E.U. WITHDRAWAL BILL

 

Now that the UK has triggered "Article 50" declaring the UK's intent to withdraw from the EU; it should be noted that the actual 'withdrawal' cannot be accomplished until all the 'negotiation' with the EU has been completed.

 

Therefore, I, issue this 'warning' and 'reminder' to DONALD TUSK, MICHEL BARNIER, GUY VERHOFSTADT, JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER and all the National Leaders of all the 'remaining' members of the EU; reminding them where their true responsibilities should now lie:

 

In the leaving negotiations taking place with the British; the priority interest must not be the, ‘bending over backwards’, to arrange new trade deals with the British. The principal EU RESPONSIBILITY and, PRIORITY INTERESTS, must be.  

 

A.    THE PROTECTION OF THE EU.

B.     THE PROTECTION OF ALL 'CITIZENS' OF THE EU.

 

"ALL CITIZENS" must include all British 'CITIZENS OF THE EU" as well.

 

This is most important, because, the British people, without the protection of the European Court and the European Human Rights Act; have no protection of 'LAW' at all.

 

The British have no "Written Constitution" or "Bill of Rights" or access to a "Supreme Court of Law" (where they can test question or challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of parliament from within law). The 'Reigning Monarch' charged with the duty of honouring the "Original Contract" requiring the protection of the people; has failed to provide that protection throughout all the time she has occupied the throne. All this, provides the verification, that the British have no protection of 'LAW' at all.

 

 

Yet, when the British first signed up to becoming a 'MEMBER' of the EU; all the British people, became, true CITIZENS of the EU. They should then be afforded, the protection of the EU.

 

Therefore, during these "EU WITHDRAWAL NEGOTIATIONS" every British CITIZEN OF THE EU; will require that protection by the EU. Because, the UK GOVERNMENT, has already declared its intention to scrap all European Law, transferring all existing Euro legislation, into British law. 

 

The protection of the EU that the, BREXIT 'REMAIN' BRITISH, now need; is to request, that the EU, will ensure that not one item of EU legislation is transferred into British law; until 'after' the U.K. has fully completed the 'withdrawal process', and, that it has actually, LEFT THE EU.

 

TRUTH -V- HYPOCRISY?

_{JUSTICE: BLACKMAN – V – EMILE SCHULTZ ?}

_{Email message sent to RICHARD DRAX MP}

_{Re. HIGH COURT, revision of the sentence, and, the charge of ‘MURDER’ of Marine, ALEXANDER BLACKMAN.}

_{With respect,}

_{Today I witnessed all the wild gleeful hysteria taking place outside the High Courts in London after the decision to reduce the sentence passed on Alexander Blackman was announced. Corruptly and entirely due to the 'manipulation' of 'LAW'; his charge has been reduced from MURDER to only, MANSLAUGHTER; and, his sentence has now been reduced to only seven years. Which means that he will be released in a matter of weeks.}

_{Yet, BLACKMAN killed; and, he intended to kill.}

 

_{It is only 'hindsight' and a rotten and corrupt JUDICIARY, that invents the excuse of 'diminished responsibility' in order to produce this 'expedient' ruling.}

_{Intimidated, by the DAILY MAIL and, its rotten corrupt "FREE BLACKMAN" campaign; and, the MONEY and the influence of FREDERICK FORSYTHE; plus, all the public response that this created; the Court had no alternative but to comply favourably; and, manipulate 'LAW'; with this expedient ruling.}

 

_{If all of this is to have any integrity and credibility, for this ruling; then, I, DEMAND, that the case of Gestapo Officer, EMILE SCHULTZ; must be afforded the very same treatment. There, was no one, at his trial, to even plead, "diminished responsibility", on his behalf;}

_{WHOLLY, CORRUPTLY AND UNJUSTLY, HE WAS HANGED.}

_{ALL THE PUBLIC SYMPATHY TODAY REFLECTED THE PLIGHT OF 'CLAIRE BLACKMAN' (BLACKMAN'S WIFE).}

_{BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF THE WIFE AND THE TWO LOVELY DAUGHTERS OF EMILE SCHULTZ?}

_{WHO AT THE 'DAILY MAIL' CARES A DAMN ABOUT THEM?}

_{WHO IN GOVERNMENT, PARLIAMENT, OR, JUDICIARY, CARES A DAMN ABOUT THEM?}

_{AND, CANNOT, FREDERICK FORSYTH, NOT SMELL THE "STENCH OF INJUSTICE", HERE?}

 

