TRAVESTY OF THE OSCAR PISTORIUS MURDER TRIAL

Nominated, for an Oscar,

In the next, United States Film Academy Awards, is,

OSCAR PISTORIUS
 

Nominated, and, supported by, ALEX CRAWFORD and SKY NEWS. He is nominated, for his brilliant acting, vomiting, whining, weeping, and, wailing in the feature: "Pistorius Murder Trial". They both support him and, promote his innocence.

What is so outstanding in his performance is that all this acting was not for the plight of the young woman he murdered. It is solely in response, to his own present plight.

That, performance, most certainly deserves an, OSCAR.

It really depends on 'how many' are fooled?

Verdicts of,

'NOT GUILTY' establishes that the entire 'jury' is fooled.

‘GUILTY’ proves beyond doubt, that no one is fooled at all.

The World waits with bated breath.  

BRITISH SO-CALLED 'FREE PRESS'...

The British so-called ‘Free Press’ is naught but a joke:

How rotten and corrupt this so-called "Free Press" is in our country today. And, how, 'selective' they are, in vilifying that which they do not like or, those, that they deem to have done something wrong.

When, ever has this so-called rotten 'Free Press and Media' turned its investigative searchlight upon the real injustices? As, highlighted here:

1. A 'Reigning Monarch' that has broken the Law every day throughout her entire reign?  ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the requirement and duty of all 'Reigning Monarchs' that sit upon the English throne, once, throughout her entire reign. She has failed to honour the 'Original Contract' requiring the, protection of the Crown's Subjects', throughout all of the time she has occupied the throne.

 

King James the Second was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament) for: "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People"; and, in respect to the 'Lineal Descent' (all subsequent 'Reigning Monarch's'), the CONVENTION ruled and determined that,

 

 "The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor broke the Contract, the Successor can also be Deposed".

 

The ‘Original Contract’ is an unwritten contract founded upon the principle established in, Ole English Law, that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”. There are many who today claim that there is no such thing as the ‘Original Contract’, and, they claim, that as such, that it has no validity in Law. But, the very proof of its true existence and its establishment and entrenchment in ‘English Law’ is determined by the fact, that King James II was removed from the throne for, “Breaking the Original Contract’; and, that, Prince William of Orange, then became the next King.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

2. The illegal activities of the political party WHIPS in parliament; whose political activities in Parliament 'prejudice the people' and, thereby, flout and breach 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' makes it abundantly clear that when Parliament 'enacts' its Supremacy, (legally afforded to Parliament by Article 9 of that Bill); or, if Parliament should 'enact' any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; Parliament should not 'prejudice the people'. The political party WHIPS and their political party activities within Parliament, thereby, has no legality at all.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

3. The British Judiciary has always denied the People of this country the right to test, question, or challenge Parliament from within, LAW. The judiciary has persistently, ever since the very creation of the 'Bill of Rights 1689' determined and ruled in their Courts that "Article 9" of this Bill, establishes, in, LAW, that Parliament and the business of Parliament cannot be challenged in the Courts. Yet, the very same 'Bill of Rights 1689', if it is read and interpreted correctly, and, in its entirety, determines to the contrary, that anyone may challenge Parliament from within LAW; whenever Parliament 'prejudice the people'. The, paragraph within the Bill, "The Said Rights Claimed", verifying that right.

For more than 326 years the British Judiciary has denied the British people that right.

 When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

4. Each 'Reigning Monarch' of England sitting upon the throne is charged with the responsibility of honouring the 'Original Contract' requiring the, protection of the Crown's Subjects; protecting them from the tyranny of the abuses and the prejudice of parliament.

In order for each Monarch, to carry out that duty, each 'Reigning Monarch' is provided with two legal instruments to assist them in carrying out that role. These legal instruments are: the Royal Assent and the Royal Prerogative. These two legal instruments have been solely designed in order that the 'Reigning Monarch' can protect the People. They have no other function or purpose at all.

The Royal Assent provides each 'Reigning Monarch' with the right and duty to monitor parliament and the Laws and Bills passed by parliament in order to see whether they have been created and passed honestly in parliament, without corruption; to, grant, or, to refuse to grant, the Royal Assent, as the case maybe.

