MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE 'LOBBYISTS' ATTEMPT TO 'BAN' DUAL NATIONAL [IN UK, FRANCE & AUSTRALIA OVER] REPEAL OF 'VOID AB INITIO' CORPORATE LEGISLATION (07.01.2016)
A closer reading of corporate legislation proposed and invented under the guise of the bogus war on terror shows politicians in the UK, Australia and France [dishonestly] claim they are are able to [falsely] accuse just dual nationals of anything to try and ban them from the UK, France and Australia.
Given that the UK, France and Australia are supporting private armies trying to illegally overthrow the Syrian government and continue the illegal occupation of Iraq, their weasel words obviously have nothing to do with terrorism.
'art' of political 'persuasion': corporations bankrolling obscene state violence to stay out of courts and make extraordinary profits
It is clearly not the ‘Islamic State’ private army, who are recruited via their own ‘governments’ and ‘news’ media, they are trying to ban.
So the targeting of dual nationals does indeed have a quite different and wholly malicious purpose.
In legal terms, all EU nationals are in many ways, in effect, 'dual nationals'.
In my own experience as a dual national, both the British and Australian governments have long been chafing at the bit with BOTH trying to find any way of banning me, precisely because I do support the certainty of the rule of law.
It just doesn’t get more offensive than targeting someone with the entire apparatus of the state, because they are a law abiding civilian who publicly supports the certainty of the rule of law.
In 2006, I remember illegal ‘bail’ conditions were imposed in the non-imprisonable s132-138 SOCPA 2005 case I won “void ab initio” [null and void] that were so broad I could have extraordinarily been ‘arrested’ just for being anywhere in the UK.
That was seriously OTT over a banner, which only showed it was really about their trying to protect their corporate legislation.
In reality, the UK had tried through illegal ‘bail’ conditions over a errr... banner, to ban me from the UK, because I had proved their corporate legislation was void ab initio/null and void.
The repeal became formal as part of a still live counterclaim I was finally able to file against the British government in 2011.
A barrister did say I was the first person to have ever made legislation impossible to even prosecute through the Magistrates Court, over which I can only say, just like in so many other things, someone has to be first.
The truth is that it is not difficult to identify corporate legislation, because it is bog standard criminal law 101, that it isn't compatible with the certainty of the rule of law, because there is no legitimate aim that is convincingly established in criminal law [ie: no identifiable serious harm]
Once you know that corporate legislation is not compatible with the certainty of the rule of law, there is only the practical reality of trying to overcome the 'obstacles' of state violence put in your way to try and stop you having access to [for example] a High Court jury.
Given the multi-trillion dollar industry behind corporate 'lobbying' to impose revenue raising corporate legislation, it is not exactly a level playing field, particularly given it is law abiding civilians, multi-national corporations are violently trying to rip-off.
The true level of corruption within the British 'criminal justice system', and 'politics' and 'news' media etc over corporate legislation is quite staggering.
The corporate legislation scandal is huge.
The ‘bail’ example is but one of very many ruses, which shows the disproportionate lengths the state is willing to go to however in order to try and protect corporate legislation, instead of human life.
France follows the dual national suit with attempts to ban anyone entering the country who politicians ‘suspect’ of being a threat to ‘national security’ which is so vague as to render it untenable really, particularly given freedom of movement within the Schengen & EU family, that all politicians are nevertheless falling all over themselves to end.
It is clearly all about corporate control when one considers how the EU governments fell all over each other to try and bring yet another country like Ukraine into the EU orbit.
One can only wonder if the recent re-appearance of Vichy France means they plan to ‘re-locate’ the European Court of Human Rights that is currently in Strasbourg ?
This all ties in with the UK huffing and puffing over the EU referendum farce, when one has to ask oneself how many people really 'believe' they can legitimately 'vote' to take away... someone else's vested rights, to try and make other people change their entire...lives ?
The EU referendum farce is all about trying to control the very many opportunities Europe offers law abiding civilians.
There is no honesty from any 'politics' or 'news' media over the opportunities Europe offers law abiding civilians, which is quite different from any deliberate 'mis-management' by administrative politics.
What they are all trying to achieve are bans that do not involve legal proceedings, because they run out of anything to try and 'prosecute' you over, to try and control you, which is what happened to us in the UK.
It is not a co-incidence that the politicians in these three warring countries want to lump peaceniks in with and conflate them with terrorists.
Rather corporations are trying to stop successful legal challenges in courts of law, over the vast profits the bogus war on terror and all it’s accompanying corporate legislation brings.
Let us not forget that what is called ‘lobbying’ actually involves buying corporate legislation in a world where corporate legislation is the one lever upon which quite extraordinary corporate profits turn.
It is when you look behind the albeit edited highlights of the likes of the Westminster 'Politics First' front of Lionel Zetter and Dr Marcus Papadopolous that you begin to get a taste of the corporate 'lobbying' that in the wider sense is a multi-trillion dollar, trans-global corporate business.
...the russian and british 'governments' are much closer than they would like people to know
Papadopolous is a typical example of a sly corporate tool belatedly jumping on the Syria war bandwagon in June 2015 for corporate interests, very much like with the illegal Iraq War vote, where they spent seven hundred hours 'debating' fox-hunting and seven hours 'debating' the Iraq War.
Putin is making lots of money too out of law abiding civilians trying to defend their lives, from unprecedented numbers of private armies in Syria.
There is only one joined up, two faced UNSC weapons supply line of disinformation, that tries to artificially divide and rule all civilian populations far beyond any legitimate administrative boundaries.
700 hours 'debating' foxhunting & 7 hours 'debating' iraq war: 'police' trying to hide [steal evidence]...unsc resolution 1441 did not authorize the british government to vote, let alone to act unilaterally to invade iraq 'on behalf' of the unsc
So the question we have to ask is just how many ho hum... dual nationals do you know floating around who can bring successful legal challenges in courts of law to “void ab initio” corporate legislation ?
What clearly really needs much greater public scrutiny is the multi-trillion dollar industry in corporate 'lobbying' that results in revenue raising legislation for corporations.
...trump is the eponymous snake-oil salesman and con-artist trying to steal resources from iraq, libya and syria
Who's oil ? The oil belongs to Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian people.
Trump is really the two-faced media manufactured corporate marketing machine con-artist.
The certainty of the rule of law, does not change to suit any 'politics' or 'news' media.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.