_{MY DEMANDS,}

 

_{I, DEMAND, the most extensive review of the entire case of EMILE SCHULTZ, and his entire trial.}

_{I, DEMAND, that all the surviving members of his family are traced. And,}

_{I, DEMAND, that they be awarded massive financial 'compensation'; for the unlawful execution of EMILE SCHULTZ; and, all the pain that they endured.}

_{In true and just law, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE FOUND 'GUILTY' OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, if there is, NO INTENT TO KILL.}

_{ALEXANDER BLACKMAN INTENDED TO KILL.}

_{EMILE SCHULTZ DID NOT.}

 

_{EMILE SCHULTZ, UNDER THE THREAT TO HIS OWN LIFE; (BY BEING COURT MARTIALLED AND SHOT); AND, BY THE SEVERE THREAT TO HIS FAMILY AS WELL; WAS ORDERED TO KILL. HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO OBEY.}

_{HIS MILITARY "OATH", AND, THE LAW OF THE "FUHRERPRINZIP", COMMANDED HIS OBEDIENCE TO ALL ORDERS ISSUED, BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER.}

_{Sir, with respect; I now expect you to take up this issue with the same 'fervour' you displayed on behalf of ALEXANDER BLACKMAN.}

_{I therefore expect you to pursue this injustice; unless, you determine, that, only the 'British' are entitled to the protection of law.}

_{Here below is both the URL link to my blog, setting out the details of this case; and, the full text of this blog.} 

 

_Sincerely

_{Gordon J Sheppard}

_{Status: 90 years of age, retired. Not a member of any political party.}

_{http://pamphletteer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/marine-alexander-blackman-justice-or.html}

<sub>FULL TEXT:

MARINE ALEXANDER BLACKMAN - "JUSTICE"? or "INJUSTICE"?</sub>

_{JUSTICE? or INJUSTICE? in the two cases listed below.}

_{FACT: MARINE BLACKMAN SHOT AND KILLED AN AFGHAN TALIBAN FIGHTER. AND THE MOMENT HE 'PULLED THE TRIGGER' HE INTENDED TO KILL.}

 _{Irrespective of his mental condition or the precarious military situation he was in at that time, HE INTENDED TO KILL. He was 'rightfully' charged with MURDER and in a properly constituted 'Courts Martial' he was found 'Guilty'; and was sentenced to 'life' in prison.}

 _{Yet, a wholly corrupt, High Court Judiciary, bowing to the influence and intimidation of the "Daily Mail" now quashes that verdict of MURDER, reducing it to one of, MANSLAUGHTER. Without, any legal jusification at all.}

 

_{In comparison:}

 

_{FACT: Gestapo Officer, EMILE SCHULTZ, was ordered by his commanding officer to accompany him, and, provide an escort, whilst transporting two prisoners to an unkown and unamed destination. Shortly afterwards, on that journey, his commanding officer ordered them all out of the car, they were then ordered to 'relieve' themselves and 'stretch their legs' in preparation for the long drive ahead. A few minutes later whilst these two prisoners were doing this, this commanding officer shot them both in the back. One of the prisoners died immediately; but, the other one was stil alive, he was seriously injured and was just lying 'severely injured and in pain' on the ground. This commanding officer then ordered EMILE SCHULTZ to shoot and kill this prisoner. EMILE SCHULTZ HAD NO INTENTION TO KILL. But his commanding officer, then threatened SCHULTZ, by informing him, that the 'order to kill' had been ordered by ADOLF HITLER himself, that, he had ordered, that all 'escaping prisoners of war' should be shot. The commanding officer then ordered SHULTZ to kill this prisoner again; but, this time, he warned SCHULTZ, that if he disobeyed the order yet again; a supreme 'direct order' of the Fuhrer himself; that he would then be court-martialled and shot; and, that his family would be severely pubished as well. Under this direct order of his commanding officer and under this threat to his own life, and, his family, if he disobeyed; EMILE SCHULTZ reluctantly, 'pulled the trigger' killing this prisoner. At his trial, it was fully substantiated that EMILE SCHULTZ had never even known that these two prisoners were, "PRISONERS OF WAR".}

