Search results matching tags 'abuse of process' and 'Conspiracy',Conspiracy&orTags=0Search results matching tags 'abuse of process' and 'Conspiracy'en-USCommunityServer 2007 SP2 (Build: 20611.960)HM Privy Council Rules Application re Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is both Incompetant and an Abuse of Process, 23 Jan 2011 15:46:49 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1874Maurice<p> </p> <p>Many of the members of the veterinary profession and lawyers, across the world, also knowing all the circumstances, were confident that this extreme and unusual conduct by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would, eventually, have been rectified by the ‘rule of law' before Her Majesty's Privy Council, where Royal Charters are born.</p> <p> Alas, the state of our United Kingdom law courts is in a far worse a state then even I or some of my fellow victims had ever imagined. </p> <p>What a complete waste in worry , expenditure and of life.  For Detail click <strong><font size="3">Downloads</font></strong>, over past 10 years </p>Channel Islands Swindle, 02 Jan 2011 15:48:48 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1847Maurice<p>An example of day to day life in a typical tax haven where the 'rule of law' is based on money.</p>'HM Partnership' in Challenge, 05 Jun 2010 20:41:52 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1430Maurice<p>I have spent a life trying to sort out problems, for me and many others, but visiting the so called 'Supreme Court of England and Wales', this week, confirmed my worst fears and caused me to realise much precious time has been wasted.</p> <p>Please do not repeat my foot steps,</p> <p>Maurice 2 </p>Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Damages Claim, 03 Jun 2010 22:01:57 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1424Maurice<p>It is with great regret, after a life of immense enjoyment and satisfaction, watching, listening and learning from father, working as a veterinary surgeon and then, myself, revelling in his 'jack of all trades' vocation, as your typical West Country vet, I have to now prosecute, against all the odds of a Royal Charter, a bunch of villains in a final attempt to, once again, practice veterinary surgery.</p> <p>In my life there would often have been urgent descisions to be made for animal welfare. Whether it was the cat's broken leg, from a car accident or the dog's itchy skin, the old cow's womb out or the child's pony with colic, whatever it was, it was it was always exciting and above all, mentally stimulating, but never quite quenching enough for that inherited trait, the thirst for knowledge.</p> <p>I now have to lay information before a court of law due to the unscrupulous few I have encountered, in my short life, in the British legal industry, milking their positions of privilege for all they are worth, reliant on the bias of both Royal Charter and the 'Memorandum of Understanding' of 'HM Partnership'..</p>“Her Majesty the Queen and All That”, 27 Dec 2008 04:11:56 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:812Maurice<p><i><b>"Her Majesty the Queen and All That</b></i><i>" [HM Partnership]</i></p> <p><b><u>Bob Lomas</u></b><b> is absolutely right</b>.  The Queen has betrayed the nation, whether from cowardice or self-interest, I know not.  Allowing the nation to be Shanghaied into Europe is not the only way in which she has violated her Coronation Oath.  In that oath she swore "To Deliver Justice with Mercy", but in so many cases <i>(acting through her judiciary) </i>she has failed to deliver either.  I expound on that statement later, but first mention <b>the 'contrary argument', </b><b>which is </b><i><b><u>ALSO</u></b></i><b> 'right':</b><br /><b><u></u></b></p><p><b><u>Albert Burgess</u></b> says, "<b>... attacking the Queen is counter productive, ... the average man and woman in the street thinks she is wonderful and we need Mr and Mrs Average to help us win this fight but we will not get them if we attack the Queen".</b> <br /><b></b></p><p><b>Could someone brighter than me tell how these two valid arguments can be resolved?</b>  <br /> <br /><b><u>Anne Palmer</u> </b>suggests that judges might be our saviours.  <br /></p><p>Some will say that I exaggerate in saying that the judiciary is <i><b><u>totally</u></b></i> corrupt, from top to bottom.  Granted, there are many who try to do the right thing much of the time, but the <i><b><u>REAL</u></b></i> test comes when one of the rotten apples among them is under threat: - they close ranks to protect each other!  <br /></p><p>Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the European Court of Human Rights.  Britain being the main European victor in WW II, British lawyers, led by Sir David Maxwell Fyffe QC <i>(later Lord Chancellor Kilmuir)</i> were given the job of drafting the Convention.  They <i><b><u>purported</u></b></i> to follow the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but the small print inserted made it very different!  