You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login
 
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsDiscussions Parent ForumDiscussions Parent ForumOpen LettersOpen LettersEmail to all members plus media on 2013-01-25Email to all members plus media on 2013-01-25
Previous Previous
 
Next Next
New Post
 1/24/2013 5:21 PM
 
This went out to all members plus police and media on 25th of January 2013.
New Post
 1/24/2013 5:22 PM
 
*|MC:SUBJECT|*

This email is being sent to all Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is also being sent to a number police officers and to various reporters in Ireland.

####EmailSalutation####,

To all my brothers and sisters who claim to be members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I bid you a warm welcome to this email.

It seems that I am required to write to you all AGAIN based on the extremely foolish actions of the man hating criminal Fiona Brassil and some mangina moron man who claims to go by the calling of "Judge O'Sullivan".

I will refer you back to the email I sent to you all on 2012-12-19. You can find this email on this link:
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland/Forums/tabid/105/forumid/79/threadid/5139/scope/posts/Default.aspx



1. Suppression of Evidence by Mangina Moron "Judge O'Sullivan"

I felt that I should let the christmas period pass prior to following up on the results of the bogus "court order" that was issued by Mangina Moron "Judge O'Sullivan". The result of this bogus and unlawful "court order" was that a video exposing and denouncing the man hating criminal calling herself Fiona Brassil as a criminal was blocked on my channel on You Tube.

Here are the two emails that are from You Tube that talk about the blocking of these two videos to show you that they were blocked.


Regarding your account: peternolan1109

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

D36 - Threats of Injury Harm and Loss from Fiona Brassil

For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=92486.

Yours sincerely, 
The YouTube Team



 


Regarding your account: peternolan1109

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

D28 - Fiona Brassil wins Law Society Award for Being a Criminal

For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=92486.

Yours sincerely, 
The YouTube Team


Now. The really interesting thing is that BOTH these videos were blocked and marked as having been blocked by You Tube. But when I went to write to each of you today they are, strangely, unblocked. You can see each of these videos on these two links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TShNvhKUc28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTr1ud3xIwI

Interestingly it seems that the trick now is to make the longer video look "damaged". My friend Oracle55 did me the favour of putting the longer video up on to his channel so that any attempt to block it would be futile. Here is that link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsMwc4wEBw

So there they are. These two videos are back and available. I am sure the criminal man hater Fiona Brassil is quite disappointed about that. I will now reload the undamaged video so that anyone who sees my channel can see that the orginial is unblocked but damaged and the new one is now freely available.

Now. I wonder why these two videos are now visible again because I did not write to You Tube yet to let them know that this is a bad idea. They just "magically" re-appeared. Could it be that someone decided it was better to suppress information via a "technical problem" than to be so overt as to block the video?

And did they imagine that the emails confirming the blocking would somehow disappear?

What all members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are well advised to remember is that this effort to suppres the evidence of the crimes of Fiona Brassil was, in and of itself, a crime. It was suppression of evidence and perversion of the course of Justice. The tool used to do that was the High Court of Ireland via the agency of Mangina Moron "Judge O'Sullivan".

This crime was committed in the full view of the public and ALL members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Hhhmmmm.

It could not possibly be made any clearer that ALL members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are criminals and you KNOW you are criminals and you are doing your best to get your mates in the courts to try and hide this from the people of Ireland. But you stand no chance of hiding such a blatant crime in the High Court so you are going to try to ignore it instead!

I could not write a novel like this. I could not make this up in my wildest imagination.

And please remember. The staff at You Tube were THREATENED WITH JAIL if they did not block those videos.

That is VIOLENCE AND FORCE. That is also a crime to threaten people to coerce them into compliance. It is called extortion.


 



2. The Suicide of Mr. Shane McEntee

Since I last sent you an email one of your number, a Mr. Shane McEntee, allegedly killed himself. I think this mans death, be it suicide or murder, is worth mentioning in this letter.

I assert that perhaps the reason Mr. Shane McEntee killed himself was NOT because he was attacked on the social media, which he deserved to be, or depressed about benefits cuts etc. I assert that PERHAPS it was because he knew that he was going to be exposed as a criminal and have all his property taken off him. Just maybe. I have no evidence to back that up, it is just an assertion.

Perhaps he thought that by killing himself he could spare his wife and children the embarassment of being in poverty in a short period of time. And if this was so Mr. Shane McEntee was sadly mistaken as his pension and his money are the proceeds of crime and they will be seized at the appropriate time. Mrs. Shane McEntee should have not allowed her husband to gather money via criminal acts. She should have ensured that the money that was going to provide for her retirement came from legitimate sources and not from criminal acts.

It is a well established principle that one can not benefit from the proceeds of crime. So Mrs. Shane McEntee will have MR. Shane McEntees property taken from her, by force if necessary.

Of course, there is another possibility. It is also possible that Mr. Shane McEntee had a change of heart and decided he no longer wanted to be a criminal. In which case he may have been murdered and the "suicide" is just a cover up. Since the police are freemason criminals in the main, as are the medical examiners who do the autopsies, we will not know if he was murdered until after a legitimate autopsy is performed, which may be never.

I have often and openly said that my biggest concern with "Judge Griffin" of the Irish Family Court and my ex Jennifer Toal is that the Illuminati will "suicide" them before I get them before a properly convened court of law. I think "Judge Griffin" and Jennifer are well advised to be much more afraid of the agents of the Illuminati than of me. They are FAR more likely to be "suicided" than they are to be harmed by me because I will not harm either of them. It is in my interests to have these two people stand trial. That is WHY I have not harmed them and not allowed anyone else known to me to harm them.

But the "suicide" death of Mr. Shane McEntee might just put a very serious question into the minds of each member of these two houses. Namely, did he really kill himself or was he "suicided"?

