ROYAL ’CONSTITUTIONAL’ CARTEL SANCTIONED MURDER AUSTRALIA 19 FEB 1999, 22 MAY & 13 DEC 2000 UNRAVELED IN UK 22 FEB 2006, 13 DEC 2007 & 19 FEB 2008 ONWARDS (02.10.2017)
The UK government apparently divined there was a ‘constitutional’ crisis of all sorts arising from Melbourne, Australia that included the murder of my nephew by a red-neck copper’s son waving around his ‘constitutional’ right to murder anyone with a high powered lethal weapon on 19 February 1999.
... stolen generations…
The unsurprisingly controversial 'high profile' case involved the 'sporting' corporate 'gun lobby' publicly saying they should be able to get away with murder, which the government by and large did and do go along with really.
It is obviously quite malicious the... Brexit UK government appear to have taken the dates from the court scripts of that case in Australia involving the murder of my nephew to also try and spin... against me ... for being a peacenik !! in the UK.
The governments really have no shame at all.
It is self evident to most people, the corporate states support their weapon supply lines, instead of law abiding civilians.
22 FEBRUARY 1943 MUNICH, NAZI GERMANY, 22 MAY 2000 MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, 22 JULY 2005 LONDON, UK, 22 FEBRUARY LONDON, UK, 22 JANUARY 2007, LONDON UK, 22 MAY 2007, LONDON UK.
The obvious difference in the:
a) 22 May 2000 manslaughter ruling in Australia that came first [that should have been a murder prosecution really] was that it nevertheless made case law confirming that the shooter must CORRECTLY identify his target,
b) 22 July 2005 execution by the MET Police of Jean Charles De Menenzes in the UK completely wriggled out of real legal responsibility by spinning the same false pretext of 'mistaken' identity so that although it was found police unlawfully killed Jean Charles de Menenzes, this was insultingly attributed to a 'health and safety' failure !!
Cressida the Dick was the police officer responsible who was promoted to Commissioner of the MET Police when 'Sir' Hooligan-Howe retired on you guessed it, the 22 February 2017.
There's more than a whiff of the improper 'influence' of the weapons supply line in both cases, before there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever there was when the UK government then waved the old Catch '22' at me on 22 February 2006 that I eventually won, which is the same date Nazi Germany had a show trial and executed the White Rose peaceniks in Munich on 22 February 1943.
Cressida the Dick, the police officer responsible for the execution of Jean Charles de Menenzes was promoted to Commissioner of the MET Police when 'Sir' Hooligan-Howe who thought prolonged inhuman and degrading treatment was not a 'health and safety' issue either retired on you guessed it, the 22 February 2017.
The savage politicians and police et al in brutal Britannia don't even bother making any pretence they care about law abiding civilians in the UK.
The facts of the very sad case that made case law in Australia are, the shooter never apologized and even had the nerve to appeal his manslaughter conviction and sentence in the :
On 22 May 2000, a Supreme Court jury trial in Australia found the shooter guilty of manslaughter on 19 February 1999:
... the 22 may 2000 case in australia where the jury could only convict the shooter of manslaughter, because that is how the prosecution case was brought and the judge directed is pretty much identical to the case the uk government really hid behind when they executed jean charles de menenzes on 22 july 2005...
The 'hunter' had his licence since 8 December 1997:
... the MET Police went hunting on 8 December 2012 and all too...
There wasn't a lot of 'clarity' about the corporate 'hunting zone' that many locals had complained about that by the government's own admission was used also used by bush-walkers, four wheel drive enthusiasts, bike riding and picknickers etc.
The 'target practice':
...so close to houses...
... it really is quite impossible to understand how someone could 'mistake' a person wearing a red-checked shirt for a deer !!...
It's quite incredible really that the shooter even pleaded not guilty to manslaughter so there had to be a trial, followed by two appeals to:
The defence lawyers were trying to rely on cases in North America which were different anyway:
... grossly negligent... notoriously lethal weapon... close proximity to human habitation...
and then !!
c) the High Court of Australia in Hobart, Tasmania on 5 April 2001 over -a jury- finding him guilty on 22 May 2000, because he could not even be bothered identifying his target was a human.