In particular, it was drafted to ensure that British judges were never called to account - nor have they been.  <br /></p> <p>I end by repeating something that worries me greatly:  all those who want us out of Europe talk as though <i><b><u>all</u></b></i> our problems stem from Europe, & will end if we leave.  Taking that stance, they are turning a blind eye to the fact that Britain is <i><b><u>ALREADY</u></b></i> a ruthless, lawless, murderous & merciless '1984' Police State.  Leaving Europe will not alter that.</p><p><b>Norman Scarth.</b></p> <hr align="center" /><b>24<sup>th</sup> Dec from Maurice Kirk</b> <p><b>The Queen</b></p> <p>Our current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has, I suspect, very little say in the way our HM courts are currently administered. </p> <p>Ever since William and Mary, circa 1700 and the ending for good the ‘Absolute Monarch' system, if ever ‘devil worship' and ‘deceit' have been needed, as judicial  cornerstones for our successive governments to do their bidding, then I am sure it was never knowingly ratified by Her Majesty.  </p> <p>I am no academic, of course and base my view on a limited education but see, unlike the vast majority of the electorate, time and time again, <b>what actually goes on in our courts and especially behind closed doors. </b> I<b> </b>for one will<b> </b>never ever trust a UK judge who swears his or her allegiance to the <b>HM Partnership</b> or any branch of the media that continues to wax eloquent, without facts, on the merits of such a clearly obscene system, driven by avarice.  </p> <p>It is therefore quite counterproductive implicating The Queen, just now, to try and sway in our direction the far too small a ‘thinking/interested section' of the general public even if  Her Majesty is in league with  <b>HM Partnership</b>. Her Majesty has far too many positive and admirable attributes, for which I am grateful, to bring her personally into what we are currently so successfully exposing.  Later, perhaps, when I see hard evidence.</p> <p>It is far too big a step to implicate the Royal Family when we have so much hard evidence already  ‘Jo Public' can understand. It is so simple. There are far too many accountable to noone for their conduct in court, except to Their Maker, ‘failed disclosure' of evidence by the Executive and their agents is rife and my own miserable failure, for example, the inability to obtain either independent, competent or trustworthy legal representation to fight the evil little ‘bastards'. </p> <p>We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning.</p> <p>Cyberspace will prevail even if I don't.</p> <p>Maurice 2 </p> <p><a href=""></a> <br /></p> <p>                                       <b> 24<sup>th</sup> Dec from Norman Scarth</b></p><p>Thank you Maurice for giving me the opportunity to bring <i><b><u>MY</u></b></i> 'light from under the bushel'. .<br /><br />You mention, "what actually goes on in our courts and <b>especially behind closed doors</b><b>".  </b><br />My single-handed success in the European Court of Human Rights brought a vital change in British law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act <i>(confirmed by letter dated </i><i>1st Sept.1998 from Geoffrey Hoon MP, then Lord Chancellor Irvine's spokesman in the House of Commons). </i><br /><b><i><u></u></i></b></p><p><b><i><u>ALL</u></i></b> hearings, including those 'In Chambers' are "open to the public, other than in <b>exceptional circumstances"</b> <i>(which must be stated).  </i><br /></p><p>Yes, they will <i><b><u>still</u></b></i> hold hearings behind closed doors when there are no 'exceptional circumstances'.  <br /></p><p>You must challenge them by reminding them of the ECtHR ruling in 'Scarth v UK, 33745/96'.  <i>   </i><br />That ruling is much hated by lawyers & judges, & I am hated for it, as evidenced by the <i><b><u>sadistic, seriously criminal & potentially lethal </u></b></i> treatment meted out to me since. </p> <p>  <br /><b>Norman Scarth. </b></p> <hr align="center" /><b>24<sup>th</sup> Dec from Bob Lomas</b>  <p>Maurice Kirk it seems lives in the same world of fiction as Captain Kirk. Mr Kirk writes below: </p> <p>"We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning."</p> <p>Is Mr Kirk naive or a Europhile? In 1972 Elizabeth II broke her coronation oath to her people and agreed to surrender the sovereignty of the nation to the Roman Catholic based and Vatican driven Franco German Axis, is that being a good Queen? Since then the Queen has signed a succession of treaties surrendering this nation's independence, finalising the deal by signing up to the Lisbon Treaty. Is that what being a good Queen is all about? Does Mr Kirk not understand that our Monarch is supposed to be the Governor of the nation, our Sovereign Head of State, the defender of our laws, Constitution and Religion? </p> <p>Perhaps like Elizabeth II Mr Kirk does not believe in our Constitution and Religion. On the other hand, if he does, he may find this report interesting.