Victims Of Masonic Ill-Treatment 8 July 2000

Anyone criticised or maligned in these publications has a guaranteed right of reply. JMF or P2 Lodge UK stands for the hierarchies of the Judaeo/Masonic Faction. The ordinary Mason and Jew are as likely to suffer from the machinations of the JMF as non-Masons and non-Jews are. Almost every institution in the UK is corrupt. While the final blame lies with the Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister, Freemasonry is invariably involved along with the courts, the police and local government. Everything we publish is aimed at the detection and prevention of crime especially in the public sector. We act in the public interest.

Stop Press: After ignoring requests for more than one year Chief Constable Stichbury and her staff condescended to meet Gerald Coulter on 4 July. He entered the conference chamber almost naked. In due course we should be able to hear a true recording of the proceedings. Mr Coulter provided Stichbury with documentary and taped evidence against the County Council, the police and Freemasonry generally.

When Mr Coulter had finished Stichbury blew her top about VOMIT saying that there was now a Web page and that many people found its contents offensive and that something would have to be done about it. She ranted and raved and frothed at the mouth until Mr Coulter explained that under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights there was nothing lawful she or anyone so minded could do to prevent the publication of facts and opinions expressed in VOMIT. Stichbury's jaw dropped when she heard this. The police will have to try shoot-to-kill again. If adults find VOMIT offensive they have the remedy in their own hands. Don't read it. If it corrupts morals or threatens the security of the state tell us why and we will provide a remedy.

One thing is certain. Determined efforts are being made to neutralise the contributors to and publishers of VOMIT. Why do you think Chief Police Officers was summoned to Downing Street? Action is going to be taken against all dissident bodies before the General Election.

VICTIMS SHOULD NOT TO MISS THIS HEARING - FIFTH POSTING

Many victims cannot attend court hearings on account of circumstances arising from judicial corruption. We would say that we get the government and legal system, which we deserve. This case is about the people against the judiciary and their political sycophants. Therefore it behoves as many victims as possible to turn up on Monday 10 July, at 10 a.m. in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London. Note that the hearing is on Monday first. The Case is Lord Williams of Mostyn (The Labour Attorney General) versus Geoffrey Scriven (Fax 0161 428 1159 and phone 0161 428 0764). See Ebert, below.

THE EBERT SUMMONSES.

Mr Gedaljahu Ebert (Fax 020 8455 5165) took out summonses at Hendon Magistrates Court on 26 and 29 June against the following parties: Ralph Woolf, Jessica Weisfogel at Teacher Stern & Selby Solicitors, Jacob Isaac Rabinnicz of Teacher Stern & Selby Solicitors and Midland Bank plc (HSBC) (Twice). Mrs Devorah Ebert took out a summons at the same court on 26 June against Joan Yvonne Venvil. Dates of hearings will be published later.

Stop Press: We have learned that Mr Ebert got three days' notice and conflicting instructions about a hearing held on 7 July related to a gagging writ. Mr Ebert and Mr Scriven joined forces some time ago to act as each other's Mackenzie friend. This sudden notice to Mr Ebert may be connected with the Scriven hearing on Monday first or it may be an attempt to pre-empt the cases arising from the Ebert summonses.

ANOTHER VICTIM - ANOTHER HEARING.

Norman Scarth of Leeds (Phone/Fax) is due in the same Royal Courts in London at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 20 July 2000. Mr Scarth is 75 years old and a former Navy man who served on the notorious Murmansk run during World War Two when he pulled both German and British sailors, dead and alive, out of the sea. He gave up his home to become the live-in carer of an old ex-service friend who died. The deceased's nephew, named Roberts, arranged to meet Mr Scarth at 1.30 p.m. on 8 August 1999 to discuss the arrangements for the tenancy of the house. Mr Scarth was prepared to quit the house, buy it or remain a tenant in the house. He laid on a meal for Roberts who did not appear at the appointed time but turned up two hours later with seven policemen in riot gear. They spent 3 hours threatening to break down the door and evict Mr Scarth. Mr Scarth had won a battle against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights and had commenced another more important case against the UK. Was this an attempt to cause a fatal collapse of Mr Scarth or to at least seize his evidence? These events prove conclusively that Mr Scarth has a valid case.

What are we to do when, as law-abiding citizens, our lives are put at risk by a corrupt law enforcement system? Norman Scarth is going to oppose West Yorkshire police violence with violence. Will the policemen use CS gas or raid his home when he is attending court in London? Blair's Brave New World!

DORSET MASONIC DIABLERIE AGAIN

Earlier we reported how the Charity Commission had referred the Masefields' complaint to "Dave " - not David - Wiggins in Liverpool. Wiggins has informed the Masefields that they should write to Mrs Ceinwen Thome, the Commission's Regional Head of Operations in the Taunton office. Again Wiggins does not provide an address. It has taken the Masefields one year and copious correspondence to arrive at this point. We say again that the Charity Commission is corrupt and that it turned a blind eye to the unlawful disposal of the assets of the Combined Charities Trust including the adjacent drug site for which we made the highest bid. The managing trustees were Barclays Bank Trust Company.

Mick Croley and his wife managed the caravan site referred to above. It was owned by A J Jackson, the gas engineer who was also a partner in the legal firm of Turners who have branches in Bournemouth, Poole and Wimborne. As a result of Jackson's behaviour the Croleys (father, mother and 9 year old son) were made homeless and unemployed. They were naturally aggrieved but apart from that they had a duty to let the public know what had happened. Holidaymakers were at risk as were employees at the site. The integrity of a partner of Turners, solicitors, was being questioned. Mr Croley circulated a number of letters to businesses explaining what had happened at the site. These matters were of public interest. Mr Croley's friend who was a Mason wrote to the Grand Lodge of Freemasonry complaining about Jackson's behaviour. The "friend" then offered Mr Croley a partnership in his company. This sort of thing happens frequently when Masons try to buy people off.

