or maligned in these publications has a guaranteed right of reply. JMF or P2 Lodge
Government Censorship Legislation
Any party, which prefers not to receive copies of VOMIT by fax or post, should notify the publisher. Recipients can block emails. People in the public service are obliged to accept VOMIT, which is published in the public interest.
We apologise for the many typographical errors last week. That was the result of stress.
In earlier publications and by email we have advised victims to write to the “absolute ruler” who is the Prime Minister and not the Queen. The late Lord Denning said so. Denning was an expert on constitutional matters.
A former police officer tells us that he knows hundreds of villains. He states that many of them believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice but he does not know of one who has written to the Prime Minister about it. Villains are hardly likely to write to anybody and they certainly would not tell police officers about it. The former officer asks the wrong question and gets the wrong answer based upon non-existent evidence. He claims that there is something strange about people who write to the Prime Minister and it is doubly wrong to write to him regularly. Strangely we know of many victims who have bombarded the Prime Minister with letters. Our victims write to the Prime Minister, the Queen and other authorities again and again. Most of the writers are intelligent. Their letters are ignored or passed on to government departments. Why do people keep wasting paper and postage?
What can victims do
when they are under the threat of bankruptcy, homelessness, imprisonment,
police frame ups and a legal system that is run for the benefit of a legal
Mafia? Should they just lie down and
die? Should they take up arms? Surely it is better to use the Prime
Minister for catharsis. If a million
people wrote every day to the Prime Minister asking him to decriminalise drugs
or not to attack
Our experience is that the authorities set out to provoke correspondents by not dealing with the points raised. The problems become buried in a mass of correspondence. We have all received messages like these. “Unless you raise new points or provide proof of your allegations we do not intend to respond to your further letters”. “The matters which you now raise have been dealt with in earlier correspondence”. “Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us”. “In view of the abusive nature of your letters this correspondence is now closed”. “Your comments have been noted”. Often there is no reply. They have many ways of evading the issues. It is still worthwhile to write to the Prime Minister even it only causes his staff extra work. Let us hope that a million people write to him every day.
We publish victim’s letters as catharsis for the victims and to generally increase the level of awareness of the methods used against victims and to try to have the victimisers removed from office.
We repeat that the only
usable weapon victims have against corrupt law enforcement is publicity. Why write to the monkeys when you can write
to the organ grinder. Copy every letter
to or write directly to the Prime Minister.
Police reaction: We sent the ex-cop a draft of the above statement. He was very angry because he had been misquoted. On Monday 19 August he asked four men the following question. “If you sent a film for developing and the prints were not returned to you would you write to the Prime Minister”. Their answers were a resounding “No”. We would have given the same answer but not if there was deliberate interference with Her Majesty’s Mail to protect major drug dealers. He had the bit between his teeth and was determined to undermine our credibility and question our mental stability. Once a policeman always a policeman.
Is an elite secret society undermining the impartiality of Scottish justice?
For several years the people of Skye have had the sense that they were being treated unjustly. In 1989, the government decided that the bridge between their island and the mainland would be funded not publicly but privately. The developers would reclaim their costs with a road toll.
The toll turned out to be the highest per mile of road in the world. The private consortium invested just £500,000, from which it is due to reap some £88m from the people of Skye.
Many of the islanders
refused to pay. They argued that the paperwork legalising the road tolls had
never been published.
The fatal flaw, however,
did not stop the prosecution of 496 of the islanders. Some of them appealed,
but their arguments were dismissed by
Now, research by the tireless campaigner Robbie the Pict, published here for the first time, reveals that many of the key decision-makers, in and out of the courts, belong to a society which keeps its membership secret.
The Speculative Society,
which is housed in the
The Edinburgh Speculative Society later split from the operative masons, to concentrate on cementing the bonds between powerful people. Unlike freemasons, the "knights" of the society, who are all male and all white, do not swear an oath of loyalty to each other.
Their meetings appear to
concentrate on dining and debate. The group describes itself as a
"sodality", or brotherhood, and its motto urges the "brethren...
in unity to dwell". That is about the limit of what non- members can
discover. Even the
But the secret membership
lists obtained by the Pict show that many of the most
powerful people in
The Pict alleges that the law lords' membership of the society throws the impartiality of many of the key Skye bridge cases into serious doubt. Over the past six years, Scottish law lords have presided over 14 hearings involving the bridge protesters. In every case they have ruled against the protesters and in favour of the crown and the toll collectors.
