Is Pot lawful in australia?

[GeneralExecutor]

“Australia is being taken over through the backdoor by the Roman catholic church. Our law is protestant, or based on being free from the rule of the Roman Catholic church.”

This is TOTALLY true, what isaih is telling you brothers is not skewed in any way shape or form, the time to awaken has long past, but with all things good, it is never too late.

“The method they chose to take over australia is to surplant our real commonwealth which is self government and ownership of the country for a counterfeit, with a very similar name called the Commonwealth of Australia (Corporation).”

We now have what is known as a QUASI-government, one which can only have any form of force and effect on any given individual SOLELY by that individual’s consent, be it expressed or implied. The latter is the real demon, as they will claim most anything to be your implied consent unless YOU make it totally clear otherwise. The best method we have found is to do this ADMINISTRATIVELY. Long before anything goes wrong and whilst you are in complete honour without any other form of charge against your person’s name pending.

“All courts/parliaments (including legislation)/ public servants are now just subsidiary companies of this corporation.”

The term which precisely describes them ALL is “Agencies by Estoppel” or in the singular, “Agency by Estoppel”.

So should you get busted for pot, sign nothing wait until your taken into court later that day. It should be no more confusing than memorising the following--

--------------------------------------------------
I cannot knowingly submit to the authority of defacto government without committing treason, and walk out.
----------------------------------------------------

We would prefer:

“Our heavenly Father and our worldly allegiance do NOT allow us to wittingly consent or support and form of de facto or quasi government without standing in fraud and committing high treason, therefore we shall not.”

“Please pay no mind to the troll. General exceutor.”

When will you realize what is truly happening here and start using an asset to your benefit instead of rejecting it? We are not against you man, get that straight, we are merely pointing out that there are OTHER ways far less hazardous to one’s well being.

 

[hard rain]

Interesting thread. I really enjoyed isaih's historical interpretation. However this thread really lacks any referencing and there are very few credible links. How about some? I don't mean links to nutjob websites or youtube vids either. Scholarly links would be nice.

I have read nothing here that I would personally use if I got caught with/ or growing cannabis. I sure as hell will not be making any statements regarding the "heavenly father" as I am neither a Christian or a believer. I am certainly not a hypocrite. Nor would I be game to tell the court I am not submitting to a defacto govt and walk out of court. That seems to be asking for trouble!?

 

[isaih520]

hardrain if youre facing a prison sentence, you've already found trouble. I dont know if im the only guy to walk out of court on this by what i know rather than who i know.
But I've never heard of anyone else succeeding.

Bear in mind that theyre pretending pot is a criminal offence. So unless you plead guilty it goes to jury.
The judge can't do anything to you at this point in time , without you giving up the jury option by pleading guilty.

If you are picked up on having even a gram of pot, and are frightened to mention treason, I'd simply plead not guilty and wait for a jury trial. I'd bet my left nut they drop the case somewhere along the line.

As far as evidence is concerned, you have to bear in mind that history has been carefully rewritten by the priests.
I look to sources that were outside their influence. chiefly laws and old trial records.
If you have a specific fact that you'd like verified I'll try to recall where I garnered it from.

 

[isaih520]

The catholic church created our education system. The way we are taught to discern truth is to refer to authority figures.

e.g.Its my belief that snow is white (proof verifed in University of sydney professor O'Connor's The true colour of snow)

And then Ive proved snow is white.

If you discern truth via referral to authority figures, then whoever controls who becomes authority figures, may control what becomes truth: if they so desired.

Its not a method I'm fond of.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

There is a common law maxim (and we mean original or old-age common law, when all courts were courts of equity, therefore case law was all cases adjudicated on in equity) which says you can not break a law if you are doing something necessary to your survival:

Bouvier's 1856 Law dictionary (pg. 130): Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61.

Do not most use herb out of necessity? But hey! Don’t wait till your hauled into Court before you establish that fact, do so ASAP with your doctor, but make sure he is a trustworthy doctor.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

Here's UCC working in Australia. The same process can be applied when submitting your ucc filings, to claim your strawman, all property in its name, including all plants grown on strawman titled land or property.

For instance, hypothetically, if I were growing, say 20 plants, and if we had applied this process before we started the grow, and if anyone seized or stole them them during the grow and we could identify who it was, we may then wish to apply this process and bill all transgressors of same per plant stolen, say, 100 grand a pop, or whatever anyone would legitimately value each plant to be worth on the street, multiplied 5-7 times which UCC permits for damage/injury/compo claims. At that rate, we may even wish they do bust you.