As we are seeing from Sandy Hook the Illuminati have no problems murdering small children to progress their agenda. Do any of you think you are safe from your masters?

The other thing that is most laughable about the death of Mr. Shane McEntee is this bogus story that the "abuse" in the social media was a factor in his suicide. Men like me have our CHILDREN KIDNAPPED AND OUR HOUSES STOLEN AND OUR BUSINESSES DESTROYED AND OUR BANK ACCOUNTS CLOSED AND WE ARE IMPOVERISHED ALL BY WAY OF CRIMINAL ABUSE.

This man, Mr. Shane McEntee, CONDONED THAT CRIMINAL ABUSE OF ME AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER IRISH MEN. And NOTHING is said in the media about that VERY REAL PERSECUTION while this man is supposed to have a spine made of glass and is supposed to be driven to suicide by "abuse", meaning public comments.

Spare me. This man, this Mr. Shane McEntee, OPENLY CONDONED CRIMINAL ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN.

Under "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he could have no complaints for any sort of verbal rebuke and nor can anyone else. I rebuke and denounce all those who are making up these bogus stories that "abuse" had anything to do with this mans death in their deliberate attempts to try and stifle free speech in Ireland. Such men are liars and destroy their credibility with their lies.

I would note for all members that Mr. Shane McEntee was on my email list and was, therefore, well informed of his role in the crimes committed against me and the crimes committed against so many other Irish men. You can check the email lists I have been using on the Irsih CAF site.

I, for one, CELEBRATE HIS DEATH. He deserved it. That is what THOUSANDS of Irish women AND MEN have said about the kidnapping of my former children, the theft of my house, and my impoverishment. That is what the VAST MAJORITY of Irish people say of men who are criminally victimised by women in Ireland. Apparently we "deserve" to be criminally victimised just because a woman wishes to do so.

I would be quite happy to see a few more of you members kill yourselves or be "suicided" by the people you chose to serve in your betrayal of your fellow Irish men, women and children.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. His widow and children will get NO SYMPATHY from me.

I will be just as sorry for Mr. Shane McEntee as he was for me on finding out that my former children were kidnapped. NOT AT ALL. Anyone who has a problem with that? Take a long walk off a short peer.

You people do not like it when your hatred is reflected back at you, do you. But I do not hate you. I am rebuking you for your hatred and reflecting your hatred back at you. Get used to it.



3. Extension of the State of War on the Land Known as Ireland

As I informed all members of in my email of 2012-12-19 I am now claiming that "equality before the law between men and women is paramount and can not be violated on the land known as Ireland".

Since, still to date, women AND MEN in Ireland refuse to hold women accountable for their oaths, their signatures on contracts and their crimes on an equal before the law basis to men meaning specifically the same crime gets the same remedy, I am now claiming into existence an extension of the state of WAR on the land known as Ireland.

This email will be the sole notice of this extension of the existing state of WAR.

As of 2013-02-01 the state of WAR will be extended to include western women of voting age who are mentally competent who are NOT MUSLIM WOMEN.

Muslim women are not attacking men in the family courts in any signifcant number and they are not particularly responsible for holding western christian women accountable for their crimes. Hence Mulsim women will retain the protection of the law on the land known as Ireland. It is recommended that muslim women make it clear that they are muslim women and this is easily done with their traditional clothing.

Should any woman of voting age or any father of voting age have a problem with this claim of extension to the state of WAR on the land known as Ireland then I recommend they join CAF and get as many of their friends as they can to join CAF so that legitimate courts of law can be established. These courts have been named "The Peoples Courts of Ireland".

I have gone to the trouble to PROVE that the High Court of Ireland is an instrument of the criminal cartel of the government and legal fraternity. I have gone to the trouble to PROVE that all members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are criminals and KNOW they are criminals.

There can be no argument that new fair and just courts are necessary so as to avoid Ireland falling into tyranny or civil war.

Here are the two web sites that Irish people can join if they want to extend the protection of the law to fathers. Failure to extend the protection of the law to fathers will mean that anyone who is not willing to extend the protection of the law to fathers is agreeing that the protection of the law be withdrawn from women so as to meet the "equal before the law" imperative. Such men can have no complaints when the protection of the law is withdrawn from the women of Ireland.

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland/Home.aspx
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland-women/Home.aspx

Women have been claiming they want to be "equal" these last 30 years. Well to be "equal" to a man on the land of Ireland today means to have less legal protection than a dog. I am not sure why women would demand that sort of "equality" but they can have no complaint that is the sort of "equality" they are going to get.

This claimed state of war that will come into effect will have an interesting side effect. Since it will not be possible to commit a crime against a woman of voting age who is not a muslim woman after 2013-02-01 then all the actions that would ordinarily be called a "crime" will become lawful and legal.

That means any man who is arrested for an alleged "crime" against a woman will be released from any subsequent incarceration as a prisoner of WAR at the end of hostilities. The members of these two houses and the reporters who are reading this might want to inform the women of Ireland that the normal level of crimes that might be expected against women will result in every single one of the men who might be incarcerated for any such crime being released at the end of hostilities.

It will be very easy to find these men and release them. They will be recorded on the public record as having committed a "crime" after 2013-02-01.

I wonder how the women might like that idea. But fair is fair and equal is equal. It is what women said they wanted.

 





4. An Email Allegedly from Alan Shatter

Today an email came to me which is allegedly from Alan Shatters office. I have no way to know if this letter really came from Alan Shatters office. If it did then in the future I would recommend Alan Shatter ensure that his correspondence is not so informal as to be easily copied and for him to be misrepresented.

Here is the text of that email.