It is interesting to note: that the last time a British 'Reigning Monarch' refused to grant the Royal Assent, was on the 11^th March 1708, when Queen Anne refused it, for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland.

 

Thus, the British People, are then expected to believe, that every Law or Bill passed by Parliament since the 11th March 1708, is honest and without corruption. Yet, that is positively absurd. Hundreds of Bills and Laws have been created and passed in parliament under the influence of the political party WHIPS; yet, as already established above, the political activities of the WHIPS in parliament has no legality at all.

 

Today, the British do not have a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the English throne; they merely have a village sub-postmistress franking and rubber-stamping every piece of paper laid before her, by parliament. Today, the British ‘Reigning Monarch’, abdicates the throne.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.

 

5. The Royal Prerogative provides each 'Reigning Monarch' with three options:

(a), to advise Ministers of Government.

(b), to warn Ministers of Government.

(c), whenever the wishes of the people are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators, (Parliament), to order the dissolution of Parliament.

 

Yet, when, in the aftermath of the democratic General Election of 2010, when the people had voted in order to determine firstly, that no political party should have a majority in Parliament, and, secondly, that there should be a "Conservative led Minority Government"; the leaders of the political parties elected to Parliament in that election, did not like that 'People's Verdict'; so, they determined, that they could 'ignore' the People's vote and thence to proceed to create a government entirely on their own. In 'ignoring' the People's vote in this way they 'prejudiced the people'; and, thereby flouted and breached the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

 

Here, then, was the clear evidence that, "The wishes of the people had been directly in conflict with the actions of parliament"; yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, did absolutely nothing. She did not intervene to protect her people.. She ought to have ordered the immediate dissolution of Parliament. In consequence, today, the British People are being governed by an illegal coalition administration, that was not ‘elected’ at all.

  When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.

 

6. The British People have no right of access to:

A. written constitution;

A. proper 'Bill of Rights'; setting out the 'true citizenship'; and, the rights, and the responsibilities of, CITIZENS.

A. 'Supreme Court of Law'; where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of parliament, from within, Law.

There is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the English throne, charged with the responsibility of protecting 'Subjects'; yet, she provides no protection at all.

The consequence of all of this, wholly verifying, that the British, have no protection of law at all.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.


A FREE PRESS?
No, not, at all. A, corrupt and rotten Press and Media, that does not investigate the wrong doing of the 'elite and the establishment' which it promotes and props up constantly. A, Press and Media, that does not report 'news'; but wickedly, speculates, assumes, and invents, all of the time. It, also elects to hurt, wound, vilify and defame, all it sets its sights upon.

 

In this nigh, "Totalitarian State", Britain has now become, the so-called, ‘Free Press and Media’, are the very worst tyranny of all.

 

 The 'elite' and the 'establishment' of Monarchy, Parliament, Politicians and the political parties; and, the Judiciary; all look upon 'LAW' as being something only the common people must obey. Whilst, they all, with impunity, flout and breach law every day.

PARLIAMENT REFORM..

Parliamentary Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

 

Written evidence submitted by Gordon J Sheppard (VUK 57)

 

1. There is only one major reform necessary; and, that is that Parliament must recognize that the People of this country in General Elections, 'elect' their representative to represent them in Parliament; they do not 'elect' a political party; and that therefore Parliament ought to be, a "People's Parliament".

 

2. Sadly, today, the 'People' have hardly any influence at all. Parliament, unlawfully, is wholly dominated and controlled by the political parties.

 

3. This wicked domination and control of the political parties is maintained in parliament by the political party WHIPS. The WHIPS countermand, overrule and supplant all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament by the Constituents; and, thereby 'prejudice the people'.

 

4. "Prejudice of the People" is wholly outlawed and proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

 

5. This paragraph in the Bill of Rights 1689, designed and created by the Rights Committee  of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, was solely designed for the protection of the People; and, it specifically requires and instructs parliament that when parliament 'enacts' its SUPREMACY (afforded to parliament by 'Article 9' of that Bill), or 'enacts' any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that parliament should not, 'prejudice the people'.