_{Yet, in sheer vicious spite, he was found 'Guilty', and, he was HANGED.} 

_{FREDERICK FORSYTHE says the reason he took up the case of MARINE BLACKMAN was because he, 'could smell' the injustice in that case.}

_{Let him now, 'Smell the Stench of Injustice', in the case of, EMILE SCHULTZ.} 

_{I challenge FREDERICK FORSYTHE to use all his influence, and, all his money, in order to secure, JUSTICE, here.} 

_{I WANT THE SURVIVING FAMILY OF EMILE SCHULTZ TRACED; I WANT THEM TO SUE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FOR THE WRONGFUL EXECUTION OF EMILE SCHULTZ.}

_{I WANT THEM TO BE FULLY COMPENSATED FOR THE TERRIBLE INJUSTICE THEY WERE FORCED TO ENDURE.}

_{ACCORDING TO 'LAW', YOU CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER, IF THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO KILL.}
 

_{EMILE SCHULTZ HAD NO 'INTENTION TO KILL' WHATSOEVER. BY, HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER, HE WAS ORDERED TO KILL.}

 

 

EMAIL WARNING TO GOVERNMENT

_{EMAIL MESSAGE SENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT.}

_{To all Members of Government as shown above,}

 

_{With respect, and,}

_{FOR YOUR INFORMATION: The Political Party WHIPS in Parliament has no legality at all.}

 

_{Legislation, Acts, Motions, and, Bills, created and passed by parliament under the influence of the political party WHIPS, has no legality whatsoever; and, therefore, they are, CORRUPT LAW.}

 

<sub>Today, in this so-called 'democratic' parliament; Acts, Motions and Bills are being created and passed in precisely the same manner as ADOLF HITLER and the NAZIS created their own LAW. HITLER, though, had the perfect 'legality' for doing this; for on the 23rd March 1933, Hitler presented his "Enabling Act" to the German Democratic 'Reichstag' (the German parliament) for its approval; and, they had passed that 'Act' 441 votes to 94.

This was the very moment the German "Third Reich" was born, with all its terrible consequences. All the horrors of NAZI GERMANY were carried out under due process of 'LAW'. The, entire 'profession of law' and, all the German people, completely abandoned the, "Rule of Law". That is why I am so terrified that this is now taking place, little by little, in my country today.</sub>

 

_{The British Government and Parliament, has no such 'legality' at all; for their "Enabling Act"; "The political party WHIPS in Parliament"; that, instruct elected Members of Parliament as to how they must vote. This, has no legality at all.}

 

_{The political party WHIPS, in doing this; overrule and supplant all the 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon those Members, by the Constituents.}

_{This creates the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE"}

 

_{"PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" is wholly proscribed by the, 'precedent of law', set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".}

 

_{This paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", set out within the "Bill of Rights 1689", specifically instructs parliament, that parliament may 'enact' its "SUPREMACY" afforded by "Article 9" of that Bill; or, it may 'enact' any of the other "PREMISES" of the Bill; but, only, by complying with the conditions, set out in the paragraph "The Said Rights Claimed". Which, instructs parliament, that when parliament 'enacts' any of the "PREMISES" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".}

 

_{The political party WHIPS in parliament do, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE", therefore the WHIPS in parliament is wholly unlawful. And, their political party activities, has no legality at all.}

 

_{Here is that paragraph set out in the "Bill of Rights 1689",}

 

 

_{“The Said Rights Claimed”:}

_{“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular}

_{The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that}

_{noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the}

_{Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in}

_{any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”}

 

_{This, paragraph of the "Bill of Rights 1689", is the, 'Supreme Authority', of the entire Bill; for it states within its text, that it has the "authority", over all the "PREMISES" of the Bill.}

 

<sub>I, therefore assert, here and now, that the entire British Judiciary, "Conspires to Pervert the Course of Justice". By, their ruling:

A. That, "Parliament may not be questioned or be challenged in the Courts under any circumstances."
B. That, "Article 9', is, ABSOLUTE."
C. That, therefore by, 'LAW', this prevents any challenge.</sub>