Last week we reported that Jackson and his father had assaulted the Croleys. The father was not involved in anything physical. We apologise sincerely to Mr Jackson, senior, for that. The son knocked Mrs Croley to the floor when he rushed from the office and then punched Mr Croley when Mr Croley intervened. Mr Croley called the police who turned up almost at once. We have frequently found different authorities in the right place at the right time. What probably happened here was that Jackson contacted a police Mason who planned the operation with Jackson even to the physical contact with the Croleys. The policeman should have concerned himself with the criminal aspects of the case. Mr Croley's rights and duties as an employee and resident were not a police concern. There had to be an excuse to get the police on site to enable Jackson to get immediate possession of his own property lest Croley became awkward. The whole business had to be hushed up as quickly as possible without resorting to legal action.

As stated Mr Croley had a duty to alert the public to Jackson's behaviour, the dangers associated with the caravan site and Jackson's connection with Turners, solicitors. These were matters of public interest. In addition he was entitled to the human right of freedom of communication by the written or spoken word (Article 10 of ECHR). Mr Croley did not have a leg to stand on because he was up against the Masonic Mafia in the police and in the courts. Although Mr Croley and his wife were unemployed and they had no assets they were denied Legal Aid. Legal Aid is a funny business. Millionaires get it. The people it was designed to help don't. Mr Croley was convicted under the Prevention of Harassment Act and prohibited from commenting about Turners or communicating with them for the rest of his life. He was denied a fair hearing in open court before an independent and impartial tribunal. Aren't we all?

It is time Parliament looked at the harassment act again. It should include a clause stating that any police officer that fabricates a case of harassment will be imprisoned for a minimum of one year along with the person on whose behalf he acted. In this Croley case, under sections 3(a) there was the intention of detecting and preventing a crime, which posed a hazard to life, and under 3(c) the behaviour of Mr Croley was reasonable in the circumstances. Questioning the integrity of a solicitor is not harassment. Solicitors are supposed to provide a public service and their misdeeds are matters of public interest. The same applies to any public servant be he H M Inspector of Constabulary or an Assistant Chief Planning Officer. Interestingly Bucks County Councillors give out their fax numbers. When constituents draw their attention to the corrupt practices of their council and the corruption arising from the council corruption they complain to BT or send multiple and abusive faxes. As representatives of the public they must accept information from members of the public. We do not want to send copies of VOMIT to anyone (apart from public servants) who does not want to receive it.

We have reported how Turners represented a perjurer against Gerald Coulter (Ph/Fax 01293 262726). See below after David Husband.

David Husband (Three Families)

Serious allegations were made on the Website against Dorset County Council Social Services. Dorset C C attempted to get an ex-parte injunction to close down the Website. The judge, no doubt mindful of the implications of Internet censorship, ordered Dorset C C to state its case and to provide D Husband with a copy. Part of Dorset C C's case was a massive claim for damages for which it submitted a Claim Form marked "particulars of claim to follow". Dorset C C did not meet the deadline for providing particulars of its claim and thereby rendered its claim a nullity. The facts speak for themselves. Public money was squandered to prevent exposure of the wrongful behaviour of Dorset Social Services and some councillors.

Now Mr Husband (Three Families) can expect the police to intervene on behalf of the council under the Prevention of Harassment Act (Mick Croley, us, Gerald Coulter, Lomond Handley, Maurice Kellett et alii). Or he will be framed on another trumped up charge as in the cases of Lomond Handley, Geoffrey Scriven, us, Barry Hunt, uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Gerald Coulter

ALBERT DRYDEN

He has sent us a copy of page 19 of the Daily Mail published on 26 June 2000. It is headed "Two years ago this millionaire doctor was jailed for killing his wife. Now he signs on at the job centre." The doctor's wife was due to see her solicitor on the day of her death with a view to starting divorce proceedings. He battered her skull with a hammer then took her upstairs and dropped her 20 feet to the ground fracturing her spine. He then waited three hours before calling an ambulance. The doctor was due to stand trial for murder. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted a plea of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because apparently he could not cope with losing his wife. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison but released after 2 years. Compare the doctor's treatment with that of Albert Dryden. The doctor was a millionaire with a lucrative career. Albert Dryden was harassed for over four years and under continuous threat of losing his life's work and his only asset. Defence psychiatrists were of the opinion that he suffered from diminished responsibility - something that was painfully obvious even to the layman. The trial judge, summing up, said that in her opinion the Defendant was guilty of murder. She added that they had all heard his three psychiatrists and his family doctor but, in her opinion, the jury should not take too much notice of what they said. Frankly we find this difficult to believe but we should not find anything difficult to believe in Albert Dryden's case. We have already indicated the grounds for appeal - information that has been withheld from Mr Dryden for more than 8 years. One juror slept throughout the trial and two took no interest in the proceedings. The jury could not have considered the points raised during a three-week trial. It took only 23 minutes to reach a verdict of guilty of murder.

Published by J M Todd-Misbourne Farmhouse-Amersham Road-Chalfont St Giles-Bucks. HP8 4RU

Per pro Vomit. No copyright. Tel 01494 871204. Fax 01494 870031