 

6. Thereby, whenever Parliament does 'prejudice the people' the very SUPREMACY of parliament becomes null and void. Thus determining by 'precedent of law' that the political party activities of the WHIPS in parliament, is wholly illegal and unlawful, and has no legal validity at all.

 

7. The WHIPS in parliament should therefore be abolished.

 

8. Every vote taken in parliament should be a FREE VOTE.

 

9. Thus, creating a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 

CONCLUSION

Sooner or later the People of Great Britain will secure their rightful access to LAW; where it is possible to test, question, and challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of parliament from within law. Sooner or later the People of this great country will awake from their 'political' apathy and, the slumbers of the middle ages, emerging into the bright sunlight of the 21st Century; when they will destroy the present dominance and control of their 'elected' parliament, by the political parties. Sooner or later, Britain will create a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 Sooner or later Parliament must recognize that at present the People (the 'common people' of this land have no protection of 'LAW' whatsoever. They have no true Citizenship recorded in Law; they have no 'written constitution', or proper 'Bill of Rights'; or access to a "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of parliament from within law.

Furthermore, although there is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the throne charged with the responsibility and duty to honour the 'Original Contract' and provide the protection of the Crown's Subjects; throughout her entire reign, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has miserably failed to provide any protection at all. Today, the British do not have a 'Reigning Monarch'; they have a village sub-postmistress franking and rubber-stamping every piece of paper laid before her by parliament.

 LAW today in Great Britain is looked upon by the elite and the establishment as being something that only the 'common people' must obey. Whilst, they, abuse and flout 'LAW' all of the time.

HISTORY:

King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 for "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The CONVENTION determined that he had thereby, 'abdicated the throne'; the throne was declared "Vacant" and Prince William of Orange was offered the throne. The CONVENTION, however, did not want the same problems and interference it had to endure from 'James II' and so therefore the CONVENTION appointed a Rights Committee to create a Bill that would protect parliament, from this interference by a King. The Rights Committee therefore knew at the beginning of their task, that the Bill was only necessary and required in order to protect parliament from a King. It was never intended to protect parliament from the people. And, so the Rights Committee had the responsibility, with any Bill that they created, to protect the people from any abuse. They had to ensure that the Bill that they created would not be misused or wrongly interpreted by parliament; and, therefore they created for insertion within their Bill the overruling paragraph guaranteeing the peoples protection.

 

Firstly, the Rights Committee set out a complete list of 'Articles' or 'Rights' that Parliament claimed from a King; then directly below this list they inserted the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed" and this reads as follows:

  

“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”

Note: Everyone assumes that the most important feature of the "Glorious Revolution" and the "Bill of Rights 1689" is that it provides parliament with its SUPREMACY and its protection from a King. But, this is not the most important feature at all; the true most important feature of all of this is, that it provided the PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE from within law. It specifically determines that parliament may have its SUPREMACY but only on the conditions as determined by the "Said Rights Claimed".

The most interesting feature of all of this is that the "Said Rights Claimed" restricts parliament from 'amending' or even 'abolishing' the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, in order for parliament to try to do either; actually creates, 'prejudice of the people'. Parliament is thereby prevented from amending or abolishing the Bill on two counts: firstly, because it breaks the Law; secondly, the people have their protection afforded by "The Said Rights Claimed". They will never permit parliament taking that protection away.

 25 March 2014

 

 

 

MINISTER GOVE'S POLICY ON EDUCATION

Michael Gove's policy on Education...‏

 

MICHAEL GOVE, KNOWS BEST:

1. The complete indoctrination of TORY ideology:

(a), Unbridled Capitalism
(b), Privatisation of anything and everything
(c), Competition, in preference to co-operation.
(d) Pursuit of individual GREED.
(e), Total rejection of the concept of, 'SOCIETY'.

2. Total compliance with Subjugation and Conformity.

3. The turning out of 'robots' dedicated to the service of the 'State':

4. Where, ‘The People’ have no intelligence to, THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

5. WHERE, THEY COME TO ACCEPT, THAT THE POLITICAL PARTY REIGNS SUPREME.

6. WHERE, 'FREEDOM' IS SUPPLANTED, BY THE INSTINCT TO 'OBEY'

7. ALL ENFORCED, BY IMPOSED RIGID DISCIPLINE

GordonJ

 

DAVID CAMERON the 'Dictator'...

