?
The Aldelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi story is interesting so much so for the spotlight that is on him and the floodlight that is on the victims. I use the "?" - is he innocent ?, an appeal would have been useful to determine this ?, especially given Dr Jim Swire, Rev John Mosey, former MP Tam Dalyell, Father Pat Keegans, Professor Robert Black and others "believe or understand or know" so ?. An appeal would have meant determination one way or another, however, there is no reason Libya cannot try him using diplomatic relations ?.
The floodlight however, remains on the victims - with all the focus on catching the bomber, have we lost sight of the fact that the plane or a passenger(s) or Scotland was inevitably the target ?. I have no doubt that Muslim intelligence did not just decide to plant a bomb on a plane to see what the consequences were: the risk was huge as were the intended consequences. Therefore, who was the target? What was the "need" for their to be a target? and consequently what was the "reason" for the target to be targetted in this transport methodology and not another form with less impact?. If the Libyan / Lockerbie bomber is innocent - then who is guilty "?".
By freeing Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, rather than via Appeal court in Scotland or Internationally, there remains a huge "?" over his innocence and the victims who are still angry and hurt - BECAUSE the truth needs to surface and diplomatic relations between Libya, America and Scotland and any other country could raise the bar by (a) holding an appeal in Libya by their own people in their own methods, not the Western ways, to assist the truth of the matter, surely Libya would want to categorically rectify a "MISTAKE" which in law must be rectified as soon as it is KNOWN, and (b) the Scots could focus on the people on the plane to see if a "reason" can surface as to why they became the target and specifically who? (c) the plane needed to come down and not reach its final destination - why ? We should not be seen to have egg on our face for showing compassion ? the issue becomes why and Libya should be seen to provide an answer to the ?.
I ask this, because I am experiencing a cover up because of my research on Woolf/Shapiro and my cases Susskind(Masons)/S J Berwin & Co and others : 'Shapiro' is a name which appears to me to surface from time to time in relation to Jewish/American intelligence and there was a young woman, Amy ElizabethShapiro, 21 on the cosmopolitan plane list - eg, what do we know about her ? I am moreover convinced that if something occurs at Point A, it may be a decoy for something else occurring at Point B where Jewish/American relations occur - and this is relevant to my research because I do not consider the Iraq war a "Just War" on the premis that ADR entered the English legal system and has wiped out to some degree judicial intelligence and thus my view is that we are subjected to treason and invasion by a concept which is Japanese but is being used by Jewish/American relations which was deliberately disguised in entering the UK due to FOCUS on the Iraq War and our hands are up to a failure of intelligence in that regard. If you read my blog, Nostrodamus is relevant to my research - if Dr Swire and others are convinced of Al Megrahi's innocence - can they go to some degree towards the guilt or truth directed towards others and, if so, who? and thereby ascertain a mistake? I am being SPECTULATIVE in this last paragraph (and no-one should take any measure of certainty from this paragraph on an intelligence level without their own research and hard evidence to support it), but sometimes hard topics just need to be raised, especially where there is a claim to INNOCENCE without provision of a REASON which means that FOCUS needs to be directed elsewhere - I may be entirely wrong: diplomatic relations are perhaps necessary to deal with the "?".
All cases have a beginning, middle and end concerning evidence which can be direct or indirect: in this instance
Beginning : the plane - there had to be bookings and sufficient for the plane to take off - (a) how were the bookings made - access and knowledge of flight and passengers; check-in - affirmed the passengers; the bomb had to get on board. Issues relevant to an American airplane?
Middle : the flight took off, the bomb went off over Lockerbie, issues relevant to Scotland, who was a passenger on the flight and their potential as the reason for the plane to be blown up, ie a passenger or group of people were never to reach final destination?
End : where the flight was to arrive as destination, who was waiting, where were the passengers going on leaving the flight - home, conference, further journey, friends, holiday etc. This is necessary information as it would establish a target and reason for the plane to blow up - the contact point on the ground is just as important as the passenger on the plane as both are relative. Did the target have something with them or was it inherent to them, ie knowledge, persona, relative of, etc?