Truth being that once they owe a debt which they refuse to pay, we may wish to take them to the cleaners, as they would ourselves if they claimed to have a legitimate debt over our strawman/person's name, by firstly reporting their debt to Dunn and Bradstreet in London and our intent to lien and levy it, and as they underwrite all minions commercial bonds, D&B shall either freeze or REMOVE their bond, and they, will be out of a job and NOT permitted to operate in commerce. Once hat has occurred, we may then wish looking into finding a debt collector to move in and levy the debt for a commission, usually around 10-30% depending on difficulty to execute.

In other words, we may wish to use the same process they use against people in debt. They and each man are considered a corporation by definition. And if for instance we can't find one in Oz that will do it, we may try Russia or Nigeria or any other land who couldn't give a hoot about our jurisdiction, as the matter is ALL under International Admiralty/Commercial, ie, UCC.

To make life easier for ourselves, a group have gone and done all the hard FOUNDATIONAL part of the filing, called OPPT, and created easy to follow instructions and templates for the common man to use and customize for their needs. There is also an Oz based group that will help anyone who asks. We can claim our house, car, license and any other form of thing that is in your strawmans name, as OUR own property by placing a 1st lien on ALL of it. Any problem occurs, and we conduct our own court on a piece of paper, and our judgement is final on the matter and it cannot be adjudicated on in any subsequent process, be it administrative, judicial or otherwise.

So we may look into it a little more, perhaps.


http://understandingtheoppt.info/

http://wakeup-world.com/oppt-in/

http://www.lisamharrison.com/oppt/

And the ozzy group have even further customized templates for letters to be sent to transgressors specifically for Oz.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

We have proof of many other successes such as the one above using the same technology, ranging from arrests for unpaid traffic infringments (1st lien of the human body owned by the creditor of the strawman, ie YOUR body, means they are not allowed to have it for themselves unless a true crime is committed, ie victimless crimes are NOT true crimes) to foreclosures and more. And all in Oz. How can that work? Well, Australia corp are registered in Pennsylvania and are obligated by all USCode and UCC. And guess what? So is your Strawman. He too is registered in the US. That is why judges have immunity, as they are foreign to the land of Oz. But so is your strawman whom they seek. That is why they must obtain your consent to do anything with it. What does this mean?

1. You, or your strawman, have the SAME level of immunity when in Australia as the all govt minions do.

2. In the States, neither they nor your strawman are immune from each other.

Guess what that means?

 

[Donald Mallard]

"Please pay no mind to the troll. General exceutor.
If you're interested in the freeman disinformation he parrots, there are plenty of freeman resources online.
I don't believe they're right on principle or will work for growing pot."

Our principle is infallible, as all TRUST law is, the problem arises in attempting to apply it. One word out of place, one slip of the tongue, and your meat. You've blown it. Which is why we say it takes a LOT of due diligence to become truly competent in and at law. But none of what I have written is for the purpose of one being able to grow anything. So why the comparison?

Your method isaih, as we have already said, will work at a price, in that it is one which will be always be met with extreme severity.

To any and all brothers here: can any of us PRIVATELY massage anyone else in this forum? If so, how? And if not, isaih, do you frequent any other forum where private messaging is available? If so, which one and under what name? We should talk in private.

you can use the private message system once you have reached 50 posts brother executor ,
im likely not the only one reading along here ,
so keep posting and you ll be there soon ...

 

[isaih520]

"guess what that means?'

It means you have bowed to papal authority.

Its not rocket surgery. UCC isnt australian law at the best of times you goose.

You're parrotting american men.

I also notice you took a sandwich out of my lunchbox with treason defence.
The fingerprint is in the use of the word knowingly.

If you can find any reference to the existence of this claim being made , particularly using the word 'knowingly' prior to when I used in court in 2011, I'll put up with your complete lack of respect and overall dishonesty.

Where I come from we give credit where credit's due. Ordinarily I couldnt care less.I want people to use it. But the disrespect and condescending attitude of a googlesmith and a liar who then uses what I gave to others for his advantage, rankles. you've got a hide to disparage me, when you're using my approach.

Unfortunately you used it devoid of understanding. because you're mixing up your jurisidctions. If you claim UCC youre approving papal authority on one hand, and if youre claiming treason defence you're using English common law on the other.

Polar opposites.