European Law, and, the Dictator, David Cameron*

 

*David Cameron is naught but a totalitarian dictator; he seized power to govern as a coalition administration, without any legality at all. He defied, denied, and ignored the legitimate democratic vote of ‘The People’ cast in the General Election of 2010, which called for a “Conservative led Minority Government”; and, he, together, with the leader of the Liberal party,  then set about creating this present illegal administration entirely on their own.

 There is not a shred of legality for this present corrupt administration masquerading as government; and, any that claim, that there is the legality, I defy them to produce the ‘legal instrument’ that actually verifies, that, legality; as claimed. There is no such ‘legal instrument’ anywhere in the British legal archive that permits, political party leaders with the right to, ignore, the ‘wishes of the people’ as declared, in a democratic General Election.

 

Europe

 

David Cameron asserts that if he is still the ‘Prime Minister’ after the next General Election he will ensure that there is an, ‘IN/OUT’ referendum, on Membership of the European Union. And, the question to be posed, is this: why is he and, virtually every Member of Parliament, and, the right-wing Press and Media, so intent on indoctrinating the ‘common people’ that we should either quit Europe altogether or, renegotiate the Treaty; in order to only comply, with our own laws?

 

The answer is very simple: all the politicians and the right-wing Press and Media want total domination and control. They want to wholly dominate every single aspect of our lives. Through the political party activities of the ‘unlawful’ WHIPS* in parliament, the political parties exercise that domination, now. They loathe the very idea and concept of a European Government and a European Human Rights Act, that, sometimes overrules and supplants, their, domination and control.

 This is why everyday some politician is warning the British people that ‘Europe’ is bad. And, that, we British must be free to govern ourselves.

 

BRITISH PEOPLE BE WARNED:

 Do not be hoodwinked and fooled into believing this lie. Europe, today, is the only ‘protection of law’ that the British have. Our succession of rotten governments and, our Monarchy, has never provided the British with any protection of law at all. The entire British ‘ESTABLISHMENT’ of Monarchy, Judiciary, Government, Parliament, and the Police, all look upon ‘LAW’, as being something that only the, ‘common people’, must obey. Whilst, they, flout and breach, ‘LAW’ all of the time.

 

The British ‘Subject’ has no protection of ‘LAW’ whatsoever:

 

1. We have no ‘Written Constitution’.
2. We have no proper “Bill of Rights” setting out rights and responsibilities.
3. We have no “Supreme Court of Law” where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the ‘abuses’ and the ‘prejudice’ of parliament, from within ‘LAW’.
4. Furthermore, although, there is a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the British throne, charged by, ‘precedent of law’, with the responsibility to honour the “Original Contract”; that, requires the ‘protection’ of the Crown’s Subjects. ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has failed to honour that ‘Contract’, all of the time she has occupied the throne.
5. We have an ‘elected’ parliament, elected by the democratic vote of the people in General Election; yet we do not have a, “People’s Parliament”; our corrupt parliament is wholly dominated and controlled by the political parties.

WHERE THEN IS THE PEOPLE’S PROTECTION OF LAW?

 

The denial of every one of the categories, 1 to 5, above, is a breach of ‘LAW’.

With respect to No. 4, the ‘LAW’ and the ‘Reigning Monarch’: in 1688, King James the Second was removed from the throne for ‘Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”; and, the CONVENTION (Parliament) that removed him, further declared in respect to the, Lineal Descent’, (All subsequent Monarchs that would sit upon the throne), that, “The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor broke the Contract he too can be Deposed”. The CONVENTION declared, that the throne was vacant; King James II, having ‘abdicated’ the throne. ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that ‘Contract’ all of the time she has been sitting on the throne. Thus, by ‘precedent of law’ she too has ‘abdicated’ the throne. CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, does not relieve her of that responsibility. As long, as a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sits upon the English throne; they will always be required to honour, the ‘Original Contract’.

 

BRITISH PEOPLE,

Do not believe the lie, and, vote, to quit Europe.

Because ‘Europe’ is the only protection of ‘LAW’ that you have.