-----Original Message-----
From: INFO [mailto:info@justice.ie]
Sent: 22 January 2013 14:20
To: peter@peternolan.com
Subject: Response

Peter Nolan

peter@peternolan.com

Dear Mr Nolan,

I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality & Defence, Mr Alan Shatter, T.D., to refer to your email dated 19 December, 2012 regarding court proceedings.

The position is that the Courts are, subject only to the constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and the conduct of any court case is a matter entirely for the presiding judge. It is not open to the Minister to comment or intervene in any way in relation to how particular proceedings are conducted or on the outcome of those proceedings.

The Minister has asked me to inform you that a Judicial Council Bill is in the course of being drafted with a view to being published in 2013. Under the Bill, members of the public will be provided with a framework through which they can pursue allegations of judicial misconduct. A Judicial Council is to be established with responsibility for ensuring high standards of conduct among judges. The work of the Judicial Council will be supported by a structure which will include a Committee with specific responsibility for judicial conduct. This will be tasked, among other things, with the consideration and investigation of complaints.

It is the Minister's legal position rather than any lack of concern or interest which prevents him from intervening in this matter as he cannot affect or influence what happens in individual court cases.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________
Private Secretary to the
Minister for Justice and Equality




Now. For the sake of argument I am going to assume that this email really is the position of Alan Shatter. If it is NOT a legitimate email from Alan Shatter then I would thank Alan to deny it and make a clear public comment that the email is a fraud. I will, of course, publicly retract some of my following statements should this email turn out to be a hoax.

I will remind all members that the Australian Security and Intelligence Agency, ASIO, are consistently sending me fake emails as well as slandering me publicly. So there is a very real chance this email was sent by ASIO as a hoax.

I will address each portion of this letter in my response as follows.

The position is that the Courts are, subject only to the constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and the conduct of any court case is a matter entirely for the presiding judge. It is not open to the Minister to comment or intervene in any way in relation to how particular proceedings are conducted or on the outcome of those proceedings.


Please allow me to expose the deceptions in this statement. Firstly "the Courts" are not subject to ANYTHING. In this sentence the term "the Courts" are a PROPER NOUN. You can tell they are a PROPER NOUN because the "C" is capitalised. A "Court" is a PROPER NOUN describing a collection of buildings, paperwork, procedures, people and associated items. That is what a "Court" is. It is an abstract concept that can not be subject to ANYTHING.

A "Court" can in NO WAY be subject to THE LAW because most of the objects refered to by that PROPER NOUN are NON LIVING INANIMATE OBJECTS. Buildings, seats, benches, floors, doors, paper, procedures, pens, pencils. NONE of these can be properly said to be SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. It is nonsense to claim a building is in any way subject to a constituion and "the law".

Now. ALSO covered by the term "the Court" is a role called a "Judge". The "Judge" is played by an actor who is a MAN/WOMAN. The MAN/WOMAN is subject to THE LAW and to the CON-STITUTION. The MAN/WOMAN is ALSO subject to "Natural LAW", which may also be said to be "Gods LAW" or "common law" but there are some slight distinctions that the well informed know about.

So the MAN/WOMAN who is playing the role of the "Judge" is subject to NATURAL LAW because they are PART OF NATURE and IN ADDITION they are subject to the CON-STITUTION and legislation as they have SIGNED A CONTRACT and MADE AN OATH to be subject to the CON-STITUTION and the legislation of the Republic of Ireland.

The LIE that Alan Shatter is attempting to forward is that the "Judge" is ONLY accountable to the CON-STITUTION and the legislation of the Republic of Ireland and is attempting to obfuscate the fact that the "Judge" is ALSO AND ALWAYS subject to NATURAL LAW by virtue of the fact of being a creation of the creator of NATURE. God, if that is what you wish to call your creator as so many people in Ireland choose to do.

This fact is the basis of the axioms of law "no man is above the law" and "all men are equal before the law".

The MAN/WOMAN playing the character of "Judge" is at no time removed from being subject to NATURAL LAW. They are taking on ADDITIONAL SUBJUGATIONS OF THE CON-STITUTION AND LEGISLATION. But this fact that "all men are equal before the law" and "no man is above the law" is being obfuscated and hidden by this attempted lie.

The other question that members might ask of that sentence is "What is refered to by LAW in that sentence?"

The answer is this. In that sentence Alan Shatter means STATUTE LAW. This means LEGISLATION which is the legislation pertaining to the Republic of Ireland as a wholly owned member state of the United Nations which is a Uniform Commercial Code Legal Entity.

The obfuscation is to call Uniform Commercial Code contracts "STATUTE LAW" and then to drop the word "STATUTE" and refer to LEGISLATION as LAW. Then allow people to make the PRESUMPTION that LEGISLATION is the same LAW as when people say "no men are above the law" and "all men are equal before the law".

This is the BIGGEST LIE of governments. To allow people to make the PRESUMPTION that LEGISLATION IS LAW and then to deal with people on that basis. However, LEGISLATION IS NOT LAW. LEGISLATION it is a Uniform Commercial Code contract and it is, indeed, the crime of fraud to present such contracts as LAW.

This leaves the question. What is LAW? And that is easily answered. It is documented in your bibles.

Matthew 7:12 (1611 King James Bible)
Therefore all things whatsoeuer ye would that men should doe to you, doe ye euen so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets.


Now. This being written down is not what CREATES THE LAW. The LAW of "do unto others" was created by the creator and embedded into His creation. You can observe this law in action in nature every day. If you are an animal that eats other animals then there is very likely an animal that would like to eat you. This is called the food chain and can be observed.

The idea that writing a "LAW" down in the bible creates the law is the same as the idea that writing the word "tree" down on a piece of paper creates a tree in nature. It does not. The word "tree" is an abstraction of the natural object that is a tree. The tree exists wholly independently of the word on the written page.