</p> <p>As for winning, well, maybe he does live in his own world of make-believe.</p> <p><b>Elizabeth II and the Roman Catholic Church. </b></p> <p>1951 Princess Elizabeth visited the Pope. </p> <p> </p> <h1>1951 The Reich re-emerged as the Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl</h1> <p>(European Coal and Steel Community.)</p> <p>1953 June 2<sup>nd</sup> The Queen's Coronation Oath : ""I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant." </p> <p>The Archbishop of Canterbury asked Elizabeth II "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reform Religion established by law?" The Queen answered: "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God." </p> <p>1961 May 5th Queen Elizabeth visited the Pope. The Queen wore black and the veil in recognition of her heresy in the eyes of the Roman Church, thus acknowledging her acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Church. To accept such primacy, which implies jurisdiction, in Rome is to imply that that primacy also applies here in England. Such recognition breaks Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion of The Anglican Reformed Church of England which states that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England". The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.</p> <p>1961 August 9th Her Majesty's Prime Minister Harold Macmillian applied for negotiations for EEC entry.</p> <p>The European Economic Community. </p> <p>The Europäische<b> </b>Wirtschaftsgemeinshaft. (Originally drawn up in 1942)</p> <p>1972 January 22nd The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Heath, Hurd and Rippon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome. The Queen undoubtedly fully understood that, as there was no provision under the terms of the Treaty for a Constitutional Monarchy within the EU, she would be surrendering the sovereign supremacy of her office to the sovereign supremacy of the European Community. That by so doing, she would be breaking her Coronation Oath to her people which is her contract with them for their governance. That she would be stripping herself of her Sovereignty in Parliament thus destroying the authority of Parliament itself as the national legislating body in Great Britain. That she would also be breaking article 37 of the 39 of the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Reformed Church of England, and dismissing herself as Governor of that Church. She would thus expose the Anglican Reformed Church to the covert insurgencies of dedicated British papists. The Queen must have been aware that the European Community was predominately of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was founded by Jesuits, and had adopted as its emblem the Halo of the Madonna, an idolatrous Roman Catholic symbol to those of the Protestant Church of England, thus breaking the Second of the Ten Commandments. </p> <p>1972 October 17th The Queen gave her Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972. </p> <p>1980 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope, she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal ring, a gesture of her subordination to the office of the Pope and his jurisdiction over her; and by so doing the Queen forfeited the allegiance of the British people. She could not have done this had she still been our Sovereign Monarch and Governor of the Protestant Reformed Church of England. </p> <p>1982 The Queen invited the Pope to visit the United Kingdom, she also invited the Pope to celebrate mass in Canterbury Cathedral, the Mother Church of the Church of England, which the Duke of Norfolk, the leading RC peer, and the Earl of March were commanded to organise. Gold and platinum plaques were struck by the Royal Mint to celebrate the occasion, bearing the heads of the Queen and the Pope, thus ensuring that even if the Queen did not attend the mass in person, she would be present in image. Ultimately the event was abandoned when certain clerics of the Church of England protested that the it would break church law. </p> <p>1980s/90s.<b> </b>Coin of the Realm<b>.