No wonder the corrupt politician and the right-wing press are fighting so hard at present to maintain the status quo; and, fool us all into voting ‘No’, in a referendum; they are fighting, ‘tooth and nail’, to hold onto the present control and domination that they have. They, want to wholly dominate all our lives in everything. They, are most fearful, that their unlawful, ‘domination’, might be brought to an end.

 

*Unlawful WHIPS: The WHIPS in parliament each week issue political party instructions to all ‘elected’ Members of Parliament instructing them, on how they must behave in parliament and, on how they must vote. And, this corrupt political party, ‘diktat’, overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon those Members, by the Constituent. This, thereby, brings about the ‘prejudice of the people’. And, this flouts and breaches the ‘precedent of law’ set out in the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”. This, ruling, within the Bill of Rights, determines, that when parliament ‘enacts’ its “Supremacy” or, ‘enacts’, any of the other ”Premises” of that Bill;  Nothing should prejudice the People. The WHIPS in parliament, thereby, has no legality at all.

 

Gordonj

 

 

TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE AT NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS

 

MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF NUREMBERG

 Please note: In this analysis of what took place at the NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS I have not paid any attention to the ‘Holocaust’ or all the other horrific crimes that these Nazi’s were accused of. In this analysis I am only concerned with ‘LAW’ and, the due process of ‘LAW’, in the Courts. Irrespective of the crime, accused of; every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. The Nazi’s at Nuremberg did not get that fair trial. These trials today are held up to be the epitome of legal correctness. They were nothing of the sort.

 There is one very important and serious aspect of “Nuremberg” that needs proper consideration. That needs to be properly debated and explained; in, order, to put history and the records right. The “International Military Tribunals” of Nuremberg are today held up and put forward as the ‘be all and end all’ of true law and justice, and, jurisprudence; in respect to Human Rights legislation and International Conventions and Treaties. Yet, it is the very antithesis of true and just law. The International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg had nothing to do with Law. It was merely a façade, a show trial, a corrupt and an ‘expedient way’ for dealing with the Vanquished; by the Victors.

 This is the opening address at Nuremberg:

 

MONDAY 30^TH SEPTEMBER 1946

 (AFTERNOON SESSION)

JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG

MR FRANCES BIDDLE, Member of the Tribunal for the United States:

“The Law of the Charter”

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The Law of the Charter is decisive, and binding on the Tribunal.

 The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations, but in the view of the Tribunal, as will be shown, it is the expression of international Law existing at the time of it’s creation, and to that extent is itself a contribution to international Law. The Signatory powers created this Tribunal, defined the Law it was to administer and made the regulations for proper conduct of the Trial.

 In this very first speech by Mr. Francis Biddle, two essential criterions were established:

A. The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations,

B. for which there shall be individual responsibility,

 Yet, ‘B’ is a direct contradiction of, ‘A’

If the Tribunal was not “an arbitrary power on the part of the victorious nations” then the Tribunal was required to hear all the cases, all the evidence of the entire trial, before it could be in a position to judge whether, ‘B’, is applicable.

Yet, here, before the Tribunal has even sat for a day in judgment; before it has heard any evidence at all; the Tribunal has already decided the guilt of all the accused; in its determination of, ‘B’.

‘B’ in law; in true and just law; can only be determined, in respect of each and every defendant after all the evidence has been heard.

That is why Nuremberg was and is corrupt. It was a sham from its beginning to its very end. It was merely, the ‘expedient’ way of the VICTORS dealing with the vanquished.

But, it was also a grave travesty of LAW; because at Nuremberg the entire prosecution, of every defendant, and, the judgment of every defendant, refused to accept a truthful defence. At, Nuremberg, every prosecutor and every Judge did their very utmost to, “Put Rain back in the Sky.”

