KIDNAPPED

Millions already know that Britain is in the hands of terrorists who
respect no law.

Britain invaded Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the latter case, it
did so in violation of a United Nations resolution, no less. The
Secretary General of the UN declared the invasion "illegal".

In the face of such massive crime - with MILLIONS of people killed or
made homeless - the crimes committed by the British "Establishment" at
home seem to pale into insignificance.

However, charity begins at home. That the government of murderers is
uncharitable to its own population is just a sign of how they behave
in the world at large. THEY PRACTISE SAVAGERY UPON THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

Maurice Kirk, the Flying Vet, is a case in point. He has been
victimised by corrupt police and lawyers for decades. He was taken to
court on trumped-up charges on ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY occasions, and
won all his cases. He was kidnapped by the police early in 2009, and
has been in prison since. He was unable to spend Christmas or New Year
with his family.

The "charge" is that a lump of metal - used on film as a prop, because
it looks like a gun - is "capable of firing one or more projectiles
upon a single pressure on the trigger", and therefore is an illegal
weapon which he sold. The Flying Vet bought it with a plane. He wanted
the plane, so he sold the prop. The prop DOES NOT HAVE A TRIGGER. The
barrel IS BLOCKED.

British law does not let truth stand in the way of a good accusation.

It is obviously planned that the jury will be rigged. Such was the
case with the trial of Ronald Castree in 2007. There are supposed to
be TWELVE members of the jury. Instead, there were secretly FIFTEEN.
At Bradford Crown Court, they were hidden behind a smoked-glass screen
so that they could not be identified or counted.

If three jurors object to the rigged verdict, there will still be
twelve puppets to agree. So justice APPEARS to have been served.

At the Kirk trial, Nadia Feldmeier took notes - just as the police
did. It is not illegal to take notes. She then published the names of
the jury. It is not illegal to publish the names of the jury.

However, the British "Establishment" has a guilty conscience. Firstly,
the "lawyers" have never been to law school. The "ethic" of the gang
is that it is FORBIDDEN for them to know law. Thus, they are obliged
to go to their lodges, and ask their masters for instructions.

To be a "lawyer", a "doctor", a "politican" or any other leader of
society, you must only be a member of the gang and blindly obedient to
your master.

Secondly, the "lawyers" INVENT any law that suits them. Sometimes,
they fake up some reference in a law-book. If they do that, they blurt
out the reference so quickly that nobody has time to write it down and
check it out. So nobody gets to prove that the reference is bogus.

But what's the point? TO WHOM would you prove that courts are rigged?
TO THE CORRUPT "ESTABLISHMENT" ITSELF?

So for the most part, having a monopoly of power, the "lawyers" simply
accuse without any attempt at proving the validity of the accusation.

Nadia Feldmeier was arrested under the pretext of "Contempt of
Court".

http://www.zimbio.com/Nadia/articles...y+Taking+Notes

She had done nothing illegal.

She had not been told in advance that anything she was doing was
considered to be illegal.

She simply published FACTS, and was arrested.

She, like the Flying Vet, is in prison NOW.

KIDNAPPED by the Gang.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm

Charles Douglas Wehner