 

_{This is sheer 'outright deceit' because, according to the correct interpretation of that Bill', absolutely anyone has the right to test, question, or challenge parliament in the courts; whenever parliament causes the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE". "Article 9" is not ABSOLUTE, at all. It is wholly dependent upon the 'conditions' set out in the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed".}

 

_{THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT THEREFORE HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.}

_{THE 'WHIPS' IN PARLIAMENT, MUST BE ABOLISHED.}

 

_{NOTE: As, the, "SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED" provides the 'protection of the people'; this, 'LAW' therefore, becomes, "Written in Stone". Because, any attempt at amendment or abolishing the Bill, would result, in that 'protection of the people' being removed.}

_{Parliament, therefore and, thereby, can never ever amend or abolish the "Bill of Rights 1689", without causing the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE".}

_{Past or present' parliaments, can never ever even present a Bill, for the approval, of the WHIPS political party activity in parliament; without causing the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE".}

 

_{THE, "SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED", IS TRULY, "WRITTEN IN STONE".}

 

_CONCLUSION

 

_{Nothing now should prevent any rightful challenge to the WHIPS, in any court of law.}

_{The WHIPS flout and breach the privilege of, "Article 9";}

_{The corrupt and rotten JUDICIARY, are now obliged to hear the case.}

 

_{With respect, I suggest that all Government should read my book "DEMOCRACY" - It is available very cheaply both as a Kindle e-book for downloading or as a paperback. It can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984}

 

_Sincerely

_{Gordon J Sheppard}

_{Status: 90 years of age, retired. Not a member of any political party.}

 

 

My letter to HM Queen telling her to go..

March 16, 2017

 

Her Majesty the Queen

Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA

 

Madam

 

The, DESPOTISM, surrounding the Monarchy today, is disgraceful.

Telephoning the number 02079304832 on three occasions today treated me with absolute contempt. The ‘operator’ refused to connect me with any responsible authority; repeatedly referring me to and phoning the number for the ‘information’ office; but, although she rang that number three times, no one answered the call. The sheer waste of my ‘valuable’ time.,

 

I remind your Majesty, that legally, I am an ‘imposed’ Subject of the Crown; and, per ‘precedent’ of English Law, I am entitled to the ‘protection’ of the Crown.

 

Madam,

 

I am entitled to the protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of

 

England. Who, is obliged by ‘LAW’, to honor and comply with,

 

the, “ORIGINAL CONTRACT”; providing, the protection of the

 

People.

 

“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”

 

For, no other reason, does a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sit upon the British throne. Precedent of ‘LAW’ establishes that when the ‘Reigning Monarch’ ‘fails to provide that protection’; they automatically, abdicate the throne.

KING JAMES II was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 for, “Breaking the Original Contract Betwixt King and People”.

 

 

Madam

 

You have repeatedly failed to honor that ‘Contract’ throughout all the years you have occupied that throne. You have repeatedly been ‘responsible’ for granting the “ROYAL ASSENT” to, CORRUPT LAW.

 

All, ‘Acts’ ‘Motions’ and ‘Bills’ created and passed by parliament ‘under the influence’ of the political party WHIPS, is wholly unlawful and corrupt; because, the WHIPS in parliament instruct elected Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote; thereby creating, the, “Prejudice of the People”.

 

PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE is wholly proscribed by the ‘precedent of law’ as set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”. This paragraph of that Bill, is the ‘Supreme’ authority of the “Bill of Rights 1689”; for it states within its text, that it is the commanding authority over all the “PREMISES” of the Bill.

 

This paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed” specifically instructs parliament that, parliament may ‘enact’ its “Supremacy”, (afforded by “Article 9” of that Bill), or, it may ‘enact’ any of the “PREMISES’ of the Bill, providing that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

 

The WHIPS in parliament do ‘prejudice the people’; therefore, all legislation passed in parliament under the influence of the WHIPS; is, CORRUPT LAW. For, the WHIPS in parliament; has no legality at all.

 

 Madam

 

YOU have been directly responsible for the granting of the “ROYAL ASSENT” to corrupt ‘LAW’. Thereby, repeatedly, YOU have abdicated the throne.