"There was no suggestion that any offence of this sort had ever taken place in Australia before":
... @3.33 pm... you couldn't really say their 'star' had been 'rehabilitated' because he spent the year he was in prison, spinning himself as the victim for the gun lobby... etc...
It was the first time case law had been made in such a case.
The Judges had no legal grounds to overturn a very straightforward jury based conviction for manslaughter that should really have been a murder prosecution.
It's pretty obvious the mind controlled robot had actually been indulged by daddy the police officer, that he could just murder whoever he wanted like the government do and at most get a slap on the wrist by spinning any old cobblers.
It is quite extraordinary that there was never any kind of contrition from the shooter who ridiculously tried to portray ... himself as the victim.
There was clearly more to it than meets the eye, than I could ever have imagined, because I obviously never chose the dates in the UK, only the government did as their 'constitutional' spin unraveled.
I was living in the UK, not Australia at the time where not just the whole gun lobby wittered on, but in any real legal sense the government were an ‘accessory’ because it turned out they had negligently ‘authorized’ a ‘shooting zone’ that should never have been allowed.
The far from Commonwealth are big on corporate 'shooting zones' which everyone knows all too well, while we learned they go to extraordinary lengths to try and invent 'exclusion zones' for peaceniks as you will see.
Locals complained they had shooters going through a children's camp and so on, all of which just beggared belief.
The copper’s son knew he was hiding behind the state to try and reduce his own sentence that was only manslaughter anyway because of the manner in which the case was prosecuted and the Judge could then direct any jury.
My recollection is the government had originally not even really wanted to bring the case to trial.
In any true legal sense the fact the shooter did not CORRECTLY identify his target meant he should really have been prosecuted for murder [which the government were an 'accessory' of sorts to because the shooting zone was grossly negligent anyway because politicians were pandering to the 'sporting' gun lobby.]
The government did declare a ‘moratorium’ on shooting in that area to try and hide they were more than grossly negligent themselves etc etc before being finally forced to part of the 'shooting zone'.
THE CORPORATE 'GUN LOBBY' WANT TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER
The corporate 'sporting' gun lobby [much like the MET Police] apparently incredibly don't think all shooters need to first identify their targets:
... in fact, the jury found it could not have been an accident because the shooter did not even bother to follow rule 101 to CORRECTLY identify his target...
The shooter was egged on by big business to not accept any legal responsibility for anything.
The corporate 'sporting' gun lobby were publicly saying they should all be able to get away with murder !! which the government was going along with really.
In the UK, the MET Police persist in the false claim they do not have to CORRECTLY identify their target !! which at worst is considered a 'health and safety' failure.
On 26 March 2006, an Inspector Lyons very snidely made reference to police shootings in other countries, when I was unlawfully arrested for being a peacenik, so I just reminded him of Jean Charles De Menenzes in his own country.
In any true legal sense, the Australian government had sanctioned murder because they put in place a foreseeable sequence of events whereby a shooter who didn't even bother to CORRECTLY identify his target knows he will at most only be prosecuted for manslaughter, which this shooter when convicted by a jury, then still had the nerve to complain about, while encouraged to do so by the gun lobby and government.
It is self evident there isn't really any reason for 'sporting' shooting zones in any area where there are humans, because the flawed 'case law' proved that even if the shooter is willfully as negligent as it is possible to be, he will at most still only get a slap on the wrist by the state who only prosecute for manslaughter.
He did shoot my nephew at close range from ten metres away with a high powered rifle.
There is more than a reasonable suspicion that if the shooter had been on his own he might well have just covered up what he did.
The government obviously benefited by the rulings too which any analysis would show were always 'sidestepping' much, in which the shooter only served a year.