And so it is with LAW.

The creator created a creation and He created LAWS that govern that creation. The most fundamental of these laws is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and this LAW has been consistent and common across many cultures across thousands of years. It is not ONLY in the christian bible. It is known as "the golden rule" across many cultures.

The LAW, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is THE LAW that "Judges" are subject to while they play their pantomime roles in their courts WHETHER THEY AGREE TO THAT LAW OR NOT.

Now. If Alan Shatter would like to try and make the case that his "Judges" are NOT subject to "do unto others" then he is welcome to make that case publicly and in writing.

I would remind all readers that Alan Shatter is a member of the criminal cartel called "THE LAW SOCIETY" and that ALL JUDGES are ALSO members of "THE LAW SOCIETY" and that ALL members of "THE LAW SOCIETY" are sworn to ALWAYS work in the best interests of "THE LAW SOCIETY". So I wish him luck in trying to tell the lie that HE HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY in the protection of his fellow criminals in "THE LAW SOCIETY".

This bogus claim to say that he has no role to play in bring justice to criminals AS THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE is just that. A bogus claim.

ALL MEN HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS CARRIED OUT IN THEIR LANDS.



The Minister has asked me to inform you that a Judicial Council Bill is in the course of being drafted with a view to being published in 2013. Under the Bill, members of the public will be provided with a framework through which they can pursue allegations of judicial misconduct. A Judicial Council is to be established with responsibility for ensuring high standards of conduct among judges. The work of the Judicial Council will be supported by a structure which will include a Committee with specific responsibility for judicial conduct. This will be tasked, among other things, with the consideration and investigation of complaints.

Now let me deal with this statement.

Apparently what is being proposed by the criminal cartel called "THE GOVERNMENT" is that some more criminals be hired to provide a remedy to the existing criminals in "THE GOVERNMENT" who are committing criminal acts.

Please forgive me if I do not believe that those who know themselves to be criminals creating another body, to be paid for by the long suffering men of Ireland no less, so as to "ensure high standards of conduct" by their said criminal colleagues called "Judges" is actually going to result in the re-introduction of the rule of law.

I mean, really, what does Alan Shatter take the Irish people for? Complete IDIOTS? Any man who can not see through this obvious scam DESERVES to be victimised by the criminals in "THE LAW SOCIETY".

I will tell you members how it is that "we the people" are going to ensure "high standards of conduct" in the performance of the due process of law. We are going to create "The Peoples Courts of Ireland" and offer Law Services to any who would avail of those services. We are going to oversee those courts to ensure that all jury members act according to their oaths. There will be NO JUDGES and NO LAWYERS in "The Peoples Courts of Ireland" because those of us who are well informed know that ALL JUDGES and ALL LAWYERS are members of the criminal cartel called "THE LAW SOCIETY".

"We the people" know we can create "The Peoples Courts of Ireland" because all you people in these two houses are OUR SERVANTS.

You are voted for by "we the people". You are paid by "we the people". And you can be summarily dismissed and fired by "WE THE PEOPLE".

Further, no group may have a monopoly on ANY SERVICE. That the criminals in "THE LAW SOCIETY" claim that they have a MONOPOLY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF LAW SERVICES is actually all the evidence any thinking man needs that "THE LAW SOCIETY" is a criminal cartel. If "THE LAW SOCIETY" were a legitimate business the FIRST thing its members would do is OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LAWFUL FOR COMPETITORS TO OFFER SIMILAR SERVICES.

And that is EXACTLY what "we the people" are going to do. We are going to offer competitive LAW SERVICES via "The Peoples Courts of Ireland" and via "The Mens Business Association Law Courts". These courts will operate under NATURAL LAW meaning the law of the creator, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which means ALL MEMBERS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ARE SUBJECT TO THE DECISIONS OF THESE JURIES WHICH WILL BE MADE UP OF 12 HONEST MEN OF HONOUR AND INTEGRITY.

In short? We are going to offer SUPERIOR COURTS operating under SUPERIOR JURISDICTION and offering a SUPERIOR SERVICE whether you ministers of these two houses like that or not. Your only choice is to publicly support these new courts or to publicly oppose these new courts. But you can not stop them from being created and cases being run.

Now there is another phrase that was used which is another "obfuscation". That is the phrase of "Judicial Misconduct".

Why is this an "obfuscation"? Because "Judicial misconduct" is the sort of thing such as having sexual relations with a jury member or a lawyer on a case that is not disclosed. It is not a crime but it is a conflict of interest and it is misconduct to be emotionally involved with other people in a court case because it impairs judgement, normally and naturally. Such emotional involvements are required to be made public and/or the "judge" must excuse him/herself from the case due to the conflict of interest or emotional entanglement so as to not bring into question the due process of law.

But I am not talking about "alleged Judicial Misconduct". I am talking about criminal actions where the evidence has been put directly into the public domain. A vastly different question.

Further, a so called "Judge" ceases being a "Judge" the INSTANT HE/SHE BREAKS HER VOW OF OFFICE.

A "Judge" who has committed a crime is NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY THE INSTANT THAT CRIME IS COMMITTED.

It is important to understand the person is not a judge from the time the crime is committing and NOT from the point in time the person is found guilty. This is because the "judge" knows when they have violated their oath. And the "judge" knows that all subsequent decisions are null and void.

From that point in the the man/woman is a common criminal and should be treated as such. Any later descions that the "Judge" may rule on before he/she is found guilty by a jury must be rescinded without prejudice. Criminals can not be "Judges", though that is what we have in place in Ireland today. Indeed in Ireland today ALL "Judges" are criminals and they know it.