All of the above is "knowledge" and relevant to the enquiry - each end of the journey needs to be investigated, as the flight was targeted for a reason and will not be a random occurrence. Furthermore, an act of God is called a Force Majeure, ie lightening, engine trouble: a bomb on a plane is not or ever an Act of God but an act in bad faith by a human - lets get that straight amongst the religious 'believers' in all faiths.
The fluke issue in the system which you have to evaluate for a reason for a random occurrence - that the bombed plane was a decoy as a target to ensure the eye is directed to X so that Y goes unnoticed as a global event elsewhere. A bombed American plane would cause an X and Y situation.
NB - that the Lockerbie Bomber is released story is also potentially an X and Y event - anticipating everyone still has their eye on the ball of the Directive on Mediation which is due for harmonisation in Europe - remember, I participated in this Directive and only 2 out of 27 published responses were interviewed, upon my request to be interviewed especially as I was advocating a "competition" model contrary to the Woolf Reform model implemented in England via the Access to Justice Act 1999, which request was refused (even although I am the only published response in correct alignment of European modelling), 5 further experts from Europe were interviewed, none of whom are expert given my research as they are merely regurgitating the American/Jewish model as promulated in England via the Woolf report and David Shapiro, an American Jew who used to be a Senior litigator in America : R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Burr applies - ratio decidendi - "inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom" - obscure case precedent in relation to the criminal offence of political treason in the UK. A friendly alien to the UK is an American and/or Jew - an invasion is in this case a concept which is Japanese in orientation (ADR) and therefore Eastern operating as an invasion in the UK via the legal profession and judiciary as it undermines our Western idealogy of Justice - ADR is where the parties settle their dispute, it is not Justice but Compromise. Justice is wholly different and you can only get it through litigation and by a Judge's judgment with ratio decidendi, obita dicta and always applying a rule of law. You can only appeal on a rule of law. The Kingdom was England (& Wales is a Principality) initially, then Scotland, and now Europe except Denmark who abstained from the Directives process. My participation establishes that the process was completely undemocratic, yet the European Parliament passed the Directive. A Directive takes a minimum of two years to harmonise with existing national legislation. Be aware of X and Y events for this concept to go unnoticed and uncovered by the press into European society. This concept creates a "hidden" society and you will be gagged by confidentiality clauses - if the press get their story it will have to be via their own methods of discovery and not directly from source. There are also psychological techniques used in its process and both parties will walk away with something, ie win:win. Inevitably it will always be less than what you could have got if you won a litigation albeit remedies are wider ie apology, new contract out of a breach etc. Concerning my court cases: under the Woolf Reforms I was obliged to do a "letter before action" and proferred ADR on case 2 - no takers there then and I have been in the courts since 1995 on 3 actions - the Woolf Reforms also created "fast track", "multi track" and cost penalties if you did not avoid litigation whenever possible even with CPR rule 1 on the court procedure rules, ie parties to try to settle or whittle down the issues etc - not happening on my cases, especially not at 13 years. The upshot is that the Woolf Reforms are implemented in the UK but those who put them in place don't actually engage when the opportunity presents itself to them!!! All Respondents on my case are law firms facilitating the Woolf Reforms in the UK - you would expect them to use the reforms not pay lipservice and no action towards them. The Woolf Reforms are a load of tosh and all I am experiencing is deficient intellect, deliberate procedural abuse, organised crime and corruption, human rights abuse - art 6 and invasion of my privacy to include myself, family, friends, colleagues. If ADR is an Y event - and no doubt nobody in Europe has read anything about this concept in the press be it local or national outside of legal journals - the X event, I argue, was the Iraq War. Everyone focused on Iraq not the judicial and legal profession in England - you can see my point!!!