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVT. FORCED TO SHUT DOWN A 'SHOOTING ZONE':
The government 'authorized' hunting zone was ridiculous before you got to the reality of the recklessness of 'sporting' shooters who were more generally going on private land like a children's camp that locals complained about for goodness sakes:
.. the fact the shooter was convicted because he did not follow the first rule of CORRECTLY identifying his target is always ignored...
The 'sporting' shooters were red necks who weren't local farmers etc.
The Australian government were presumably really only interested in securing the best possible outcome for themselves on 22 May 2000, because it wasn't just the shooter who was more than negligent in a case where there were all sorts of rational questions about the 'hunting zone'.
The similarities with the MET Police execution of Jean Charles de Menenzes are quite remarkable because it is absolutely impossible for the police [and there can be no doubt MI5 were involved too] to have all 'mistaken' his identity too.
In the UK, the MET Police's tall story [that must have involved MI5] about the execution of Jean Charles de Menenzes is simply not credible.
The MET police and MI5 very clearly put in place an extraordinary sequence of events that led to the execution of Jean Charles de Menenzes.
Let us be honest that the U.S government does not hand out lethal weapons to the public in the U.S to defend themselves from the... government, according to the 'Constitution'. The weapons supply line is a dirty business that is only all about corporate profit.
Those were dark years when that nephew was murdered in 1999 before my sister died in 2000 and the twin of the nephew who was murdered in 2000 died in 2001.
It all gave anyone pause for serious thought about all sorts.
... this is my sister...
You can tell the governments INCREDIBLY did discuss what happened in Australia in that case, because they extraordinarily used the same old cycle of '22' and 13 December 2006 & 2007 to then MALICIOUSLY target me [and they lost] in the UK as their ‘constitutional’ crisis grew in Parliament Square in Central London as we won on 13 December 2006 and then 13 December 2007 and so on.
That they could be so shameful about so much, does just beggar belief !!
Blair & Co had their malicious show trial of me on 22 February 2006, which was the same date Nazi Germany had a show trial of and executed the White Rose peaceniks in Munich on 22 February 1943.
... the spanish inquisition all over again..
They didn't even bother to invite me to my own appeal where they did have my email and phone number and did deliver court papers to Parliament Square all the time and which could not legally have proceeded !! without me, because they always knew we had proved in court on 14 September 2006 that it was all 'void ab initio.
In fact the police records show the same 7/7 Gold Commander's unlawful attack on our peace campaign on 23 May 2006 was supposed to take place on 22 May 2006 where they must have known [ie: were illegally spying on me] I was coming back because they waited for me !! but I didn't get back until after midnight. I was then unlawfully arrested trying to stop them stealing campaign property, which I proved was what they were doing, because they could not charge me with anything.
The 'lawyer's could never explain why they didn't go straight to the High Court with a jury lawsuit against the government then.
That is how and why Brian won his case over 23 May 2006, which was heard on 13 December 2006 with the ruling given he had 'no case to answer' in the Magistrates Court on 22 January 2007 because they all obviously knew they couldn't put me on a witness stand in the Magistrates Court, when they hadn't been able to charge me with anything over 23 May 2006.
In legal terms it should always have been our High Court jury lawsuit against them, in what was part of the most almighty abuse of all due process over many years.
They put Steve and myself in another court on 22 January 2007 and 22 May 2007 until we won at Southwark Crown Court on 13 December 2007.
22 MAY - 13 DECEMBER 2007
We beat the government's 'exclusion' zone etc etc etc etc for peaceniks:
... they lost all their 'exclusion' zone case/s... 22 May 2007 on 13 December 2007...
So on 19 February 2008 !! the royals !! were then trying to introduce an 'exclusion' zone for peaceniks !! [in exactly the same place] where we had not known that was going on behind our backs, until 18 June 2010.
It's really not a 'co-incidence' the corporate state was being nasty and worse.
The former British PM Cameron then triggered the referendum over Blair's Article 50 Enabling Act following the EU Council meeting on 19 February 2016:
... 19 and 22 february 2016...
It's quite extraordinary really.