Therefore, simple logic dictates there is no need for any "Judicial Council" to deal with the crimes of "Judges" and other officers of the existing courts. All that is necessary is the standard due process of law. The person who WAS A "JUDGE" BUT IS NO LONGER A "JUDGE" is subject to the due process of law just like any other person, male or female.


It is the Minister's legal position rather than any lack of concern or interest which prevents him from intervening in this matter as he cannot affect or influence what happens in individual court cases.


Now let me deal with this statement. I have said above that the bible documents the most basic and fundamental law of the Creator as being "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

So let us try a hypothetical situation. Alan Shatter is married to Carol. Let us say his wife is walking down a poorly lit street to her car or is in a poorly lit carpark. In Ireland, every day, many women in Ireland walk poorly lit streets and car parks to their cars.

Now say some male drug addict attacks Carol Shatter to try and steal the contents of her purse for his drug habbit. And say also that there are some other men nearby in the car park. Let us say that it is a small group of 5 or 6 taxi drivers having a cigarette break and a chat together. This is not a wildly assumptive hypothetical situation. This situation and others similar to it happen. It is hardly a rare occurrence in Ireland that a woman alone in a dark pace is attacked for the contents of her purse. And 5 or 6 taxi drivers having a cigarette break? It happens all the time.

So. I put these questions to Alan Shatter and the other MEN in these two houses. I would challenge the MEN in this house to answer these questions to their WIVES or partners as well as to their constituents. The people whose opinions it is your job to re-present.

1. If Carol Shatter screams and calls for help do the men standing nearby have an obligation to come to her assistance when she screams and calls for help? Yes/No.

2. If there are, say, 5 or 6 men, that answer Carols scream for help and the drug addict is unarmed, do these men have an obligation to attempt to detain the criminal as long as they can do so with no significant risk to their own well being? Yes/No.

3. Let us say that the police are called and take the criminal into custody. Do the men have an obligation to make statements of the situation as they saw it and do they have an obligation to witness the crime and ensure that Carol is extended the protection of the law? Do they have an obligation to make sure that the due process of law is run and that the man is fairly tried and Carol recieves a community supported path to justice? Yes/No..

4. Let us say that in this situation 5 or 6 men are standing nearby and Carol Shatter screams easily loudly enough that the 5 or 6 men hear her. Then let us say that none of these men respond to her call. Then let us say the man is emboldened by the lack of response from the men nearby. Then let us say that he is so emboldened that he continues on to rape and kill Carol Shatter knowing that it is at least 10 minutes before the police get there. The question for Alan Shatter to answer is "are the actions of these 5 or 6 mern in this case acceptable to you?"

And if anyone considers that the last scenario is too "far out" to be possible I would refer you to the following case where a woman was murdered in full view of more than 20 people and no one came to her aid. Indeed the man left the scene but was emboldened and came back to actually kill Kitty Genovese. This is a VERY famous case in the area of psychology. I first read of it more than 30 years ago when I studied Psychology at university. This actually happened. I recommend you read about this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovesee 


I hope you will answer these questions for yourself as they are very, very basic questions for any civilised society. Are those who hear a call for help OBLIGED TO HELP OR NOT so long as they do not need to risk their own lives. You members of these two houses claim to be able to make legislation that applies to all the people living on the land of Ireland. Surely you have taken a position that you are willing to make public as to whether men have an OBLIGATION to come to the aid of a woman being robbed or worse. What is that position? I am asking on behalf of all men of Ireland.

Without preempting your answers. Please allow me to tell you the results of my own fairly simple research in this area. I have gone on to MANY forums where women are present and I have said "If I saw a woman being bashed or robbed or raped in the street I would say to myself that she told us she needed a man like a fish needs a bicycle and that she can do anything a man can do so I would walk on by and let her defend herself."

Would it surpise ANYONE reading this that when I make such a comment that ALL the women AND MEN condemn me just for SAYING this? Note. I have not actually DONE THIS. I am just SAYING IT. And for just SAYING it I am attacked as expected.

When I then point out that when the scenario I just mentioned is played out with the sexes reversed and instead of being robbed or bashed or raped in the street it is a man suffering the much WORSE crime of being bashed, robbed and raped in the divorce courts and that virtually EVERYONE JUST WALKS ON BY the people on these forums get even MORE abusive because their hypocrisy was just pointed out to them. Indeed, if the man cries out for help as Carol Shatter might do, as I did, the man will actually be PERSECUTED for crying out for help in a situation where the criminals, being the state, far outgun him.

This is exactly analogous to the 5 or 6 taxi drivers in the car park coming to the aid of Carol Shatter while she is being bashed and robbed and raped and telling her that she "deserved it" and "brought it on herself for being in a dark place that is dangerous".

We ALL KNOW that if 5 or 6 men did that then they would have been considered to have committed a crime. Accessory to robbery, assault, rape and aiding and abetting a known criminal. Why? Because to stand by and witness a crime when you are well able to put an end to that crime with no risk at all is to be an accessory to the crime. To allow the criminal to walk away and to refuse to bear witness is to abet the criminal get away with the crime.

Now. Let me presume that Alan Shatter and all members of these two houses agree with the THOUSANDS of other people who have expressed an opinion on this matter. Let me presume that when a woman is being bashed or robbed or raped or killed that those men who are nearby, in earshot, have an OBLIGATION to assist so long as they do not need to risk their lives in doing so. And let me presume that if it was Carol Shatter who was subject to such an attack, as might happen, that Alan Shatter would take the opinion that those men who are close by his wife when she is criminally victimised have an obligation to come to her aid.

So let me PRESUME that Alan Shatter and the other members who read this, and the general population who reads this, all agree that when a woman is criminally attacked and someone is trying to steal the contents of her purse (or worse) via threats of violence that it is the OBLIGATION of the men who are within screaming distance to come to her aid should they hear her screams.