Because my research is known throughout Europe - and I am experiencing a cover-up of my research and my cases x 3 - this latest stage press event - release of the Lockerbie Bomber - is probably timeous of the directive on mediation - I have seen nothing yet via monitoring of political websites that the harmonisation is complete and national legislation has implemented this concept which at the legislative level will ensure complete bypass of the rule of law per se!!! Law is meant to be universal, not two tier. I don't have a problem with ADR outside the judicial system or legal profession where it "competes" in its own environment - I don't have a problem with the parties resolving their disputes themselves. I do have a problem when you issue writ and request the rule of law to be applied to your dispute : which is done to create safe and just society and you do not get the rule of law at all, or via a judgment or processed by lawyers who have studied upto 4 years as a law degree or any degree plus 2 years professional qualification plus 2 years articles to do "law" and then getting accredited in a concept to do the opposite - why bother studying law! What is professionalism and ethics about! What is the purpose of Jurisprudence as a science and theory of human law to create safe and just society. Don't folks want safe and just society or contrariwise individualistic hidden society! These are the choices, but the Woolf Reforms usurped choice - people issuing Writ are to be cost penalised and you have affirmation of my first case and methodology and how it is being abused to the House of Lords - this is not safe and just society, nor Jurisprudence in a positive and good way, nor professionalism and/or ethics - it is organised crime and corruption inherent in the UK via the Ministry of Justice / Cabinet. My cases also establish that UK society is lilly livered, deficient in intellect, sneaking and lacking backbone, acting in conspiracy (two or more mens rea), using escoteric means to bully and stress / blackmail / confuse / harrass and intimidate - at all times CPR Rule 1 enables settlement : Respondents' solicitors are risk taking their own careers and are complicit with judiciary when caught - hence the criminal element, lawyers cannot evade or avoid law, they know the risk, are taking the risk concerning their practising certificates, but do not appear to be being accountable and responsible for the consequences; ancillary agencies such as complaints bureau, SRA, Police and Police Complaints, Ombudsmen are refusing to use their authority and / or duty to deal - society appears to be afraid. On the issue that our society is actually Christian in orientation - I find a complete lack of Christianity or even with a small c, albeit folks are reading their bibles, going to Church. Politically, the Woolsack is vacant, legislation is occurring via the despatch box. Politics and legislation is excessive causing societal imbalance. Politics also appears to be an empty vessel with the dregs as political scandals and in it for themselves than the people they serve. There is a separation of the powers issue (affirmed by Romano Prodi to ex-PM Blair) and specifically relevant to the current incumbent of the Ministry of Justice - Straw: who is a politician exercising executive functions in the judicary where it should be a judge in the Cabinet. Academics are marking down papers on topic and academia is not supportive of career prospects. Lawyers appear brainwashed on topic and unable to see through the American/Jewish model or even keep their own counsel on topic, albeit there is a layer of lawyers who were against the Woolf Reforms but not clearly identifiable as a group. We have also gone into two wars, one of which is definitely unjust and we have our hands up to a failure of intelligence. The Press refuse to publish on topic for or against. People are debt saturated even without a recession and we are paying extortionate sums for building projects via PFI on buildings that are not going to last or stand for any length of time. We do not appear to be a Democracy ... but what we are in is not certain either ... and it is sourcing from America. Now if that is not "invaded" ... and we want to implement the Directive on Mediation and harmonise our legislation! ... why ?
I am not making any of this up: it is reality - when do we get to rock bottom. I did not cause this, but I know who did and/or thereabouts.
Al Mehgrabi is therefore a pawn : we did not give him an Appeal - the issue of mistake and innocence looms rather than illuminates. The target is what appears to be what we have failed completely to identify - the WHY ? - the REASON ?
On the issue of diplomatic relations, my father, William McDade, did his National Service in Tripoli, entering service from the age of 19 - he will be 70 this year. There were many lads from rural areas, and my dad was from a small mining village in Scotland, who entered National Service, and will be around this age now. My dad has an album of photos of his time in Tripoli, trucks in the desert etc, I have no doubt Colonel Gaddafi has pictures on file of what they all got up to too! If my Dad had not been demobbed in London, he would not have met my mother and I would not exist! Perhaps there is a need for a reunion of 'National Service' veterans and their host countries. "?" DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS "?".