 

 

Today, this, “ROYAL ASSENT” is being granted, “IN YOUR NAME” to the most important piece of legislation, of my lifetime; the Bill, authorizing government, and, Great Britain, to leave the ‘European Community’. This Bill was created and passed by parliament ‘under the influence’ of the WHIPS. The people of this country being denied all participation; and, thereby, it is corrupt, LAW.

 

MADAM

 

I hereby challenge your legal right to continue ‘sitting’ on the throne.

 

YOU have failed to honor the “ORIGINAL CONTRACT’.

YOU have failed to protect all ‘Subjects’ of the Crown.

YOU have repeatedly granted the ROYAL ASSENT to corrupt law.

YOU have failed to carry out your DUTY.

YOU have abdicated the throne.

 

The ‘Throne’ is as VACANT today, as it was, when KING JAMES II was removed from it. When, the CONVENTION established, the legal existence and validity of the “Original Contract” to be entrenched in LAW; and, when the CONVENTION determined, that in the words of the “Earl of Clarendon” that,

“The contract is a binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor breaks the contract he too may be Deposed."

Go Madam, Go, YOU serve no purpose here. YOU, have not only failed in your DUTY; YOU, have fully established, once and for all, that when the ‘Reigning Monarch’ fails to provide the protection of the People; there is no need; nor, any legal validity; for a MONARCHY at all.

 

Sincerely

Gordon J Sheppard

TOO EXTREME...

My blog was “too extreme”….

In posting on my blog, “Pamphlet_teer”, the comments,

A. That, Members of Parliament, were “Fascist”.

B.  That, Government was, “Totalitarian”

C.  That, Her Majesty the Queen failed to protect her ‘Subjects’ by granting the “Royal Assent” to corrupt law.

I, was criticized by someone, who I very much admire, who informed me that I was,

1.  Being, too extreme.

2.  That, the Queen now has nothing to do with the “Royal Assent”. Asserting, that today, this is merely ‘granted’ by the despotic administration overruling, supplanting, and masquerading, as the Monarchy itself. The, “Royal Assent” becoming a  mere formality, where the Queen is not involved at all.

 

So, let me try to justify, the words that I used:

 

 

 

FASCIST

When democratically elected Members of Parliament are elected to faithfully represent the views, opinions, and concerns of those that elected them; they are entitled to expect that those ‘representatives’, when in Parliament, will actually faithfully, REPRESENT. They do not expect that those ‘democratically’ elected representatives will then immediately cast aside their ‘duty’ to their constituents; and, give all their loyalty and allegiance, to their political party. And, comply, with the ‘diktat’, of the political party WHIPS.  When elected Members of Parliament do this; they are not ‘democratic’ at all; they are merely, FASCIST. They are agreeing to an unlawful procedure in parliament, the very same procedure, as ADOLF HITLER and the NAZIS used, to create their own laws. If they are not democratic, and, willingly submit to this procedure, to create and pass law in parliament; without the participation’ of, “The People”; then what else can you call them but, FASCIST?

 

TOTALITARIAN

Any Government, and ‘governing’ that is not one hundred per cent ‘democratic’; but, adopts the procedure of ‘imposition’ to force Members of Parliament to vote per its own political agenda; and, create and pass laws in parliament, in precisely the same way, as ADOLF HITLER did. It is not, DEMOCRATIC. It is wholly, TOTALITARIAN.

 

THE, “ROYAL ASSENT”

By, ‘precedent of law’, each “Reigning Monarch” sitting upon the English throne is required to honour the “Original Contract”, requiring, as their duty, to protect the People (Subjects of the Crown). They, are required by law, to act as “Head of Government” and, to “Monitor Parliament”, to check and verify that the ‘laws’ created by parliament, are, without corruption;

That, they are in the interests of the country and its people. In, this ‘role and duty’ to protect “Subjects of the Crown”; the “Reigning Monarch”, has the ultimate authority for what becomes, LAW. It is their duty; they may grant the “Royal Assent” to honest law created by parliament. But, where such laws are evidently dishonestly created; in the interests of the protection of the people; they can refuse to grant it, as well.  