In fact the Queen did not dare send her Attorney General [who represents her] along to argue the attempted land grab to create another 'exclusion zone' for peaceniks in Parliament Square in the High Court in 2010-2011 that we hadn't even known the full truth about until 18 June 2010, before I lawfully blew the whistle in the High Court on 21 June 2010:
... 19 february 2008 - 21 june 2010... the judge literally ran from the court when i lawfully started blowing the whistle on this and much else, that all the 'lawyers' etc had illegally not disclosed to brian and myself...
Brian and myself didn't even know about 19 February 2008 until 18 June 2010.
One of the Queen's lawyers did come along and speak to Brian and myself, saying she would prosecute us both, which we did think was odd because he never actually disclosed what a member of our campaign discovered above.
The spider memos have never been disclosed either because there had to have been correspondence between politicians and royals.
The royals attempted land grab in 2010 - 2011 was superfluous in once again trying to retrospectively provide far from legal cover for the politicians, because I already had a High Court Order against everyone from 10 April 2008 that is a really a lawsuit like the others etc etc etc etc.
We were successful precisely because we were never trying to occupy anywhere.
Brexit Boris whose latest stage is 'Foreign Secretary' hid there was no separation of powers when he was both the Mayor of London and boss of the Commissioner of the MET police when they tortured and attempted to murder me on 4 September -before- Cameron crowned himself king in May 2010:
... the one and same mayor of london and boss of commissioner of met police and now foreign secretary who is legally responsible for the torture and attempted murder of me on 4 september 2009...
It is a matter of public record that I was illegally denied legal representation on 23 June 2010 to try and stop me blowing the whistle on Boris & Co torturing and attempting to murder me on 4 September 2009, which was after Blair & Co tried to 'disappear' me on 4 September 2006.
[The governments records from 4 September 2006 don't make any sense because they were invented after they failed in whatever was intended, because Steve was with me when they suddenly attacked him, so I ran to try and get help which people saw me doing]
... 4 september 2006... members of the public saw something going on when i ran to try and get help...
It is a legal impossibility for the government to deny what happened on 4 September 2009 when they crossed all red lines which is why only they have always illegally refused to hand over the interrogation tape and CCTV.
The stolen generations:
... stolen generations... the government can't alter DNA to make someone of british, french, spanish and portugese descent, the same as someone who is of british and catalan [french, spanish and italian] descent...
On 16 January 2012 I was actually going off somewhere when a whole line of police suddenly fanned out in front of me, blocking my way near Westminster tube station. When I asked them why as my phone also rang which I answered while the police didn't say anything, the phone call told me why as I turned around in horror and saw.
The 'blanket policy':
... the highest 'echelons'...
The police by Westminster tube station, who I thought were just there for some demo that I presumed they were waiting to pass through, knew !! I was the target... again in Parliament Square !!
The British government invented the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which targeted me, to try and cover up what they had done to me, by ridiculously purporting they could:
a) give politicians immunity over torture and attempted murder/murder
b) rolling out political police commissioner's across the country, ergo 10 April 2013
c) to illegally try and stop lawsuits against them.
The truth is they couldn't lawfully use their Police Reform and Responsibility Act 2011 against me or therefore indeed anyone else [I was never prosecuted over what -they- did to me on 16 January 2012]
We have always been trying to build a ‘moratorium’ on war because it is only about the murder of defenceless civilians for corporate profit.
The real democracy of the peace and harmony of the rule of law is of course the same everywhere.
The legal reality remains that the fact anyone waves around a 'constitution' or 'legislation' over anything does not necessarily make it lawful.
There were never any terror attacks in the UK on my seven plus year watch in Parliament Square, Central London, because the governments of all political shades were clearly too busy trying to illegally 'remove' Brian and myself, without any caveat they would act within the rule of law.
We did definitively prove despite no legal training or legal representation that the ‘constitutional’ monarchy is incompatible with the EU legal order despite unprecedented opposition from royals, politicians, media barons and so on.