Makes no sense.

you're actually committing treason in that declaration on bowing to papal authority through UCC firstly , and secondly by attatching yourself to the One Peoples trust declaration which is in and of itself treason.
So you're nuts even bringing up the issue of treason, after doing that.

I strongly suspect your agenda is to make simple immunity from drug prohibition seem too complex . Thus disheartening those who may find themselves being robbed and extorted by this papist 'government'

" one word out of place. one slip of the tongue. And you're meat."

Get your hand off it mate. Most men go to water when they get to court as it is. You say that and you scare men away from fighting for their rights,
Why would you even say that? Its absolute bullshit.

You dont need complexity when you make a point, you need simplicity. So its understandable, hits home.

the reason lawyers make things complex and hard to understand is because they're lying. Thats how they hide the lies from us mere mortals. Why copy their methods if you're not lying?

In my opinion your brave letter writing freeman declarations show a complete lack of understanding of the law, of the powers striving for power over us, and basic human nature. Not to mention a lack of personal principle.






I wish you would start your own thread. Its free.

 

[maxdingo]

"It is vain to do with more what can be done with less" - Occam, William Of

Done being the key word here and this is why i like your approach isaih. it is simply standing up to them.

from the What The FUQ website;
Freeman movements of various descriptions have focussed for so long on 'who they were'..."I'm not the PERSON", "I'm not a Corporate Entity", "I'm not the Strawman" etc.

This website moves on from that point because I know who I am.

The real question is... Who are you..? This website challenges those claiming Government status to prove it.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

Thank you brother Donald.

isaih,

In modern definition, the word wittingly provides reason as to WHY you have never brought up the point of treason before. In the eyes of the law, he who is aware of something and does not express it for a long time, is deemed to have CONSENTED to it. Wittingly has all the same connotations as knowingly with a very important exception, it can be construed as something that one was NOT aware of till recently or very recently, and therefore preemptive of any possible consent to the fact ever having been given.

knowing:

1. Possessing knowledge, information, or understanding. See Synonyms at intelligent.
2. Showing clever awareness and resourcefulness; shrewd.
3. Suggestive of secret or private knowledge: a knowing glance.
4. Deliberate; conscious: a knowing attempt to defraud.

wittingly:

1. Aware or conscious of something.
2. Done intentionally or with premeditation; deliberate.
v.
Present participle of wit2.
n. Chiefly British
1. Knowledge or awareness; cognizance.
2. Information obtained and passed on; news.

But for a more precise definition, we must seek the oldest form of definition we can find, as first in time is best in law, here from Websters 1828 dictionary:

knowing:

KNOWINGLY, adv. no'ingly. With knowledge. He would not knowingly offend.

wittingly:

WITTINGLY, adv. [See Wit. ] Knowingly; with knowledge; by design. He knowingly and wittingly brought evil into the world.

Again, "by design" implies the creation or acquisition of the knowledge at some time PRIOR to expressing it. Therefore it can be used as a defense to the fact that one had reason for not coming forth with it prior to its expression, thereby they cannot definitively be said to have acquiesced at any time prior thereof expression.

So in fact isaih, it encompasses the meaning of knowing AND provides fortification to the argument of the knowing being frivolous due to having already consented to it. In other words, for the intent being projected, it is a superior form of expression in law as it keeps one in honour and disallows a presumption to ones detriment, and that, by old and modern standards. In other words, you got them cornered and unable to move, i.e., check mate, not just mate.

"If you can any reference to the existence of this claim being made, particularly using the word 'knowingly' prior to when I used in court in 2011, I'll put up with your complete lack of respect and overall dishonesty."

We do not comprehend what you are attempting to export there isaih, can you clarify? Are you saying that you were the first to use the word knowingly in any court of Australia? And prior to that, what "claim" do you refer to? We have made no claim at any time, so we cannot comment on that with what you have given.

"Max l still have bank accounts and phone and so on."

Have you corrected any record as to what form of tender is in your banking account? If not, then you are deemed to be an agent of the corporate govt, you are unknowingly admitting and volunteering your signature as an endorser of the Federal Reserve's private credit system. Which means that you are liable for taxes, and if you have done anything to stove the ATO off you by acts of belligerence, then they have accommodated it because there is not enough profit in it for them to pursue it. In other words, if ever you win a lottery, acquire or save a substantial amount of money, or come across a large inherence, guess who'll be knocking on your door within 3 weeks of it being banked? The ATO are no different to any other corporation, if an action will not profit them, they will not pursue it as long as it doesn't. But unlike you and us, they have time on their side.