Anyone who disagrees this is an OBLIGATION of men on the land of Ireland? Feel free to let your position be known publicly.

Now. "Judge Griffin", of the family court in Dublin, did not only attempt to rob me of the contents of my "purse" meaning my wallet. He aided and abetted robbing me of my former children in an act of kidnapping. He robbed me of my ability to provide for myself by freezing my bank accounts. He threatened me with force and unlawful incarceration should I not comply with his demands for his extortion money. A threat he could well carry out on as many Irish Men who have been thrown in jail unlawfully by similar Irish Family Court Judges can attest.

I "screamed" for help in that I went to MANY people over the years, including Brian Cowan and Mary McAleese, for remedy of these crimes. That these crimes were carried out by criminals who call themselves "Judges" is neither here nor there. A crime is a crime is a crime whether done in the false name of LAW or whether it is done on the street by a dug addict looking for his next fix. The supposed "character" of a criminal does not alter the fact that they are a criminal. Indeed when the criminal is masquerading as a "Judge" it is all the more insidious a crime.

Now. We have just established by PRESUMPTION, that anyone who cares to rebut is welcome to do so in their own name in public, that when a woman is victim to a crime in a dark place and screams for help that the MEN nearby have an OBLIGATION to assist as long as they can do so in reasonable safety. And we all know there are MANY stories of men coming to the assistance of a woman being subjected to a crime who wind up severely injured and sometimes even dead. In Irish society it is NORMAL for a MAN to answer the scream of a woman and to come to her aid if he hears her scream.

NORMAL.

So I shall make the PRESUMPTION that Alan Shatter agrees that he would like men to come to the aid of his wife should the hypothetical siuation above arise. Alan Shatter is prefectly welcome to rebut that presumption in public should he so wish.

Under the LAW of "do unto others" this would mean that Alan Shatter takes on the OBLIGATION to come to the aid of a woman who screams for assistance within his hearing so long as he can do so with no forseeable significant risk to his own safety.

If Alan Shatter wishes OTHER MEN to be OBLIGATED to come to the aid of HIS WIFE then Alan Shatter MUST take on the obilgation to come to the aid of another mans wife, sister, daughter, mother if HE happens to be the man within earshot of her scream. To do otherwise would make him a hypocrite on this point.

Now. The obvious question is this. What if the victim of the crime is a MAN?

Well? Alan Shatter is the MINISTER FOR EQUALITY. I challenge Alan Shatter to publicly state that he would come to the aid of a woman who screams and is in need but NOT to the aid of a MAN who "screams" and is in need of assitance.

Go ahead Alan. Make yourself clear as to your position on this point publicly. I challenge you to do so.

I, personally, answer the call of a woman OR A MAN OR CHILD with the same urgency. I do NOT DISCRIMINATE between women, men or children when I hear a cry for help. I am happy to make that position public.

Now. Let me PRESUME that Alan Shatter takes the position that he does NOT DISCRIMINATE between answering the "scream" for help whether the victim of a crime be a woman, a child, OR A MAN.

If such is the case then Alan Shatter, as simply a member of the public, one of many in his society, has an OBLIGATION to come to my aid when I "scream" for help when set upon by robbers and vagabonds even if they are hiding in plain sight and call themselves "Judges".

Now we come back to this statement.


It is the Minister's legal position rather than any lack of concern or interest which prevents him from intervening in this matter as he cannot affect or influence what happens in individual court cases.


So. The argument being made is that Alan Shatter, who has stood for vote, who has claimed that he is worthy of the high office of MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, has somehow managed to diverst himself of an OBLIGATION that would apply to a humble taxi driver who is parked in a car park having a cigarette break who was in earshot of his wife Carol if she was attacked and robbed in said carpark. Really?

That is what Alan Shatter would have you believe. That by standing for high office he somehow DIVESTS himself of responsibility and obligations rather than, say, accept INCREASED responsibility and that might be comensurate with his rather inflated salary?

Well? Is that what you believe to be the case? That Alan Shatter has somehow DIVESTED himself of the OBLIGATION to come to the aid of someone being attacked by vagabonds and robbers by becoming THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE?? And if so? Please feel free to sell that to the Irish people.

Now. For those of you sharp of eye you will notice that the word used above is "the Minister's legal position.
This is not a mistake. Legal and LAWFUL are entirely different things. This is another obfuscation, another deception.

This is an attempt to confuse the reader between the LEGAL obligations of the UCC Legal Entity called "The Office of the Minister for Justice and Equality" and Alan Shatter the man. The UCC Legal Entity called "The Office of the Minister for Justice and Equality" which is the officer that the "Minister for Justice" holds has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to ensure that criminals are brought to justice. A UCC Legal Entity can have no OBLIGATIONS any more than a coffee cup can be obliged to produce coffee. The Office must be brought to life by an actor in the pantomime. That actor, in this case, is a man calling himself Alan Shatter.

So while it is TRUE that the UCC Legal Entity named "The Minister for Justice and Equality" has NO OBLIGATION to intervene in this matter. It is ALSO TRUE that the MAN calling himself Alan Shatter has a LAWFUL OBLIGATION to intervene in this matter just like the 5 or 6 taxi drivers in the dark car park have an OBLIGATION to answer the scream of his wife if she is set upon by vagabonds or criminals in a dark car park.


What is Alan Shatters LAWFUL OBLIGATION? Well it is the same as, say a taxi driver sitting in said car park. It is to answer the call for help. Assess the situation to determine if, indeed, there seems to be a crime taking place, assess the situation to see if the vagabonds and robbers can be apprehended without significant risk of bodily harm, apprehend the vagabonds and robbers should that be so, provide witness to the crime, and ensure that the due process of law is completed by those who are entrusted by the people of Ireland to do so.