 They completely erased “Nazi Germany” from the brain; and, they pretended that what had happened in Germany from the time that Hitler came to power and throughout World War II; did not happen at all. They tried to, “put the rain back in the sky”, by determining that, that “Germany” of that period, had not existed at all. Every prosecutor and every Judge completely and corruptly ignored the,

"Fuhrerprinzip"

Quote:

Today when we hear the word, "fuhrer" we mostly apply it only to Hitler. The Fuhrer, now in the vernacular means the despotic leader of Germany in WWII. The term however has a broader meaning and concept in the context of the German military and society of the day. "Fuhrer" literally, means 'leader'. There were many 'fuhrers' in Germany at the time, in fact the term is incorporated in the military rank names (e.g.oberfuhrer), to indicate the rung of leadership. Fuhrerprinzip reads literally, "fuhrer principle" and has to do with the structure of the order of obedience to authority in the Third Reich. Early in the development of the National Socialists one theme ran strong: law and order. Germany had disintegrated into a weak country from a strong Prussian military sovereignty, and the problems of a weak republic were rampant: crime, social upheaval and unemployment. But law & order meant more to the Nazis than to most: it meant a system in leadership and society in which everyone was answerable to 'orders from above' in a hierarchal arrangement. Additionally, the leader, held the responsibility of the actions and decisions of his underlings. Therefore one of the premiere moral values in ‘Third Reich Germany’ was loyalty and obedience, even above concepts of right and wrong This meant that if a person especially in a government position or military position was asked by a superior to do an unconscionable act, such as order the death or deportation of Jews, the highest moral value to the Nazis was to obey orders, even above conscience. In the thinking of the indoctrinated ‘Third Reich’ members, even if they were troubled by the decision, the responsibility for the action would rest upon their superior, and therefore, they were not accountable for moral reasoning or wrongdoing. This was one of the primary 'defences’ of the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. And, also, of, Eichmann, on trial in Israel.

Befehlnotstand: Blind Obedience & 'Orders from Above'

The "Fuhrerprinzip" had to do with the order of leadership and is reflected in Military rank: there were under-fuhrers and over-fuhrers (uberfuhrer & oberfuhrer) even in the naming of the ranks. The concept of Befehlnotstand had more to do with the blind obedience: orders were to be obeyed at all cost, without question, and the penalty for non-obedience in many cases was death. German participants in the ‘Third Reich’ at first had difficulty with the utterly blind obedience required (although the principle was ingrained in the German family dynamic and workplace), but facing death for disobedience, the principle became a defence mechanism allowing many to commit abominable acts and pass responsibility on to their superiors, who in turn, passed culpability upwards. In the end, no one was ultimately responsible, as the leadership would claim they had no idea what was going on while the underlings claimed 'orders from above' and 'befehlnotstand'" The, oft repeated principle of "the fuhrers words have the force of law" also served to overwrite even legal concerns in immoral acts, leaving the German military and domestics barrier-free in committing unconscionable cruelty.

© 2003,5 Elizabeth Kirkley Best Phd

 

Unquote.

 

The very instant that Hitler came to power the “Fuhrerprinzip” was established. It was adopted first by the Nazi hierarchy; but it quickly was imposed on all the German military. Every sailor soldier and airman was obliged to swear the “Oath of Allegiance” to Hitler. Swearing to ‘obey’, on pain of death.

Later, in the early war years, the “Fuhrerprinzip’ applied to every German citizen as well. To disobey an order in Nazi Germany meant instant arrest and trial, concentration camp, and even death. Many a German was executed for even criticizing the regime, or expressing doubt that Germany would win the war. All of Germany was locked into the Fuhrerprinzip.

For the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg to determine and declare that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, on the very first days of the trials, was to shut one’s eyes and brain to the ‘Fuhrerprinzip’; and, to declare it did not exist at all. It, was, ‘Putting the rain back into the Sky’.

Prosecutors and Judges attempted to prove – and, convince everyone else - into believing that what had happened in Nazi Germany, had not happened at all.

The International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg was nothing but the vengeful vindictiveness of the Victorious Nations over the Vanquished.

Every defendant at Nuremberg claiming in defence that they were only obeying an order: Spoke the truth.

It was Nuremberg itself – and it’s Judges; that was, and is, the lie.

If the Nuremberg principle, that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, applies; then every ‘prosecutor’ and ‘Judge’ must put himself or herself into each defendants shoes. They must return to the precise moment and time when the order was given, and decide, virtually in an instant, that they will not obey.

And, they are unable to do that unless they are prepared to ‘accept’ the consequences.