"I'm not declaring a new law according to me and the magical authority of the fairy princess in my imagination."

That contradicts what you previously stated, sorry brother.

"Nor am I catering to the schemes of lawyers to undermine my soverignty."

What is your sovereignty identification number if we may ask? If one does not have one, then in today's world they are NOT deemed to be as such by any authority. You may obtain one as we have by knowing how to file for an IRS EIN27 and an EIN98-6 as we have done, or, you may wish to apply for one through the United Nations in New York with a letter of ascension, but it best to know the most appropriate answer to the most critical question which they shall want you to address in your submission, and it must be based in total truth or your submission will be rejected. That is, WHY you are seceding from your existing state. Can help there if needed as I have been commissioned to create numerous such letters in the past for what are now small sovereign states ranging from 55 people to 5,800 people.

"My position as a protestant is that I won't bow to papal authority."

My position is to use him for all he can provide, and fact is, he provides a lot more than most think, but one needs to know the law properly so as to see the remedy/relief in all controversies he raises. He would never dishonour sacred law as some do isaih, by raising a controversy without also providing the remedy, albeit in the most obscure and hidden of ways. That is why due diligence is needed to discern it, yet not all are born with the right amount of such ability, and that, by the will of God. Now don’t be thinking that we are a lover of Pope.

"I live by the law of god as per the KJV, which I have a right to under our system.
I probably would even if I didnt have the right to under our system.
And that includes growing and selling pot."

God does not want any of his children to act belligerently, how can you say what you do? Do you not realize that the powers that be are actually attempting to follow the word of God? It is the very few rotten apples at the top that spoil it for everyone else. They are the ones that need removing from the collective, not all of them. And can you please point out the extract within the Bible that states the latter of your previous paragraph?

"I act as a British Subject, by the way not an Australian citizen. I hate the status of citizen as a protestant, so while it seems unpatriotic British subject was good enough my forefathers who were born here and its sure as hell not Roman."

British subject, Australian citizen, the difference is almost negligible. Both are what is known as "citizen-subject slave". I am beginning to see why the authorities are hounding you isiah, you consistently exhibit what is known in law as double-mindedness. Now we do not say the following to belittle you or anyone else, it is simply fact, which is that is the basis of most judges claiming the right to have persons or men submitted for psychiatric evaluations (so as to get them out of their court and under their power) is when they exhibit such mind-ness, the other is physical aggression in the Court, and that does not mean hitting others, but simply exhibiting real anger.

But why would one wish to be a citizen or a subject of another man? We prefer to be citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is an eternal realm, and therefore do NOT require another man's constitution as our body is already constituted with the spirit of God. Now do you see why they refer to those forms of temporary testamentary trusts (ie Wills) as Constitutions? They deem you to be SOLELESS, and your body in need of CONSTITUTION, or perhaps you were already aware of that ol' Protestant brother? We cannot be certain unless you tell us. Fact remains, that most all words which they use in law are derived from an ecclesiastical level or intent. When one is able to see and think in those terms in law, then one becomes more competent therein. Words are EVERYTHING, in life and law.

"A status which is lawfully conferred father to son and is untouchable by parliament , dejure or otherwise. So although I created bank accounts in ye olden days with government ID, its no longer relevant as far as the nonsensical justifications of lawyers."

Status, ok, but unless your earthly father applied the right process during his life to CLAIM the office of executor of the Estate left to him by God and the State, then he unknowingly abandoned you to the State. Refer to the Cestui que Vie Act of 1666.

Therefore, from a perspective of law, he had no right whatsoever to bestow anything unto anyone which he had abandoned. Only the guardian thereof has that right. On a side note, with something you said earlier, nowadays they will NOT probate testaments, only wills, try it and you will see. With wills there is NO inheritance, only benefits. Which again, as much as it may pain some, is in accordance with God's wishes. For nowhere in genesis did He say that He gives ownership of ANYTHING to any man, but rather, He gracefully bestowed DOMINION upon to us all. Dominion is the right of equitable use coupled with good stewardship thereof. For of anyone believes that have a right to OWN anything in this world or on this earth, then may we ask what they came to this world with, and more importantly, what they intend to take with them when they leave? The truth can always be found in the seemingly irrelevant.

In God’s words:

Psalm 50:10-12
“ For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know all the birds of the mountains, And the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
“If I were hungry, I would not tell you; For the world is Mine, and all its fullness”

Sorry to be the bearer of truth, it is a cold place where I come from, yet I am warm.