The floodlight however, remains on the victims - with all the focus on catching the bomber, have we lost sight of the fact that the plane or a passenger(s) or Scotland was inevitably the target ?. I have no doubt that Muslim intelligence did not just decide to plant a bomb on a plane to see what the consequences were: the risk was huge as were the intended consequences. Therefore, who was the target? What was the "need" for their to be a target? and consequently what was the "reason" for the target to be targetted in this transport methodology and not another form with less impact?. If the Libyan / Lockerbie bomber is innocent - then who is guilty "?".
By freeing Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, rather than via Appeal court in Scotland or Internationally, there remains a huge "?" over his innocence and the victims who are still angry and hurt - BECAUSE the truth needs to surface and diplomatic relations between Libya, America and Scotland and any other country could raise the bar by (a) holding an appeal in Libya by their own people in their own methods, not the Western ways, to assist the truth of the matter, surely Libya would want to categorically rectify a "MISTAKE" which in law must be rectified as soon as it is KNOWN, and (b) the Scots could focus on the people on the plane to see if a "reason" can surface as to why they became the target and specifically who? (c) the plane needed to come down and not reach its final destination - why ? We should not be seen to have egg on our face for showing compassion ? the issue becomes why and Libya should be seen to provide an answer to the ?.
I ask this, because I am experiencing a cover up because of my research on Woolf/Shapiro and my cases Susskind(Masons)/S J Berwin & Co and others : 'Shapiro' is a name which appears to me to surface from time to time in relation to Jewish/American intelligence and there was a young woman, Amy ElizabethShapiro, 21 on the cosmopolitan plane list - eg, what do we know about her ? I am moreover convinced that if something occurs at Point A, it may be a decoy for something else occurring at Point B where Jewish/American relations occur - and this is relevant to my research because I do not consider the Iraq war a "Just War" on the premis that ADR entered the English legal system and has wiped out to some degree judicial intelligence and thus my view is that we are subjected to treason and invasion by a concept which is Japanese but is being used by Jewish/American relations which was deliberately disguised in entering the UK due to FOCUS on the Iraq War and our hands are up to a failure of intelligence in that regard. If you read my blog, Nostrodamus is relevant to my research - if Dr Swire and others are convinced of Al Megrahi's innocence - can they go to some degree towards the guilt or truth directed towards others and, if so, who? and thereby ascertain a mistake? I am being SPECTULATIVE in this last paragraph (and no-one should take any measure of certainty from this paragraph on an intelligence level without their own research and hard evidence to support it), but sometimes hard topics just need to be raised, especially where there is a claim to INNOCENCE without provision of a REASON which means that FOCUS needs to be directed elsewhere - I may be entirely wrong: diplomatic relations are perhaps necessary to deal with the "?".
All cases have a beginning, middle and end concerning evidence which can be direct or indirect: in this instance
Beginning : the plane - there had to be bookings and sufficient for the plane to take off - (a) how were the bookings made - access and knowledge of flight and passengers; check-in - affirmed the passengers; the bomb had to get on board. Issues relevant to an American airplane?
Middle : the flight took off, the bomb went off over Lockerbie, issues relevant to Scotland, who was a passenger on the flight and their potential as the reason for the plane to be blown up, ie a passenger or group of people were never to reach final destination?
End : where the flight was to arrive as destination, who was waiting, where were the passengers going on leaving the flight - home, conference, further journey, friends, holiday etc. This is necessary information as it would establish a target and reason for the plane to blow up - the contact point on the ground is just as important as the passenger on the plane as both are relative. Did the target have something with them or was it inherent to them, ie knowledge, persona, relative of, etc?