</b> There are Gibraltan 20 pence coins in circulation which on one side depict the Queen's head, on the other an image of the Madonna and Child, both crowned and seated on a throne, bearing the inscription: "Our Lady of Europe". These coins must have been minted at the Royal Mint. The Queen must have given her approval both of their design and for their production, despite the image being in violation of the second Commandment, and idolatrous in the eyes of Protestants and the Anglican Reformed Church, of which the Queen is Governor. </p> <p>1992 February 7th The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to sign up to the Maastricht Treaty thus making her a citizen of the EU. No one can be both citizen and Sovereign at the same time. Her EU citizenship was confirmed by the then Prime Minister John Major. Had the Queen still been Sovereign Monarch, Major would have been committing perjury and treason. He has never been impeached for his statement. At about this time the Queen sent the Stone of Scone back to Scotland, on the advice of John Major, an action suggesting the Queen's recognition that there would be no further Coronations of our kings or queens in our country. She has broken the Succession to the Throne of the United Kingdom. </p> <p>(Coronation Service June 2nd. 1953: )</p> <p>"I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant." </p> <p>November the 30th. 1995 marked the day Her Majesty the Queen attended a Service of Commemoration at Westminster Cathedral to mark the Centenary of the building of this spiritual centre of Roman Catholicism in Britain. In doing so Her Majesty belied the declaration above as well as her Coronation Oath. Her attendance was intended to underline ecumenical reconciliation and unity. In fact it symbolizes the continuing retreat of the Protestant identity of our nation and anticipates the removal of the <i>Act of</i> <i>Settlement</i> and the resulting constitutional redundancy of the Monarchy. Here is another event in the ecumenical process that, step by step, is pulling up the historic roots of the Protestant throne. </p> <p>1999. 12th May. The Pope was recognised as the overall authority in the Christian world by an Anglican and Roman Catholic commission, made up of Anglican and Roman Catholic Bishops, including the Bishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Bishops involved acted in breach of their oaths of allegiance to the Crown, and Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion. </p> <p>As Governor of the Anglican Reformed Church the Queen must have given her approval to the participation by the Anglican Bishops in this commission.</p> <p>1999. May. The Queen made Cardinal Hume a member of the Order of Merit, an honour she has never bestowed on any Archbishop of Canterbury. </p> <p>2000 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope in Rome. Again she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal Ring in an act of subjugation. In 2004 the Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Blair and Straw to sign up on her behalf to the EU constitutional treaty. </p> <p>Note: </p> <p>The Protestant part of the Coronation Oath, detested by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, has also been changed over time. Prior to 1910, it read: ‘To maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law'. George III was subjected to a strong attack on the ‘Protestant Oath'. He rebutted it with these famous words:<b> "Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country". </b><b></b></p> <p>King Edward VII died on Friday, 6th May 1910. The following Monday, the <i>Times</i> published part of a letter from Irish Nationalist MP W.H.E. Redmond, to the Prime Minister, demanding that he take such steps as may be necessary to relieve the new King from the obligation. </p> <p><b>Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.</b></p> <p> <b>                                     24<sup>th</sup> Dec from Maurice Kellett (Maurice 1)</b></p> <p>Queen Elizabeth II is a criminal without any shadow of doubt about this fact. The Judicial Oath that all UK judges and magistrates swear only to Queen Elizabeth II is a fraud of massive proportions. It has no meaning except to deceive the people. We in the UK have indeed a criminal as our Head of State. Commonwealth Countries should also be made aware of this fact. Her Mafia which include judges and police officers are real. It's time for we the people to have a say in the way that criminals rule us in the UK.</p> <p>Queen Elizabeth II is also in breach of her Coronation Oath of 1953.  Yes, we do indeed have a criminal as our Head of State. The Royal Prerogative says Queen Elizabeth II is immune from crime. Who has ruled that? A criminal is a criminal regardless of their position.</p> <p>I know the horror of what the Crown employed Mafia have carried out against me and against many other of its victims. Enough is enough. Queen Elizabeth must be brought to trial for treason against the UK people. Nothing else will serve justice being done. Those who carry out such trial must of course be truly independent.</p> <p>The word independent is a dirty word to the UK establishment. We the people must change this situation one way or another.</p> <p><b>Maurice Kellett.</b></p><b>                                                                  25<sup>th</sup> Dec from Suzon</b> <p>Dear Maurice, you got the date wrong.  It all goes back (at least) to 1066.  The Queen and her consort are both direct descendants of William the Conquerer. </p> <p>Have a lovely Christmas and (I hope) a miraculous new year.</p> <p>In common cause,</p> <p><b>Suzon</b><b><br /></b></p>