In 12 of these hearings,
one or more of the law lords presiding over them and the government officials
or company directors whose arguments they have assessed have, the secret lists
reveal, been members of the Speculative Society. In
Appeals by the protesters concerning Lord Douglas-Hamilton's decisions were later examined by Lords Cowie, Coulsfield, Marnoch, MacLean, Johnston, Drummond Young, Nimmo Smith, Cameron of Lochbroom and the lord justice-general Lord Cullen (no 1702), all of whom belong to the Speculative Society. In Robbie the Pict v Miller Civil Engineering and the Secretary of State, 1998, the government was represented by a QC called Duncan Menzies (now Lord Menzies), another knight of the Speculative Society. The case was heard by his fellow knights Lords Cameron and Johnston.
In January this year, Lord Drummond Young prevented an appeal brought by Robbie the Pict against a judgment of Lord Johnston's. in May, Lord MacLean helped to judge Robbie the Pict's petition against a decision made by Lord Cullen. All four law lords are members of the brotherhood. The 496 Skye defendants were all refused legal aid. There may have been good grounds for refusal, but if so these were not explained. Standing counsel to the legal aid board from 1991-98 was Colin McEachran QC, also a member of the society.
The body with overall responsibility for making the Skye bridge project happen was the Scottish Office's development department. One of its senior officials was Niall Campbell, another knight of the society. He went on to run the Scottish Office's justice department. The tolls on the bridge are collected by the Skye Bridge Company. Its chairman was Sir lain Noble. He too belongs to the society.
Since July 1999, Scottish law has been, in principle, legally compliant with the European convention on human rights. Article six of the convention determines that "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal". "Independent and impartial" means, in this case, above any reasonable public suspicion of influence or special interest. Robbie the Pict suggests that the law lords' adjudication of cases involving other members of the Speculative Society appears to offend both the letter and the spirit of the law. Interestingly, an essay published in 1968 in the official history of the Speculative Society by Sir Derrick Dunlop (a former president of the society) observes that "we all know... that the judicature is icy in its impartiality, which is one of the chief glories of this country, but perhaps this impartiality would be strained to breaking point where the Speculative is concerned".
Whether this demonstrates
partiality or not is impossible to say. Not every judge in the Skye bridge
cases is a member of the society. There is no evidence that anyone has exploited
his links with other members of the society. But when Lord Hoffman's membership
of Amnesty International was revealed, soon after he and his fellow law lords
decided that General Augusto Pinochet should be
But that is not the end of the matter. These law lords have, between them, presided over thousands of other hearings. The Pict's findings raise questions about the entire system of Scottish law, and should also cause those of us living south of the border to take a closer look at our own system. Public confidence in the law requires that the judiciary be above suspicion. This story suggests that we cannot be assured that this is so.
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Guardian The Skye bridge
Guardian unlimited ~ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
For more information contact Thomas Minogue (Ph. 01383 729869 Email firstname.lastname@example.org )
We are indebted to Mr Minogue because he uncovered the Spec when investigating
bent Masonic judges in
We are also indebted to
Paul Ferris whose book “The Ferris Conspiracy” is due for publication. We should learn about the police drug
The Judge should either deny that he has received a secret briefing or denounce the exercise and fully disclose the information contained in the confidential court summary. Should he fail to disclose the Judge is in contempt of his own court along with those providing the briefing. He becomes guilty of conspiracy with others , to pervert the course of justice; a crime that breaches his judicial oath of office.
Three animal rights activists were
due to stand trial in The Maidstone Crown Court on
There is only circumstantial evidence, some of which has been invented (one of the defendants gas bills was found tied to the brick allegedly thrown through a Hunt Meet Venue like you do) and the rest gathered by a series of house raids, phone taps, clandestine trash bin searches (from where the gas bill had been obtained) and helicopter and other house surveillance.
The charges have already been chopped and changed and others dropped when found to violate the European Convention of Human Rights. Manipulations and manoeuvrings have taken place with the willing assistance of a pliant secretly briefed Court prior to the appointment of a jury (which of course will have been left unaware of these facts) such as a tenuously enjoining together of defendants who are mostly facing unrelated charges to those of their co-defendants to their mutual disadvantage and embarrassment. Pressure has been maintained on the accused by constant police night visits usually between and in the morning and in the guise of ensuring conformance to bail conditions.
This is not a prosecution. It’s a witch-hunt.
The government is worried by activists’ success against a perverted and unnecessary scientific research program involving cruelty to animal’s e.g. featherless chickens. In February last year a cabinet committee was set up (as reported in The Times) with a view to “ to get animal rights activists by whatever it takes”
This is simply yet another case of government bribery and corruption.
For further info contact: Litigants In Person Society, c/o NASA,
Published by J M Todd, B.Sc., Misbourne Farmhouse
Telephone 01494 871204 Fax 01494 870031
Return to the archive