All of the above is "knowledge" and relevant to the enquiry - each end of the journey needs to be investigated, as the flight was targeted for a reason and will not be a random occurrence. Furthermore, an act of God is called a Force Majeure, ie lightening, engine trouble: a bomb on a plane is not or ever an Act of God but an act in bad faith by a human - lets get that straight amongst the religious 'believers' in all faiths.
The fluke issue in the system which you have to evaluate for a reason for a random occurrence - that the bombed plane was a decoy as a target to ensure the eye is directed to X so that Y goes unnoticed as a global event elsewhere. A bombed American plane would cause an X and Y situation.
NB - that the Lockerbie Bomber is released story is also potentially an X and Y event - anticipating everyone still has their eye on the ball of the Directive on Mediation which is due for harmonisation in Europe - remember, I participated in this Directive and only 2 out of 27 published responses were interviewed, upon my request to be interviewed especially as I was advocating a "competition" model contrary to the Woolf Reform model implemented in England via the Access to Justice Act 1999, which request was refused (even although I am the only published response in correct alignment of European modelling), 5 further experts from Europe were interviewed, none of whom are expert given my research as they are merely regurgitating the American/Jewish model as promulated in England via the Woolf report and David Shapiro, an American Jew who used to be a Senior litigator in America : R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Burr applies - ratio decidendi - "inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom" - obscure case precedent in relation to the criminal offence of political treason in the UK. A friendly alien to the UK is an American and/or Jew - an invasion is in this case a concept which is Japanese in orientation (ADR) and therefore Eastern operating as an invasion in the UK via the legal profession and judiciary as it undermines our Western idealogy of Justice - ADR is where the parties settle their dispute, it is not Justice but Compromise. Justice is wholly different and you can only get it through litigation and by a Judge's judgment with ratio decidendi, obita dicta and always applying a rule of law. You can only appeal on a rule of law. The Kingdom was England (& Wales is a Principality) initially, then Scotland, and now Europe except Denmark who abstained from the Directives process. My participation establishes that the process was completely undemocratic, yet the European Parliament passed the Directive. A Directive takes a minimum of two years to harmonise with existing national legislation. Be aware of X and Y events for this concept to go unnoticed and uncovered by the press into European society. This concept creates a "hidden" society and you will be gagged by confidentiality clauses - if the press get their story it will have to be via their own methods of discovery and not directly from source. There are also psychological techniques used in its process and both parties will walk away with something, ie win:win. Inevitably it will always be less than what you could have got if you won a litigation albeit remedies are wider ie apology, new contract out of a breach etc. Concerning my court cases: under the Woolf Reforms I was obliged to do a "letter before action" and proferred ADR on case 2 - no takers there then and I have been in the courts since 1995 on 3 actions - the Woolf Reforms also created "fast track", "multi track" and cost penalties if you did not avoid litigation whenever possible even with CPR rule 1 on the court procedure rules, ie parties to try to settle or whittle down the issues etc - not happening on my cases, especially not at 13 years. The upshot is that the Woolf Reforms are implemented in the UK but those who put them in place don't actually engage when the opportunity presents itself to them!!! All Respondents on my case are law firms facilitating the Woolf Reforms in the UK - you would expect them to use the reforms not pay lipservice and no action towards them. The Woolf Reforms are a load of tosh and all I am experiencing is deficient intellect, deliberate procedural abuse, organised crime and corruption, human rights abuse - art 6 and invasion of my privacy to include myself, family, friends, colleagues. If ADR is an Y event - and no doubt nobody in Europe has read anything about this concept in the press be it local or national outside of legal journals - the X event, I argue, was the Iraq War. Everyone focused on Iraq not the judicial and legal profession in England - you can see my point!!!