The “Royal Assent” and its use, is the ‘right and duty’ of every “Reigning Monarch” that sits upon the English throne. It is their ‘legal instrument’, specifically designed and provided, to protect the People.

The Reigning Monarch cannot allow anyone or anything to ‘masquerade’ as Monarchy; supplanting their authority; in granting the “Royal Assent”. It is the ‘right and duty’ of the Monarch alone.

Where, the MONARCH, allows the ‘despotic administration’ to supplant their role of duty; and permits anyone else to administer the granting of the “Royal Assent”; this will provide the stark vivid evidence; that the British Monarchy is mere ‘myth’ and has no true value at all.

If today, the “Reigning Monarch” no longer grants the “Royal Assent”; then there is no, ‘protection of the people’; and, there is no value, nor, any ‘legal’ validity, for a Monarchy, at all.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 

MARINE ALEXANDER BLACKMAN - "JUSTICE"? or "INJUSTICE"?

JUSTICE? or INJUSTICE? in the two cases listed below.

 

FACT: MARINE BLACKMAN SHOT AND KILLED AN AFGHAN TALIBAN FIGHTER. AND THE MOMENT HE 'PULLED THE TRIGGER' HE INTENDED TO KILL.

Irrespective of his mental condition or the precarious military situation he was in at that time, HE INTENDED TO KILL. He was 'rightfully' charged with MURDER and in a properly constituted 'Courts Martial' he was found 'Guilty'; and was sentenced to 'life' in prison.

 

Yet, a wholly corrupt, High Court Judiciary, bowing to the influence and intimidation of the "Daily Mail" now quashes that verdict of MURDER, reducing it to one of, MANSLAUGHTER. Without, any legal jusification at all.

 

In comparison:

 

FACT: Gestapo Officer, EMILE SCHULTZ, was ordered by his commanding officer to accompany him, and, provide an escort, whilst transporting two prisoners to an unkown and unamed destination. Shortly afterwards, on that journey, his commanding officer ordered them all out of the car, they were then ordered to 'relieve' themselves and 'stretch their legs' in preparation for the long drive ahead. A few minutes later whilst these two prisoners were doing this, this commanding officer shot them both in the back. One of the prisoners died immediately; but, the other one was stil alive, he was seriously injured and was just lying 'moaning and in pain' on the ground. This commanding officer then ordered EMILE SCHULTZ to shoot and kill this prisoner. EMILE SCHULTZ HAD NO INTENTION TO KILL. But his commanding officer, then threatened SCHULTZ, by informing him, that the 'order to kill' had been ordered by ADOLF HITLER himself, that, he had ordered, that all 'escaping prisoners of war' should be shot. The commanding officer then ordered SHULTZ to kill this prisoner again; but, this time, he warned SCHULTZ that if he disobeyed the order yet again; a supreme 'direct order' of the Fuhrer himself; that he would then be court-martialled and shot; and, that his family would be severely pubished as well. Under this direct order of his commanding officer and under this threat to his own life, and, his family, if he disobeyed; EMILE SCHULTZ reluctantly, 'pulled the trigger' killing this prisoner. At his trial, it was fully substantiated that EMILE SCHULTZ had never even known that these two prisoners were, "PRISONERS OF WAR".

 

Yet, in sheer vicious spite, he was found 'Guilty', and, he was HANGED.

 

FREDERICK FORSYTHE says the reason he took up the case of MARINE BLACKMAN was because he, 'could smell' the injustice in that case.

Let him now 'Smell the stench of Injustice' in the case of, EMILE SCHULTZ.

 

I challenge FREDERICK FORSYTHE to use all his influence, and, all his money, in order to secure, JUSTICE, here.

 

i WANT THE SURVIVING FAMILY OF EMILE SCHULTZ TRACED; I WANT THEM TO SUE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FOR THE WRONGFUL EXECUTION OF EMILE SCHULTZ.

I WANT THEM TO BE FULLY COMPENSATED FOR THE TERRIBLE INJUSTICE THEY WERE FORCED TO ENDURE.

ACCORDING TO 'LAW' YOU CANNOT BE GUILTY OF MURDER IF THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO KILL.

 

EMILE SCHULTZ HAD NO 'INTENTION TO KILL' WHATSOEVER. BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER, HE WAS ORDERED TO KILL.