Alan Shatter does NOT divest himself of his LAWFUL OBLIGATIONS by hiding behind the Uniform Commercial Code Legal Entity called "The Minister for Justice and Equality". That this is the case is self evident to anyone who thinks about the first scenario of Carol Shatter being set upon in a dark car park and then translates that situation to a man being set upong by criminals and vagabonds masquerading as "Judges". It is just a little harder to see as you have been brainwashed that "Judges" are "Honourable" when they are no such thing. They are vagabonds and criminals and they know it. It is a scam.

So. I reject the notion that Alan Shatter, or ANY member of these two houses does not have an OBLIGATION to ensure the DUE PROTECTION OF THE LAW is afforded to all those who call for it. Not by virtue of his office but by virtue of the LAW of "do unto others". If any member of these two houses were set upon by vagabonds and robbers YOU would want the protection of the law and THAT is where your OBLIGATION comes from. It is entirely SEPARATE from your pantomime roles as TDs.

So. If you followed the logic you will have come to the inevitable conclusion that Alan Shatter has an OBLIGATION to ensure justice is done in my situation because I have "screamed" well loud enough for him to hear my call for help and justice.

The OBLIGATION he has is to ensure that fair and just courts of law are created and a jury is empanneled to get "Judge Griffin" and this Mangina Moron "Judge O'Sullivan" to stand trial in front of 12 honest Irish men of honour and integrity. Alan Shatter has no OBLIGATION to do any more than to ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE just like every other adult on Ireland. It is the OBLIGATION of the JURY MEMBERS to ensure that they judge the evidence presented to them fairly and justly and to render a verdict. Alan Shatter has nothing to do with that process. He is obviously not trustworthy of the role of jury member.


Now. Let me contrast something else about Alan Shatter. As the MINISTER FOR JUSTICE Alan Shatter just made the case that he has NO ROLE TO PLAY in bringing criminals to justice who happen to have ONCE BEEN JUDGES. That is the case he just made. He has nothing to do with that situation at all.

Well? As you all know there is another situation in which Alan Shatter claimed that he has UNILATERIAL POWER TO ACT UNDER HIS SOLE DISCRETION ONLY AND THAT SUCH ACTION IS NOT APPEALABLE.

Of course I am referring to my Lawful Notice to all members of these houses on 2012-02-24 wherein I presented evidence that Alan Shatter had UNILATERALLY and WITHOUT CAUSE denied my citizenship application. Here is the link.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland/Forums/tabid/105/forumid/96/threadid/1712/scope/posts/Default.aspxx

I later performed an FOI request and found that lies were told on my file in 2009 to the effect that "There is no reason why Mr. Nolan can not return to the state". But we have JUST SEEN Mangina Moron "Judge O'Sullivan" threaten to throw You Tube Employees in jail if they do not remove one of my videos providing evidence of crimes of Fiona Brassil.

Further, colleagues of mine in Ireland have been consistently kidnapped and unlawfully incarcerated over the last two years. So the idea that there was "no reason" I could not return to Ireland is laughable and the man who made that comment is in deep trouble. Again. For those of you with short memories. Here is the link.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland/Forums/tabid/105/forumid/79/threadid/2798/scope/posts/Default.aspxxx



So let me get this staight in my own mind and you can also get it straight in your minds.

Alan Shatter says he has the "right" to unilaterally deny my citizenship application where my former wife and children were granted such in 2009 on the SOLE BASIS of my hard work.

Alan Shatter says he can make such a decsion without cause and without explanation.

Alan Shatter says that he do so unilaterally without recourse to appeal.

Alan Shatter says that one individuals citizenship application is an area he should meddle in. The application of a man where the other three members of his former family were accepted on the basis of HIS work, a man who has not even picked up a parking ticket in TEN YEARS, a man who has been accuse of no crime, a man who is a world leader in his field. A man who is so honest and of such strong moral fibre he will not acquiese to the crimes of judges and politicians and will instead stand his ground and demand ALL criminals be brought to justice.

In THAT case, says Alan Shatter, he should get involved and he should seriously inhibit said mans ability to earn his income and continue to expose the crimes of Irish "Judges" by denial of said citizenship and denial of said residency permit. No rebutal offered by the wealthy Alan Shatter. A man who apparently owns many rental properties according to wikipedia.

That is what Alan Shatter did in February last year with full access to my detailed file applying for citizenship.

On the OTHER HAND Alan Shatter would have you believe that when "Judges" are committing crimes and threatening people via the legitimised but unlawful use of state sponsored violence he has NO ROLE TO PLAY even though he has stood for high office and attained the office of MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.  Even though he drawns a very substantial salary for allegedly performing the roles of this high office for which he volunteered and strove.

Every member of these two houses, every reporter, every man and woman in Ireland reading this.

THAT IS WHAT ALAN SHATTER WOULD HAVE YOUR BELIEVE.

Well?

DO YOU BELIEVE HIM?

Should he be spending YOUR MONEY trying to persecute an honest man of honour and integrity who is willing to stand up for the rights of ALL IRISH PEOPLE? Especially the abused fathers?

Or should he be spending YOUR MONEY on persuing CRIMINALS WHO USED TO BE JUDGES the same way that he spends money pursuing drug addicts in dark car parks who rob and bash older women like his wife Carol Shatter?

What, exactly, do you, dear reader and tax payer, think Alan Shatter, Minister for Justice, should be spending YOUR MONEY ON?

Feel free to TELL HIM WHAT YOU THINK on social media.

Now....

@Alan Shatter.

When you first came to this high office you strove for I wrote to you and Enda Kenny privately as to the situation of mine you had inherited from the previous government. I offered you the hand of love and peace and asked if you would remedy the crimes against me and also approve my citizenship application such that I might live and work in Europe more easily and without government interference. I offered to do this in private so that we could all just move forward with the appropriate court cases happening with "Judge Griffin" and others who committed crimes against me.