 

[mwz]

Australia is being taken over through the backdoor by the Roman catholic church.
Our law is protestant, or based on being free from the rule of the Roman Catholic church.

I don't find moderates such as the catholic church frightening. They are losing their power due to people leaving in droves from the public perception that they are an international paedophile ring. But, that's not to detract from a previous time when they held great power. Otherwise known as The Dark Ages.

I find the evangelicals much more frightening. And they do exercise back door political power. Weren't there a few American presidents who were in the evangelicals pocket and also thought the war on drugs was a stellar idea.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sm-cdn/reports/NSA-Black-Paper.pdf

 

[maxdingo]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sm-cdn/reports/NSA-Black-Paper.pdf

does not mention backdoor that have been in windows software since 1999 http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40836.html

i(we) dont think it is that simple to be anon.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

Good point there brother.

Would not the backdoor be protected by proper firewall package? We are not experts in computers, those who are, please advise.

Another thing which was pointed out to me today. It seems the best form of anonymity is obtained by using Linux Lime and other Linux packages. Linux have free version of LIME one can download to create a Boot disk for their PC which starts most any PC in Linux mode. For surfing one uses it, and for using existing pc applications such as Word/XL/Adobe one reboots in windows. Need to look into it more.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

This reminds me of this: http://henrymakow.com/hill.html

The maker of the doco '7/7 ripple effect' John Anthony Hill (JAH) was charged with sedition. His defence was the queen was never correctly coronated and is therefore illegitimate...

Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

May 20, 2011

" If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."



by Debra Siddons

(henrymakow.com)


For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH)
Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the
12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge
of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you
less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the
Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more
details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please
visit the following links:-

http://mtrial.org
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/

There are two very important precedents that were established with
this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary
argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and
the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based
on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and
with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned. There are those who may wish to
argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden
did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony
because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.
In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second
point.

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her
hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and
signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found
in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly
prohibited.

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.
To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore
without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of
high treason among her other numerous crimes.

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her
majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from
her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which
means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't
really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the
jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any
of "her majesty's" courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own
cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth
could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are
obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the
question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by
a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of
Elizabeth.

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to
request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause.
That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do,
they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent
Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is
immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact
that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular
point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.

That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.

The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the
Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the
start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces
of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.

Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the
Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.

Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked
awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but
didn't know. We know now.

For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we
aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you
really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand
for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it
is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR
association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head
of the BAR.

So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all
know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT
and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this
insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread
the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can
begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your
freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into
bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".

For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit:
http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes

By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of
this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this
simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second
precedent set during this landmark case.

While the official reason for this trial was to address this
trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course
of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities
could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect"
which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media
reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy
theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the
trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that
the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people
who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is.

This was the first time this information was shown at an official
proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the
jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on
July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For
those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7
Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of
correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the
outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also
found not guilty).

John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his
testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United
States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on
to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the
Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She
reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with
the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind
Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had
foreknowledge of the event.

As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by
the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the
truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the
mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine
is now officially on record.

And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of
that official record.

This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new
beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding
words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the
hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up
around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it
takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and
the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the
personal cost.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

 

[AfroSheep]

Thank you SS_OG, The golden Ratio sent you to us, to share this out standing case.
I had read and even watched the videos of the queens FALSE Coronation. Its rather funny that they did not use the real stone, to swear an oath over.

I don't have the videos anymore, but they can't be too hard to find.

 

[Tonygreen]

TLDR

So you got off your pot charge?

 

[GeneralExecutor]

All minions of the Vatican, which include all judicial, policing, government and taxing personnel worldwide, have, since the 11th of July 2013, lost their immunity for any form of crimes they commit against the public whilst masquerading in their own private laws; which means it has never been easier to sue them:





APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO

OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS

ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS





In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.

It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.

In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.

With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:

1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:

a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;

b) crimes referred to:

- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;

- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;

when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;

c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.

2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.

3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:

a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.

b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.

c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;

d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.

4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.

5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.

6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.

This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.

Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.



FRANCISCUS


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/f...tu-proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html

 

[GeneralExecutor]

The "International... adequate legal instruments" referred to above have already been created by this General Executor, and every link in their chain tempered. They are now perfected and awaiting their use by the next man or person we deem fit for such justice. It shan't be long before they serve their purpose well.