Because my research is known throughout Europe - and I am experiencing a cover-up of my research and my cases x 3 - this latest stage press event - release of the Lockerbie Bomber - is probably timeous of the directive on mediation - I have seen nothing yet via monitoring of political websites that the harmonisation is complete and national legislation has implemented this concept which at the legislative level will ensure complete bypass of the rule of law per se!!! Law is meant to be universal, not two tier. I don't have a problem with ADR outside the judicial system or legal profession where it "competes" in its own environment - I don't have a problem with the parties resolving their disputes themselves. I do have a problem when you issue writ and request the rule of law to be applied to your dispute : which is done to create safe and just society and you do not get the rule of law at all, or via a judgment or processed by lawyers who have studied upto 4 years as a law degree or any degree plus 2 years professional qualification plus 2 years articles to do "law" and then getting accredited in a concept to do the opposite - why bother studying law! What is professionalism and ethics about! What is the purpose of Jurisprudence as a science and theory of human law to create safe and just society. Don't folks want safe and just society or contrariwise individualistic hidden society! These are the choices, but the Woolf Reforms usurped choice - people issuing Writ are to be cost penalised and you have affirmation of my first case and methodology and how it is being abused to the House of Lords - this is not safe and just society, nor Jurisprudence in a positive and good way, nor professionalism and/or ethics - it is organised crime and corruption inherent in the UK via the Ministry of Justice / Cabinet. My cases also establish that UK society is lilly livered, deficient in intellect, sneaking and lacking backbone, acting in conspiracy (two or more mens rea), using escoteric means to bully and stress / blackmail / confuse / harrass and intimidate - at all times CPR Rule 1 enables settlement : Respondents' solicitors are risk taking their own careers and are complicit with judiciary when caught - hence the criminal element, lawyers cannot evade or avoid law, they know the risk, are taking the risk concerning their practising certificates, but do not appear to be being accountable and responsible for the consequences; ancillary agencies such as complaints bureau, SRA, Police and Police Complaints, Ombudsmen are refusing to use their authority and / or duty to deal - society appears to be afraid. On the issue that our society is actually Christian in orientation - I find a complete lack of Christianity or even with a small c, albeit folks are reading their bibles, going to Church. Politically, the Woolsack is vacant, legislation is occurring via the despatch box. Politics and legislation is excessive causing societal imbalance. Politics also appears to be an empty vessel with the dregs as political scandals and in it for themselves than the people they serve. There is a separation of the powers issue (affirmed by Romano Prodi to ex-PM Blair) and specifically relevant to the current incumbent of the Ministry of Justice - Straw: who is a politician exercising executive functions in the judicary where it should be a judge in the Cabinet. Academics are marking down papers on topic and academia is not supportive of career prospects. Lawyers appear brainwashed on topic and unable to see through the American/Jewish model or even keep their own counsel on topic, albeit there is a layer of lawyers who were against the Woolf Reforms but not clearly identifiable as a group. We have also gone into two wars, one of which is definitely unjust and we have our hands up to a failure of intelligence. The Press refuse to publish on topic for or against. People are debt saturated even without a recession and we are paying extortionate sums for building projects via PFI on buildings that are not going to last or stand for any length of time. We do not appear to be a Democracy ... but what we are in is not certain either ... and it is sourcing from America. Now if that is not "invaded" ... and we want to implement the Directive on Mediation and harmonise our legislation! ... why ?
I am not making any of this up: it is reality - when do we get to rock bottom. I did not cause this, but I know who did and/or thereabouts.
Al Mehgrabi is therefore a pawn : we did not give him an Appeal - the issue of mistake and innocence looms rather than illuminates. The target is what appears to be what we have failed completely to identify - the WHY ? - the REASON ?
On the issue of diplomatic relations, my father, William McDade, did his National Service in Tripoli, entering service from the age of 19 - he will be 70 this year. There were many lads from rural areas, and my dad was from a small mining village in Scotland, who entered National Service, and will be around this age now. My dad has an album of photos of his time in Tripoli, trucks in the desert etc, I have no doubt Colonel Gaddafi has pictures on file of what they all got up to too! If my Dad had not been demobbed in London, he would not have met my mother and I would not exist! Perhaps there is a need for a reunion of 'National Service' veterans and their host countries. "?" DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS "?".
posted by Lesley McDade at 9:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home