You were offered the chance to "do the right thing" because you were new to the job and could not possibly be held responsible for the crimes of your predecessors, the previous government. I offered you, time and time again, the hand of love and peace in asking you to perform the role of your high office to secure my rights against criminals..

You spurned every offer. You chose instead to attempt to further criminally victimise me. You did this by denying my application for citizenship unilaterially without cause and without explanation, and then further, refusing to instruct your staff to re-issue a residency permit even though you were OBLIGATED TO DO SO by an EU Directive as listed below.

By choosing to take a hostile position to me. By choosing to violate my God given right to live and work anywhere on Gods earth as I see fit as per Genesis 1:26. By choosing to allow your government controlled media to slander me via the agency of one Ali Bracken. I was forced into taking a hostile position to you. One that I had asked you not to force me into..

As such I have exposed you as the liar, the hypocrite and the fraud you have chosen to be.

I see from your wikipedia entry you have two children. I feel very sorry for them as they are going to find out their father is a liar, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a fraud. Your choice to do war with me and your now subsequent loss in that war will be hardest on your children. You are a bad father Alan. And your children will come to know this..

I see also from your wikipedia entry that you are Jewish. I have many Jewish friends. They are good people. It is Jews like you who think you can so openly commit so many crimes and get away with it that makes good jewish people cringe.  If anyone has caused a little more "anti-semitism" it is you. If anyone has caused a little more "blame the Jews". It is you for failing to apply the axioms of law for the area under your responsibility.

You have brought shame on yourself, your family and your religion by failing to live up to high moral principles such as "all men are equal before the law" and "no man is above the law" and "let justice be done though the heavens may fall".

I gave you every chance to act as an honest man of honour and integrity. I offered you the hand of peace and love.

You bit my hand in arrogance that you believed with all the worldly goods you had accumulated to youself, your properties, your houses, you could somehow bite my hand of peace and love and get away with it.

Well? Your lies, your hypocrisy, your failures are on display for all with eyes to see.

If you want my advice I can think of two things you might do..

1. Apologise to me, confess your sins, beg forgiveness, make remedy. And by making remedy? I would suggest you offer your services to me and the majority of your property and you help me found my foundation to help young Irish boys whose fathers have killed themselves due to the abuse of the family courts.

I recommend that you throw your considerable public persona and personal finances behind the problem of helping the many tens of thousands of Irish children who have lost their fathers to the crimes of the family court judges like "Judge Griffin". Especially the boys.

Should you take my advice and work your hardest and your best to re-introduce the rule of law into Ireland and work your hardest and your best to make some small amends to those children, especially boys, that the Irish "Justice system" had a hand in murdering? Maybe, just maybe, you will one day earn the respect of your own children back. Maybe you will earn the respect of your wife back. Maybe you will earn the respect of the Irish people back if you show them just how sorry you are for what you have done and labour to remedy the consequences of your sins.

That is my recommended course of action to you Alan Shatter.


2. Of course, if you do not want to admit your sins. If you do not want to make remedy. If you do not want to live up to the high moral ideals of "all men are equal before the law", and "no man is above the law" and "let justice be done though the heavens will fail"?

Then you can always take the cowards way out as per your colleague Mr. Shane McEntee.

You are more than welcome to go kill yourself in some mans rose garden and be fertiliser. At least then you would be doing something useful with yourself, Mr. Alan Shatter.

Now. I recommend you make up your own mind as to what you will do, Mr. Alan Shatter. But I rather think that handing in your resignation as Minister for Justice might be a good start.

I would also recommend you watch your back. Your masters are not adverse to "suiciding" those of their servants who take on battles only to lose them so publicly. You have much more to fear from your "friends and masters" than you do from me. I am waging my wars with the written word at this time. Your masters have waged  their battles by deadly means for millenia.

It would not surprise me one bit to find you are the next Mr. Shane McEnteer.

Oh, one more thing. You might want to reconsider your position on my citizenship application and residency permit. I rather think that Ireland could do with one more honest man of honour and integrity who is willing to stand up to criminals in government so publicly as I am. There are very few such men in Ireland.

I would argue that the Irish people could do with a few more role models like me to learn from. I wonder if all the members of these two houses would agree with the argument that more honest men of honour and integrity are sorely needed in Ireland.

 

 



5. A Reminder on your own Residency Rules

Lastly. I want to remind you all once more of your obligations with respect to providing me with a residency permit so that I can more easily earn my income. And remind you that you are each creating a liabilty of EUR800 per day while you do not meet this obligation.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L...

The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, BE ALSO GRANTED TO THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, IRRESPECTIVE OF NATIONALITY. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition of "family member" should also include the registered partner if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnership as equivalent to marriage.

That money will be used to help young lads whose fathers killed themselves in divorce. A murder by proxy that you current members of the Houses of the Oireachtas have seen fit to continue despite it being brought to your attention many months ago now.


I think that is more than enough for now. You have until 2013-02-01 to decide if you will encourage the men of Ireland to extend the protection of the law to the other men of Ireland or whether you will accept that due to the paramount priniciple of "equal before the law" that women must have  the protection of the law withdrawn from them and be subject to crime without lawful remedy from 2013-02-01.

You have been given more than fair notice.

Best Regards

Peter Nolan
Founder
Instant Business Intelligence
peter.nolan@instantbi.com
Information Downloads
Information Video Channel
Education Video Channel


Previous Previous
 
Next Next
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsDiscussions Parent ForumDiscussions Parent ForumOpen LettersOpen LettersEmail to all members plus media on 2013-01-25Email to all members plus media on 2013-01-25