In ‘hindsight’ at the Tribunal (and even today) many will claim they would disobey and accept all the consequences. But, there are none who can prove, now; that they actually would. Faced with their own death as a consequence of disobeying; few would refuse to disobey. It is only the liar and the hypocrite; that in the safety of ‘present day hindsight’; that would insist that he would.

Gordonj                                                                                                      December 5, 2013

 

RIGGING THE VOTE...

Rigging the Vote

Much furore in the press and Media recently all accusing the UNITE UNION of ‘rigging the vote’ in the Falkirk by-election. Members of Parliament and the leaders of the political parties scream the loudest complaining of the abuse.

Yet, they are more guilty of ‘rigging the vote’ than anyone else. They, ‘rig the vote’ in Parliament, all of the time. Every week of the year, when Parliament is sitting, the political party WHIPS, issue political party ‘diktat’ and instructions to Members of Parliament instructing them on how they must behave in Parliament and on how they must vote.

This political party activity, ‘prejudice the people’; and, this flouts and breaches the ‘precedent of law’ set out in the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

The WHIPS ‘prejudice the people’ because this political party activity overrules and supplants all ‘rightful influence’ placed upon ‘elected’ Members of Parliament, by the Constituent. Constituents can influence their Member of Parliament upon any issue they like until they are ‘blue in the face’; but, their rightful influence is overruled by the instructions issued to Members of Parliament, by the WHIPS. This, ‘rigging of the vote’, in parliament’ is both unlawful and corrupt.

Parliament claims its legal right to its “Supremacy” by relying upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads as follows:

That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”.

But, for Parliament to ‘enact’ or apply “Article 9” or. any of the other “Premises”, of the entire, “Bill of Rights 1689”; Parliament must comply with the ‘conditions’ that are set out in the paragraph of the Bill, known as, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

This paragraph within the Bill; set out directly below the thirteen “Articles”, that parliament claimed as its ‘protection’ from the King; specifically instructs parliament that in the ‘enactment’ or application of any of the ‘Premises’ of the Bill; that nothing should prejudice the people. Here is the actual wording of that paragraph:

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”

Now, whereas, the ‘rigging of the vote’ in parliament, is both unlawful and corrupt; that very same activity is ‘lawful’ in any political election, in respect to the UNITE UNION. Because, the union has every legal right to try and influence any election, in order to get their own Members, or supporters elected; in order to promote the Union’s policies, in parliament.

The UNITE UNION had every right to try and get their own people elected to parliament, by using and utilizing every resource and tactic that they may care to use.

Ed Milliband may court TORY and Media favour, by condemning such tactics; but, he should be reminded that it was the UNIONS that created the Labour Party in the first place. UNITE wanted to protect its, ‘socialist’ principles. The Labour Party betrayed SOCIALISM, and, those principles years ago; the very day it abandoned, “Clause Four”.

Before any Member of Parliament condemns or criticizes the UNITE UNION and accuses it of rigging the vote; they should be fully aware, that every time they comply with the ‘diktat’ of the WHIPS; they, actually, break the LAW. Because, the political party WHIPS in Parliament, has no ‘legality’ at all.

The interesting thing is this: that every time ELIZABETH THE SECOND grants the “Royal Assent” to any ‘Act’ or ‘Bill’ passed by parliament, yet was created, under the influence of the WHIPS; she actually gives her consent to, illegal and unlawful, legislation.

The very last time a ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England actually refused the “Royal Assent” was 11th March in 1784, when Queen Anne refused to grant the “Settlement of the Militia in Scotland” Bill.

Ever since then, the British Monarchy has abandoned its proper role of ‘Absolute Monarchy”, protecting its Subjects; and, it has settled for the far lesser role of, CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY; abandoning the honouring of the “Original Contract”; and, it has given up, the protection of the people. Today, the “Reigning Monarch” of England, merely acts like a village sub-postmistress, franking and stamping, every piece of legislation placed before her, as created by the WHIPS. Whereby, today, the British People have no protection of law at all.

Sign this petition to end this travesty: https://www.change.org/petitions/government-parliament-and-judiciary-recognize-the-statute-in-force-bill-of-rights-1689-the-said-rights-claimed-and-abolish-the-illegal-activities-of-the-political-party-whips

Gordonj