgetown Law Journal. This is not the wording of "Anti-Semitic Right Wing Extremists". Ms Shapiro's term "Tear" is specifically used to denote that process which obliterated the "Fabric of ... Society", as it had existed prior to that War of Aggression. It would seem Reasonable to conclude that this is a Code of Human Conduct based on "Terrorism". Certainly the word "Tear" seems related to "Terrorism". Certainly the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Christian People were greatly Fear Inspired by the forcible imposition of this "Babylonian Talmud" based Code of Human Conduct. The wording of Ms Shapiro Reasonably seems to be an acknowledgment that "Terrorism" was used by the Normans & the Pharisees "who call themselves Jews" as a matter of policy under that Code of Human Conduct known as the "Babylonian Talmud".
This entire body of Roman Civil Law is based upon "Contracts", & it was early incorporated into what was known as English "Law Merchant", which many fine scholars have confused as being a true part of the English "Common-Law". Such happened only after corrupting influence of the Norman Conquest.
Contracts are only enforceable in Courts of so-called "Equity". "Equity" jurisdiction was allowed to enter into American Jurisprudence by way of Article 3 Section 2-1 of the U.S. Constitution. Such was a slap in the face of Christ Jesus, & much Evil has worked its purpose in this land by way of that compromise of Godly Principles. However, Equity is purged from all of its authority to adjudicate anything if proper "Due Process of Law" is invoked, as such process is set forth in Beacon Theaters v Westover. This modern essence of "Law" allows Americans to free themselves by "Due Process of Law" from the Babylonian Master/Slave jurisdiction of so-called "Equity".

[Anonymous]

Beacon Theatres v. Westover,
 359 U.S. 500 (1959), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with jury trials in civil matters. The court held that where legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the legal claims must be tried by a jury before the equitable claims can be resolved.

The following explanation can be found at the Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - United States Constitution site at http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... _user.html
In Beacon Theatres v. Westover, the Court held that a district court erred in trying all issues itself in an action in which the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the defendant from instituting an antitrust action against it, and the defendant had filed a counterclaim alleging violation of the antitrust laws and asking for treble damages. It did not matter, the Court ruled, that the equitable claims had been filed first and the law counterclaims involved allegations common to the equitable claims. Subsequent jury trial of these issues would probably be precluded by collateral estoppel, hence "only under the most imperative circumstances which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims."

[LordLindsey]

I'm angry because an entire nation has been completely subjugated and America is right-in-line to suffer the same fate.  What is wrong with the human species, and I am asking--AGAIN--a very serious question?

LINDSEY

[Anonymous]

We sat back, paid our taxes and  thought someone else will take care of it.
Well, they took care of it all right...they robbed our bank and put it all in theirs.
Now they have the audacity to tell us it was theirs all along!
Trouble is....EVERYONE...ALMOST.... CONSENTED!
So...if everyone consented then, it's just business...YES?...NO?
THE FUCKING LAWYERS ARE PLAYING MIND GAMES WITH EVERYONE!
AND THEY GOT THE COPS BACKING THEM UP.

[Shiksa Rage]

LordLyndsey, as a Brit I'd love to be able to take issue with you, but I cannot; we have brought this mess upon ourselves. Firstly, for having voted the evil Bliar into power, not once but thrice,secondly, for having let the government ride roughshod over our civil liberties. For example: imagine if the French or American governments tried to outlaw hunting. I suspect there would be uproar. But as hunting is perceived in Britain as a 'toffs' passtime, nobody really cared. Yet, it can be hunting today and whatever else is considered 'politically incorrect' tomorrow.
The only defence I can make is that we were all taken unawares by the boiling frog syndrome

[Anonymous]

It started long before Blair came on the scene.
1066 to be precise:

**********Norman Conquest**********
The Norman (French) Conquest over the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic people of England in 1066 is vastly under-rated in its significance to understanding modern considerations of good government. From Rome, it had the "Solemn Blessings of the Pope". The Pharisaical system of "Babylonian Talmudian" based "Commercial Law" was at that time Forcibly Imposed over the Christian-Common Law English People. An article in "The Georgetown Law Journal" V. 71, P 1179 - 1200) "The Shetar's Effect on English Law" by: Judith A. Shapiro sheds much light: "The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England ...brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce & a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. ... Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement - shetar, or Starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. ... Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding. ... Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land." "Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class.). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock & F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469... (alien to English law 'for creditor not in possession of land' to have rights in it)."
The Pharisees worked with the Normans under the "Blessing of the Pope" of Rome & its Roman Civil Municipal Codes, all so as to establish this "weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric" of the society of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic peoples. These are words of Ms Shapiro as they appear in the
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
Georgetown Law Journal. The aggressively warring nature of that Babylonian-Talmudian based Code of Pharisaical Conduct is not in question among that circle of scholars. It is a body of Slave/Master Codes. It "tears at the fabric" of that society which it targets. The "Shetar" is a corruption of the word "Star" & refers to the famous "Star Chamber Courts". "The name star chamber ... has been thought to be ... because the roof was originally studded with stars, because the Jewish covenants (called starrs or stars ... ) were originally kept there." Bovier's 1860. "Starr or starra. The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews, being a corruption from the Hebrew word "shetar", a covenant, ... & Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was thence called the "Star-Chamber"." "Star Chamber: A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed by one party, ... that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. ...
In the reign of Henry the 8th, & his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended to such a degree (especially in punishing the kings arbitrary proclamations) that it became odious to the nation, & was abolished." Blacks 5th: These courts of Pharisaical Commercial Master/Slave Codes became heinous in part for their "Secret Proceedings" & their infliction of "Cruel & Unusual Punishments" that they were abolished. They were the essence of the so-called Equity Jurisdiction. It was all run by Chancery Priests, & referred to in deceptively as "Courts of Equity", the only thing being "Equal" about them is that all Conquered "Slaves" thereunder are treated more or less Equally. "Courts of Chancery" is a more honest name, as it was great "Chance" taken to go before such.
"The whole of equity jurisprudence prevailing in England & the United States is mainly based on the civil law", so says Bovier's Law Dictionary of 1868. "Civil Law" is from Rome. There was no "Equity Jurisprudence" in England prior to the Norman Conquest. The Norman Conquest had the "solemn approval of the Pope" of Rome according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Other sources conform the Roman Pope's support & blessing.
The conclusion to Reasonable Men is that the Norman's "War of Aggression" was jointly backed by the Christ Killing Pharisees & the Pope of Rome, so as to Forcibly Impose the Roman Civil/Municipal Codes of Babylonian- -Talmudian based Master/Slave relations. These were mere Tools for Slave Control which was early imposed by Evil Men with great influence within the Pharisaical & Catholic religious communities. Any Truly Godly Spirituality which may have existed within either of those religious organizations was most assuredly bound & gagged by the more d by the more powerful forces of Evil therein at the times of the Norman Conquest. As at the Crusades. As at the Inquisition. These entities have very bad track records.

[Shiksa Rage]

OMG JackieG is a 'Black :shock:  Poper'  folks.

[Rory27]

Hmmm...Who woulda thought,fighting for anonymity at its core,is one of the first things,easyest to go...And we have the nerve to utter the word 'freedom' anywhere,in any form...its a total joke... :mrgreen:

[Tomas O'Crohan]

Hmmm...Who woulda thought,fighting for anonymity at its core,is one of the first things,easyest to go...And we have the nerve to utter the word 'freedom' anywhere,in any form...its a total joke... :mrgreen:

As the prophet George Carlin pointed out, we have the "freedom" to choose between "paper or plastic."

[Anonymous]

Black Poper my ass!!
I'm basing it all on reality....the way things are and really work.
All else is fiction of ones imagination. :lol: