Welcome And A Good ------ ------ There Are Enjoying Hardcore News! ------ Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News Web Site! ------ The Most Comprehensive Global News On The Internet! ------ Your , Area's Most Updated News In The , AND THE WORLD! ------ PLEASE NOTE: Hardcore News Is Best If Used With Firefox Or Google Chrome Gecko Type Browser: ------ Hardcore News Web Site Is Best Using A Screen Setting Of 1024 X 768 Or Higher... ------ Your Current IP Address Is From Internet Provider ... This is All We Know About You, Ever Wonder What Kind Of Information Other Web Sites Could Get From Your Computer?... PLEASE BE CAREFUL Who You Share Information With Online! ------ By submitting personal information to any U.S. website, you are consenting that your information is being maintained and or being used here in the United States, is subjected to applicable U.S. laws. Thus... U.S. law may be different than the laws of your home country. ------ Hardcore News IS SAFE! We Never Track Your Moves Or Sell Your Information. ------ The Only Bull-Sh-t On This Site Is The Propaganda! ------ Stay Informed With The Hardcore News ------ All News is AUTO-UPDATED - AUTO-GENERATED Via Keyword Search Terms And Use Of RSS Based News Feeds And Tabbed Headlines On One Page ------ News From Over 40 Reliable News Sources, Even The News Your Not Supposed To Know! ------ PROVIDING UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS With LIVE Video Feeds FROM AROUND THE WORLD! ------ OUR NEWS IS ALWAYS FRESH DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------ If You Like This Project And Would Like To See & Help It Grow, Please Consider Donating What Ever You Can By Secure PayPal CLICK HERE ------ Please make a gift to Hardcore News today. Your continued support will ensure that Hardcore News is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure. And Thank You, ------ Only YOU Can Make This Project Worth While! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------

Saturday, January 18, 2014

The Pope, The Queen And The Pedophile Ring Of Power, Queen - NOT the rightful heir to the Throne, Incest Survivor Exposed Illuminati Satanists, Princess Diana murder

Press TV: A UN human rights committee has criticized the Vatican accusing it of "systematically" adopting policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades. It urged the Vatican to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes. In a damning report, UN blasted the "code of silence" that has long been used to keep victims quiet, saying the Holy See had "systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims." 
It called on the Holy See to provide compensation to victims and hold accountable not just the abusers but also those who covered up their crimes. 
No Catholic bishop has ever been sanctioned by the Vatican for sheltering an abusive priest, and only in 2010 did the Holy See direct bishops to report abusers to police where law enforcement requires it.
The UN committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion. 
Vatican officials have acknowledged that bishop accountability remains a major problem and have suggested that under Francis, things might begin to change. Reacting to the report, the Vatican said it would study a damning UN report accusing it of failing to stamp out child abuse, but slammed criticism of its religious teachings as "interference". 
Vatican told UN it cannot ask church to change "non-negotiable" moral teachings with regards to homosexuality, abortion, contraception. 
What do you think about the church’s child abuse scandal? 
How do you asses Vatican’s response to the scandal? Did it try to cover it up? 
Now that the abuses are out in the open, what is to be done to those involved in the abuse? 

Vatican policies allowed priests to rape children, UN report says - 
Vatican ambassador to UN says committee allowed itself to be swayed by pro-gay ideologues 

The Associated Press Posted: Feb 05, 2014 5:50 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 05, 2014 10:33 AM ET 

The Vatican "systematically" adopted policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, a UN human rights committee said Wednesday, urging the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.

In a devastating report hailed by abuse victims, the UN committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children's rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.

The Vatican promptly objected and its UN ambassador accused the committee of having betrayed the international body's own objectives by allowing itself to be swayed by pro-gay ideologues. He said it appeared the committee simply hadn't listened when the Holy See outlined all the measures it has taken to protect children. 

The report, which took the Vatican by surprise in its harsh tone, puts renewed pressure on Pope Francis to move decisively on the abuse front and make good on pledges to create a Vatican commission to study sex abuse and recommend best practices to fight it. The commission was announced in December, but few details have been released since then.

The committee issued its recommendations after subjecting the Holy See to a daylong interrogation last month on its implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the key UN treaty on child protection, which the Holy See ratified in 1990.

Critically, the committee rejected the Vatican's longstanding argument that it doesn't control bishops or their abusive priests, saying the Holy See was responsible for implementing the treaty not just in the Vatican City State but around the world "as the supreme power of the Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority."

'Code of silence'

In its report, the committee blasted the "code of silence" that has long been used to keep victims quiet, saying the Holy See had "systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims." It called on the Holy See to provide compensation to victims and hold accountable not just the abusers, but also those who covered up their crimes. 

"The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by, and the impunity of, the perpetrators," the report said.

It called for Francis' nascent abuse commission to conduct an independent investigation of all cases of priestly abuse and the way the Catholic hierarchy has responded over time, and urged the Holy See to establish clear rules for the mandatory reporting of abuse to police and to support laws that allow victims to report crimes even after the statute of limitations has expired.

No Catholic bishop has ever been sanctioned by the Vatican for sheltering an abusive priest, and only in 2010 did the Holy See direct bishops to report abusers to police where law enforcement requires it. Vatican officials have acknowledged that bishop accountability remains a major problem and have suggested that under Francis, things might begin to change.

Non-binding recommendations

The committee's recommendations are non-binding and there is no enforcement mechanism. Instead, the UN asked the Vatican to implement the recommendations and report back by 2017. The Vatican was 14 years late submitting its most recent report.

The committee is made up of independent experts, not other UN member states — the case on the larger and often politicized UN Human Rights Council, which also sits in Geneva. The Committee on the Rights of the Child is one of 10 UN bodies that monitor implementation of the core UN human rights treaties, and its 18 members include academics, sociologists and child development specialists from around the globe. 

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, who headed the Vatican delegation at the Jan. 16 session in Geneva, was clearly taken aback by the scathing tone of the report.

"It seems as if the document was prepared before the committee meeting, where the Vatican gave detailed responses on various points that weren't reported in this concluding document or seem to not have been taken into consideration," he told Vatican Radio.

While most attention has focused on child sex abuse, the committee's recommendations extended far beyond, into issues about discrimination against children and their rights to adequate health care, matters that touch on core church teaching about life and sexual morals.

Mandatory sex ed urged

The committee, for example, urged the Vatican to amend its canon law to identify circumstances where access to abortion can be permitted for children, such as to save the life of a young mother. It urged the Holy See to ensure that sex education, including access to information about contraception and preventing HIV, is mandatory in Catholic schools. It called for the Holy See to use its moral authority to condemn discrimination against homosexual children, or children raised by same-sex couples.

Church teaching holds that life begins at conception. The Vatican, which therefore opposes abortion and artificial contraception, calls for respect for gays, but considers homosexual acts to be "intrinsically disordered." The Vatican has a history of diplomatic confrontation with the United Nations over such issues.

Tomasi said the call to reconsider abortion ran against the UN treaty's own objectives to protect the life of children before and after birth, and he accused pro-gay rights and gay marriage advocacy groups of having "reinforced an ideological line" with the committee.

Benyam Mezmur, a committee member and Ethiopian academic on children's legal rights, rejected any such criticism and said the committee report was balanced and was aimed purely at ensuring the treaty was implemented.

"The Committee on the Rights of the Child is not in the business of saying 'Well said.' We are in the business of saying 'Well done.' We want to see concrete measures," he said in a phone interview from Geneva.

Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of Catholic Voices, a church advocacy group, said the report was a "shocking display of ignorance and high-handedness."

He said it failed to acknowledge the progress that has been made in recent years and that the Catholic Church in many places is now considered a leader in safeguarding children. And he noted that the committee seemed unable to grasp the distinction between the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Holy See, and local churches on the ground.

"It takes no account of the particularities of the Holy See, treating it as if it were the HQ of a multinational corporation," he said in an email.

But victims groups hailed the report as a wake-up call to secular law enforcement officials to investigate abuse and any cover-ups, and prosecute church officials who are still protecting predator priests.

"This report gives hope to the hundreds of thousands of deeply wounded and still suffering clergy sex abuse victims across the world," said Barbara Blaine, president of the main U.S. victim's group SNAP. "Now it's up to secular officials to follow the U.N.'s lead and step in to safeguard the vulnerable because Catholic officials are either incapable or unwilling to do so." 


Vatican Defends Itself Against UN Child Abuse Report - 
VOA News - February 05, 2014 

A United Nations human rights committee has made an unprecedented demand that the Vatican "immediately remove" all clergy accused of child abuse and turn them over to civil authorities.

In its response to the report, the Vatican accused the U.N. of interfering with church teachings on the dignity of human person and in the exercise of religious freedom.

The Holy See said it intends to submit the report to “thorough study and examination”, adding that it is committed to protecting children from abuse, "in line with the principles promoted by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and according to the moral and religious values offered by Catholic doctrine."

Responding to criticisms in the report on the Church's stance on homosexuality, abortion and contraception, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi also said the world body cannot ask the Church to change its "non-negotiable'' moral teachings.

The head of the Holy See's delegation to the United Nations in Geneva told Vatican Radio that non-governmental organizations which favor gay marriage probably influenced the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child to reinforce an "ideological line'' in the report.

The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child on Wednesday called on the Holy See to acknowledge sexual abuse of tens of thousands of children and hand over its archives on the subject, adding that “those who concealed their crimes”, could be held accountable.

The watchdog's exceptionally blunt paper - the most far-reaching critique of the Church hierarchy by the world body - followed its public grilling of Vatican officials last month.

“The Holy See has consistently placed the preservation of the reputation of the church and the protection of the perpetrators above children’s best interests," U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child Chairwoman Kirsten Sandberg said during a news conference in Geneva, Wednesday. " In its concluding observations, the Committee in this regard has highlighted the practice of offenders’ mobility.  They were moved from parish to parish when things were discovered and this still places children in many countries at high risk of sexual abuse.”

Pope Francis in December created a commission to investigate all reported cases of such abuse.

At a public session last month, the Vatican said it had little jurisdiction to sanction pedophile priests, but conceded more needed to be done.  The Vatican’s former sex crimes prosecutor Monsignor Charles Scicluna said the Holy See “gets it” and that certain things “need to be done differently.”

“Due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication, cases of child sexual abuse have hardly ever been reported to the law enforcement authorities in the countries where such crimes occurred,” the U.N. body said.

The Holy See denies allegations of a Vatican cover-up and says it has set clear guidelines to protect children from predator priests.   

“For the victims, it would be really important if the Holy See would acknowledge what has been said here in the concerns and the magnitude of this and what has not been done in ... the past and what should be done in the future.  I think that would really be of great help.  That is what we know from the victims that we met in the course of this process,”  Sandberg told reporters.

Some information for this report provided by Lisa Schlein in Geneva and Reuters. 


UN panel confronts Vatican on child sex abuse by clergy

BBC.co.uk - 16 January 2014 

The Vatican has been confronted publicly for the first time over the sexual abuse of children by clergy, at a UN hearing in Geneva.

Officials faced a barrage of hard questions covering why they would not release data and what they were doing to prevent future abuse.

They insisted the Church had learnt from the crisis and had taken action to prevent future abuse.

Victims' advocates complained there was still too little transparency.

Last month, the Vatican refused a request from the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) for data on abuse, on the grounds that it only released such information if requested to do so by another country as part of legal proceedings.

The Holy See gets it that there are things that need to be done differently”

The Vatican came to Geneva expecting a rough ride and it got one, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes reports.

Victims say they hope the hearing, which is being broadcast live, will prompt the Church to end its "secrecy".

Pope Francis announced last month that a Vatican committee would be set up to fight sexual abuse of children in the Church.

The Holy See is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a legally binding instrument which commits it to protecting and nurturing the most vulnerable in society.

It ratified the convention in 1990 but after an implementation report in 1994 it did not submit any progress reports until 2012, following revelations of child sex abuse in Europe and beyond.

In a homily on Thursday, Pope Francis said abuse scandals were "the shame of the Church".

'Not very transparent' 

"The view of committee is that the best way to prevent abuses is to reveal old ones - openness instead of sweeping offences under the carpet," Kirsten Sandberg, chairwoman of the 18-strong CRC, told the Vatican delegation.

"It seems to date your procedures are not very transparent."

The Vatican was asked why it continued to describe abuse as an offence against morals rather than a crime against children.

"Does the Holy See believe that paedophilia is something that can be successfully overcome?" was another question.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said: "To prevent abuse of minors is a real, immediate concern."

On prosecution of offenders, he said priests were "not functionaries of the Vatican but citizens of their countries and fall under the jurisdiction of their own countries".

When asked if the Vatican would hand over Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, a Polish papal envoy recalled from the Dominican Republic in September amid claims of sexual abuse there, Archbishop Tomasi said he was being investigated by the Vatican's own prosecutors.

A member of the CRC asked about the Church's practice of moving priests suspected of abuse.

"It is a no-go simply to move people from one diocese to another," said Bishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican's former chief prosecutor of clerical sexual abuse.

He insisted it was "not the policy of the Holy See to encourage cover-ups" but added: "The Holy See gets it that there are things that need to be done differently."

'Refused to answer'
While Thursday's questions were numerous and far-ranging, some observers vented frustration at the lack of specific answers. 

"Holy See: 'We get it' in UN review on child sexual abuse Catholic Church," wrote the children's rights watchdog CRIN in a tweet. "Do you? Why then don't you make statistics public?"

Barbara Blaine, president of a group representing US victims of abuse by priests, told BBC News that the hearing had brought "hope to victims across the globe".

But it would also stand, she said, as a "record of how the Church officials refused to answer the questions, how they claim to be open and transparent, and yet they don't live up to that ideal". 


Lawyers reveal that the Catholic Church was involved with the theft of hundreds of children during Argentine's "dirty war". Hundreds of pregnant women were held captive illegally under the dictatorship, and were "taken care of" by the Catholic nuns who would then take these babies and sell them. Click here to watch this alarming news report which we have just translated into English from its original Spanish broadcast for your convenience:

Vatican taken to task by UN on child abuse. Will the church change? 

Victims' rights advocates say that they hope today's unprecedented grilling in Geneva of Vatican officials could be a turning point for the church's handling of abuse.

By Nick Squires, Correspondent / January 16, 2014 - CSMonitor.com -ROME 

Vatican officials came in for an unprecedented grilling today by a United Nations committee over the Catholic Church's cover-up of decades of sexual abuse of children by clergy.

But despite familiar defenses from the Holy See concerning its role in child-abuse scandals, victims and their advocates are hopeful that the shame of being questioned in public could propel significant change within the church.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva posed charged, blunt questions to senior Vatican officials today, the first time that they had been called to defend their record on the rape of thousands of children by clergy in front of an international body. The Catholic Church ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 but failed to provide the required progress reports for more than a decade, with victims’ groups accusing the church hierarchy of fostering a culture of secrecy to hide abuse of children by priests, monks, and nuns in countries around the world, from Italy and Ireland to the US and Australia.

"Why is there no mandatory reporting to a country's judicial authorities when crimes occur?" asked Hiranthi Wijemanne, a member of the committee. "Taking actions against perpetrators is part of justice."

RECOMMENDED: Get your 2014 Emerging & Frontier Markets Forecast FREE.

Another member, Sara Oviedo, was equally forthright. "The Holy See has not established any mechanism to investigate those accused of perpetrating sexual abuse, nor to prosecute them.”

Committee members also asked the Vatican delegation what plans it had to collect data on clerical sex abuse, what oversight was in place for Catholic institutions such as schools and orphanages, and how it trained priests to work with minors.

'The Holy See gets it'

Addressing the hearing, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's representative in Geneva, showed a degree of remorse, saying that "such crimes can never be justified."

Archbishop Charles Scicluna, a prelate from Malta who for a decade was the most senior Vatican official in charge of dealing with sexual abuse cases, acknowledged that the church had made mistakes in the past.

"The Holy See gets it, let's not say too late.... There are certainly things that need to be done differently," he said. "It is not the policy of the Holy See to encourage cover-ups. Only the truth will help us move on to a situation where we can start being an example of best practice."

But Archbishop Tomasi reiterated an argument that the Vatican has long used – that the Holy See cannot be held responsible for the actions of clergy members in countries around the world and that its remit extends only to those living and working within the Vatican City State – the tiny sovereign territory surrounded by Rome, where fewer than 40 children reside.

Priests were "not functionaries of the Vatican but citizens of their countries and fall under the jurisdiction of their own countries," he said.

That argument was condemned as dishonest by campaigners for victims of sexual abuse, who said it was clear that the Vatican is the hub of the worldwide Catholic Church and issues directives and orders to dioceses around the globe.

“It is just so disingenuous for Church officials to claim that national governments are responsible for prosecuting clergy when those same Church officials have obstructed justice, helped predator priests move jurisdictions, destroyed evidence, and paid off victims and witnesses to remain silent,” says Barbara Blaine, a victim of abuse herself and the president of the US-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).


Despite the Vatican official's familiar arguments in Geneva, some campaigners saw a glimmer of hope in the public inquiry.

“It feels like a new chapter of justice and transparency has been opened,” says Megan Peterson, a member of SNAP and a victim of abuse as a child in Minnesota. “It’s a historic day for me.”

Miguel Hurtado, also from SNAP, said that in the past he and fellow campaigners had been called “Catholic haters who want to destroy the Church” by senior clergy. “We feel vindicated by the UN committee and we hope the Vatican will change its approach.”

The UN committee, which is composed of independent experts, will issue a report on Feb. 5. Its recommendations are not binding and the committee has no ability to sanction the Vatican, but it could still spur the Vatican into action, activists said.

“Whether the Vatican makes hard changes remains to be seen,” says Pam Spees, a human rights attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which provided a key report to the committee. “Nonetheless, today’s hearing is a milestone in calling for an end to the days of impunity."

“People are waiting and watching and there is now a standard by which they will judge the Vatican," Ms. Spees adds. "I think we are seeing a shift and monitoring by international bodies can only be a good thing.”

Key papal test

The degree to which the Vatican tackles the issue of sexually abusive clergy is being seen as a key test of the papacy of Pope Francis, who was elected last March after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has announced almost weekly initiatives to reform the Holy See’s governance and clean up its finances, but has said little about the shame of predatory priests.

Last month he announced the setting up of a committee to address the issue, but victims’ groups described the initiative as “toothless,” “meaningless,” and “like offering a Band Aid to a cancer patient.”

On Thursday, as the UN session was underway in Switzerland, he told worshipers at morning Mass in the Vatican that abuse scandals had "cost us a lot of money, but [paying damages] is only right."

Bishops, priests, and lay people were responsible for this "shame of the Church," he said.

"Do we feel shame? There are so many scandals that I do not want to name them individually but everyone knows about them," the Argentinean pope said. 


Vatican bank admits widows victims of crackdown - VATICAN CITY (AP) — Dozens and perhaps hundreds of widows and Vatican pensioners recently came in for a rude surprise: The Vatican bank told them they had to close their accounts or risk losing access to their money — all in the name of Pope Francis' reform efforts, The Associated Press has learned.The bank now says it was all a "technical error" and that the widows and pensioners are being kept on as clients. That reversal came despite the bank's highly-publicized plan to close so-called "lay accounts" as it tries to mend relations with Italian authorities who have suspected that Italians were using the bank as a tax haven.

It's all come as a big embarrassment for an institution that is trying to fend off accusations of mismanagement and corruption.

"In some cases old ladies got nasty letters," Max Hohenberg, spokesman for the Institute for Religious Works — or IOR — told The AP. "The fact that a few dozen people were categorized in the wrong way and hence got a letter which was incorrect is a mistake which we have apologized for."

Bank President Ernst Von Freyberg penned a terse letter to these clients Sept. 19, telling them to come to the bank before Nov. 30 to transfer their money out because they no longer fit the criteria of account-holders set by the board. He warned somewhat ominously that if they didn't meet the deadline, their money would become subject to the "internal dispositions" of the bank, according to a copy of the letter obtained by AP. He didn't say what those "internal dispositions" were.

But somehow some former Vatican employees and their widows got caught up in the sweep, apparently because of the way their accounts were classified by the bank internally. Their accounts have now been reclassified after they pleaded their cases to the bank.

The bank's board issued new guidelines for who could have an account in July as part of efforts to end decades of scandal that had tarnished the Holy See's reputation — and were in part responsible for bringing the reform-minded Francis into the papacy.

A picture taken Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2014 showing an exterior view of the offices of the Vatican bank I …
The new criteria for determining account holders was also aimed at responding to recommendations by European experts who have been evaluating the Holy See's anti-money laundering efforts. In its 2012 inaugural evaluation, the Council of Europe's Moneyval committee urged the Vatican bank to put into law regulations about who can and cannot hold an account since the existing norms were vague.

The issue has been of particular interest in Italy, where regulators have long suspected that the IOR was being used by well-connected Italian civilians to avoid paying taxes. The institute, which has just one office inside a tower in the sovereign Vatican City State, is considered a foreign bank by Italian standards and as such not subject to Italian regulatory control.

In truth, many lay Italian citizens held legitimate accounts there because they worked for the Vatican: art historians from the famous Vatican Museums, gendarmes who protect the pope, as well as administrators, legal and financial experts working in the Holy See bureaucracy.

When they retired, these former employees could receive their Vatican pensions into these accounts and benefit from the IOR's investment services. Whether they or their widows informed the Italian taxman of the existence of the accounts or paid taxes to Italy on any interest income earned is another matter.

Vatican retirees who live in Italy must declare the existence of a foreign bank account on their Italian tax returns, even if the Vatican pension itself is exempt, noted Benedetto Santacroce, a tax lawyer and expert in international taxation. He said any interest earned on that pension is taxable income as far as the Italian taxman is concerned.

Failure to declare the account or pay taxes on any income generated by it could result in significant back taxes and sanctions, though the Italian government recently reduced the penalty in a bid to encourage "voluntary" disclosures to curb tax evasion, he said.

Italian news reports have said that as many as 900 accounts were slated for closure and that some 300 million euros were expected to exit the IOR's coffers as the bank transferred the money to clients' accounts elsewhere.

In a statement, Hohenberg stressed that the IOR had never confirmed or denied the number of accounts slated for closure, saying only that "a significant amount of customers" had been notified that their accounts were to be closed. Hohenberg said the termination process is now proceeding on a case-by-case basis and stressed that the account closure problem was a minor glitch in the bank's mammoth reform undertaking.
Popes Painting

"While the board decision exactly defines the clientele to be serviced by the IOR, we are seeking to handle the whole process in a responsible and sensitive way and under close supervision of AIF," the Vatican's financial watchdog agency, he said. "Whenever an affected client can reasonably argue that the IOR's classification has not been accurate, the case will be looked at thoroughly."

Monsignor Fernando Vergez, the No. 2 in the Vatican's governorate, which administers the Vatican City State, said in recent weeks he had compiled and signed "well over 100" personnel records and sent them to the bank at the IOR's request, attesting that these former employees were indeed receiving either partial or full Vatican pensions. The implication was that they should be entitled to keep their Vatican bank accounts to receive their Vatican retirement benefits.

"Some worked here for 40 years!" he said. 


'Organ trafficking': Rabbis arrested over massive crime ring


US agents have arrested 44 elected officials and Jewish rabbis in New Jersey in a huge anti-corruption sweep across the state.
Charges of extortion, bribery, money laundering and human organ trafficking were stunning even for a state long notorious for official corruption and organised crime.
Five rabbis were among suspects, along with the mayors of Hoboken, Secaucus and Ridgefield, the Jersey City deputy mayor and council president, two state assembly members, and numerous other politicians, prosecutors said.
Under arrest ... a rabbi is taken into court.
Under arrest ... a rabbi is taken into court. Photo: Reuters
Acting US Attorney for the district of New Jersey Ralph Marra told a press conference the sweep demonstrated "the pervasive nature of public corruption in this state".

"The politicians willingly put themselves up for sale," he said, while "clergymen cloak their extensive criminal activity behind a facade of rectitude."
Raids began shortly after dawn on Thursday, officials said, targeting a who's who of state leaders.
Television footage showed FBI and tax agents bringing a stream of handcuffed suspects, including rabbis wearing traditional Orthodox Jewish garb, into custody in the city of Newark. Other suspects were shown being put onto a bus.
The sweep was believed to be one of the biggest such actions ever in a state long associated with corruption, and famous as the setting of the hit Mafia television drama the "Sopranos."
Officials said the arrests were part of an ongoing 10 year probe into statewide corruption code-named "Bid Rig."
Democratic State Governor Jon Corzine said "the scale of corruption we're seeing as this unfolds is simply outrageous and cannot be tolerated."
"Any corruption is unacceptable -- anywhere, anytime, by anybody," he said in a statement.
FBI officials painted a picture of brazen criminality.
The money laundering ring allegedly stretched from New Jersey and New York to Israel and Switzerland, while politicians easily exploited loopholes in state law to disguise bribes as campaign contributions.
Although New Jersey is more famous for a history of Italian Mafia families, it was Jewish clergy who allegedly played a central role in the crime network.
Authorities raided several synagogues and among those arrested was the chief rabbi of Syrian Jews in the United States.
One rabbi, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, was charged with conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for transplant.
Marra said Rosenbaum's "business was to entice vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $US10,000 ($A12,300), which he would turn around and sell for 160,000 dollars." 

He'd allegedly been peddling kidneys for a decade. 

The dramatic crackdown came as Chris Christie, a crusading former US lawyer, stepped up his campaign against Corzine in an election this November. 

Christie, a Republican, previously won fame for his relentless and successful prosecution of political corruption in New Jersey. 

Corzine is battling widespread dissatisfaction with his performance as the state reels from the national recession, spending cuts, and furloughs for state employees. 

FBI agent Weysan Dun was quick to deny any political motivation behind the arrests, a majority of which appeared to involve Democrats, rather than Republicans. 

"This investigation has transcended multiple administrations of both political parties," he said.
This is "not about politics, certainly not about religion. It is about crime. It is about criminals who use politics and religion."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/organ-trafficking-rabbis-arrested-over-massive-crime-ring-20090724-dv50.html#ixzz2sTUVbq2J

10 Things You May Not Know About the Vatican By Christopher Klein - 
History Channel 
 More than 100 cardinals began to meet inside the heart of the Catholic Church today to elect a new pope. As they gather in conclave inside the Sistine Chapel to choose a successor to Benedict XVI, explore 10 things you may not know about the Vatican. 

 1. Vatican City is the smallest country in the world. Encircled by a 2-mile border with Italy, Vatican City is an independent city-state that covers just over 100 acres, making it one-eighth the size of New York’s Central Park. Vatican City is governed as an absolute monarchy with the pope at its head. The Vatican mints its own euros, prints its own stamps, issues passports and license plates, operates media outlets and has its own flag and anthem. One government function it lacks: taxation. Museum admission fees, stamp and souvenir sales, and contributions generate the Vatican’s revenue. 

 2. St. Peter’s Basilica sits atop a city of the dead, including its namesake’s tomb. A Roman necropolis stood on Vatican Hill in pagan times. When a great fire leveled much of Rome in A.D. 64, Emperor Nero, seeking to shift blame from himself, accused the Christians of starting the blaze. He executed them by burning them at the stake, tearing them apart with wild beasts and crucifying them. Among those crucified was St. Peter—disciple of Jesus Christ, leader of the Apostles and the first bishop of Rome—who was supposedly buried in a shallow grave on Vatican Hill. By the fourth century and official recognition of the Christian religion in Rome, Emperor Constantine began construction of the original basilica atop the ancient burial ground with what was believed to be the tomb of St. Peter at its center. The present basilica, built starting in the 1500s, sits over a maze of catacombs and St. Peter’s suspected grave. St. Peter's Obelisk Obelisk in St. Peter’s Square. 

 3. Caligula captured the obelisk that stands in St. Peter’s Square. Roman Emperor Caligula built a small circus in his mother’s gardens at the base of Vatican Hill where charioteers trained and where Nero is thought to have martyred the Christians. To crown the center of the amphitheater, Caligula had his forces transport from Egypt a pylon that had originally stood in Heliopolis. The obelisk, made of a single piece of red granite weighing more than 350 tons, was erected for an Egyptian pharaoh more than 3,000 years ago. In 1586 it was moved to its present location in St. Peter’s Square, where it does double duty as a giant sundial. 

 4. For nearly 60 years in the 1800s and 1900s, popes refused to leave the Vatican. Popes ruled over a collection of sovereign Papal States throughout central Italy until the country was unified in 1870. The new secular government had seized all the land of the Papal States with the exception of the small patch of the Vatican, and a cold war of sorts then broke out between the church and the Italian government. Popes refused to recognize the authority of the Kingdom of Italy, and the Vatican remained beyond Italian national control. Pope Pius IX proclaimed himself a “prisoner of the Vatican,” and for almost 60 years popes refused to leave the Vatican and submit to the authority of the Italian government. When Italian troops were present in St. Peter’s Square, popes even refused to give blessings or appear from the balcony overlooking the public space. 

 5. Benito Mussolini signed Vatican City into existence. The dispute between the Italian government and the Catholic Church ended in 1929 with the signing of the Lateran Pacts, which allowed the Vatican to exist as its own sovereign state and compensated the church $92 million (more than $1 billion in today’s money) for the Papal States. The Vatican used the payment as seed money to re-grow its coffers. Mussolini, the head of the Italian government, signed the treaty on behalf of King Victor Emmanuel III. 

 6. Popes did not live at the Vatican until the 14th century. Even after the construction of the original St. Peter’s Basilica, popes lived principally at the Lateran Palace across Rome. They even left the city altogether in 1309 when the papal court moved to Avignon, France, after King Philip IV arranged for a French cardinal to be elected pope. Seven popes, all French, ruled from Avignon, and the papacy did not return to Rome until 1377, by which time the Lateran Palace had burned and the Vatican started to be used as a papal residence. Much repair work needed to be done, however, because the Vatican had fallen into such disrepair that wolves dug for bodies in the cemetery and cows even wandered the basilica. Swiss Guard Members of the Swiss Guard in Vatican City. 

 7. The Swiss Guard was hired as a mercenary force. The Swiss Guard, recognizable by its armor and colorful Renaissance-era uniforms, has been protecting the pontiff since 1506. That’s when Pope Julius II, following in the footsteps of many European courts of the time, hired one of the Swiss mercenary forces for his personal protection. The Swiss Guard’s role in Vatican City is strictly to protect the safety of the pope. Although the world’s smallest standing army appears to be strictly ceremonial, its soldiers are extensively trained and highly skilled marksmen. And, yes, the force is entirely comprised of Swiss citizens. 

 8. At several times during the Vatican’s history, popes escaped through a secret passageway. In 1277, a half-mile-long elevated covered passageway, the Passetto di Borgo, was constructed to link the Vatican with the fortified Castel Sant’Angelo on the banks of the Tiber River. It served as an escape route for popes, most notably in 1527 when it likely saved the life of Pope Clement VII during the sack of Rome. As the forces of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V rampaged through the city and murdered priests and nuns, the Swiss Guard held back the enemy long enough to allow Clement to safely reach the Castel Sant’Angelo, although 147 of the pope’s forces lost their lives in the battle. 

 9. The majority of Vatican City’s 600 citizens live abroad. As of 2011, the number of people with Vatican citizenship totaled 594. That number included 71 cardinals, 109 members of the Swiss Guard, 51 members of the clergy and one nun inside the Vatican walls. The largest group of citizens, however, was the 307 members of the clergy in diplomatic positions around the world. With Benedict XVI residing as a pope emeritus in the Vatican, the population will increase by one when a new pope is named. 

 10. The Vatican Observatory owns a telescope in Arizona. As Rome expanded, light pollution from the city made it increasingly difficult for astronomers at the Vatican Observatory—located 15 miles from the city at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo—to view the night skies, so in 1981 the observatory opened a second research center in Tucson, Arizona. The Vatican conducts astronomical research with a state-of-the-art telescope that sits atop Mount Graham in southeast Arizona. 


 The History of the Vatican
 Satanic Vatican - Full Length
Pericle Fazzini, 74, a Sculptor for Vatican
AP - NYTimes Published: December 5, 1987

Pericle Fazzini, the sculptor whose monumental statue ''The Resurrection'' is the backdrop for Pope John Paul II's weekly general audiences, died today. He was 74 years old.

The sculptor, a native of Grottammare on the eastern Italian coast, began his career as an exponent of the Roman school of the 1930's. His early wooden pieces, characterized by their simple style, led to the starker later figures, which he fashioned almost exclusively in metal, particularly bronze.

The Vatican commissioned Mr. Fazzini to provide a work for its modern auditorium. The result was ''The Resurrection,'' a statue depicting Jesus rising from a nuclear bomb crater.

''Suddenly there came to me the idea of Christ preaching peace for 2,000 years, and the place where He prayed for the last time: the olive grove of Gethsemane,'' said Mr. Fazzini in a book about the work. ''I had the idea of depicting Christ as if He were rising again from the explosion of this large olive grove, peaceful site of His last prayers. Christ rises from this crater torn open by a nuclear bomb; an atrocious explosion, a vortex of violence and energy.'' 



By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2009-2011 

“A KIDNEY BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS SOUR,” can be said of the organ-trafficking and money-laundering FBI sting operation which implicated five Talmudic rabbis from New York and neighboring New Jersey.
This international rabbinical operation spanned from Jewish-entrenched New York to the Jewish state of Israel.
The FBI used an informant, a Talmudic Jew named Solomon Dwek, to approach the rabbis — who were from the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn NY and Deal NJ — to help hide his assets. Deal is a wealthy oceanfront borough of New Jersey where the rabbis and their Jewish accomplices have posh summer homes.
Solomon Dwek, a bankrupt real-estate developer was charged in 2006 with scheming to defraud PNC Bank out of $50 million. The FBI enlisted Dwek in 2007 in a plea-bargaining arrangement due to Dwek facinga penalty of 30 years in prison. As a co-operating witness, Dwek was used to expose illicit charity operations run by the rabbis.
Over the course of two years, Dwek arranged to buy a kidney from the rabbis and hid $3 million in assets from creditors through the rabbis’ tax-exempt charitable organizations — all with the blessing of the FBI.
Saying he needed to hide his assets so “he could live,” Dwek convinced the rabbis to accept payments made out to various charities they oversaw. The payments were cashed into the rabbis’ charity accounts and handed back to Dwek, keeping a portion as their cut. Rabbi Nahum told Dwek that he should spread his money through a number of rabbis. “The more it’s spread the better,” Rabbi Nahum said.
Video recordings reveal that negotiations between Dwek and the rabbis took place in parking lots, back alleys, diners and boiler rooms, with thousands in cash being stuffed intoApple Jacks cereal boxes before being passed on.
THE TALMUDIC RABBIS who were arrested included Saul Kassin, chief rabbi ofShaare Zion Synagogue in Brooklyn; Eliahu Ben Haim, chief rabbi of Congregation Ohel Yaacob in Deal, NJ; Edmond Nahum of Deal Synagogue; Mordechai Fish of Congregation Sheves Achim in Brooklyn; and Lavel Schwartz, Fish’s brother. View A List Of The Jewish Accomplices Here.
Besides doing business with the informant, the rabbis used their charities linked to their synagogues to launder money for countless others. Money from illegal goods such as fake Gucci handbags passed into the rabbis’ hands.
The rabbis were charged with laundering money that often was sent to Israel. Rabbi Kassin, accused of laundering more than $200,000 through Dwek, used intermediaries in Israel and Switzerland to provide funding.
Rabbi Eli Ben Haim’s source for the cash was an Israeli who, for a fee of 1.5 percent, supplied the cash through intermediary cash houses run by a host of Talmudic accomplices. Rabbi Ben Haim remarked that at one time he had laundered between $8 million in one year, and earned $1 million as his cut.
Millions of dollars have been laundered in this way — with much of the money that the rabbis used coming from the Jewish state of Israel. (Of course, the United States of Jerusalem would never dare to investigate their foreign power ruler, the rogue state of Israel.) View Rabbinic Arrests On Video Here.
ACCORDING TO THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ‘KIDNEY SALESMAN’ by the name of Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn NY, Dwek visited Rosenbaum on July 13, 2009, seeking a kidney to purchase. (Most Talmudic male Jews register themselves as ‘rabbis’ so as to shirk paying taxes.)
Accompanied by a female FBI agent posing as his secretary, Dwek told Rosenbaum that his secretary’s uncle had polycystic disease, was on dialysis, and wanted to secure a new kidney in a faster time frame than the legal transplant waiting list would allow.
Rosenbaum told Dwek that he had been in the business of buying and selling organs for ten years and could help his secretary. “I am a matchmaker,” Rosenbaum is quoted as saying at the meeting, “I’m doing this a long time.” He then added: “Let me explain to you one thing. It’s illegal to buy or sell organs. So you cannot buy it. What you do is, you give me a compensation for my time involved.”
Rabbi Rosenbaum then offered to obtain a kidney from Israel for $160,000 with 50 percent paid up front. The rabbi said some of the money would go to the donor and some to doctors in Israel. He then added: “One of the reasons it’s so expensive is because you have to shmear (meaning pay various individuals for their assistance) all the time.”
(Can you imagine your priest trading in body parts? Or your pastor trying to sell you a kidney in a parking lot or in a diner? Only Jewish rabbis are in the business of selling human organs in back alleys.)
AND WHERE DID ROSENBAUM the ‘kidney salesman’ obtain his wares? In Israel, of course, as the Washington Post reported - but vague details were given.
Most likely it was through Israeli blackmarket organ brokers with ties to the L Greenberg Institute of Forensic Medicine, a department of the Israeli Ministry of Health.
The Institute, affiliated with Tel Aviv University, examines over 2500 bodies annually. Clinical forensic examinations are conducted by the Institute on the corpses of “perpetrators of assault” - who doubtless, are Palestinian ‘terrorists.’
And proof that the Israeli government is actively involved in the global organ market was affirmed by an ex-Israeli army officer, arrested in Brazil in 2004 for illegal organ trafficking. The Israeli defendant told a Brazilian court that “Israel finances organ brokerages in other countries through their national health services.”
Although there are ‘religious objections’ by ultra-orthodox Jews regarding organ transplants, the US Talmudic rabbis and their enablers in Israel have no ‘monetary objections’ to making a million or two from blackmarket kidneys, hearts, and organs…

Hear Br Nathanael On:
The Jeff Rense Program - June 27 09 At 9 PM PST Here!

The Vatican Holocaust

The Holocaust- the mass sacrifice of over eighteen million innocent Protestants, Orthodox Christians, ethnic Jews and minority groups by burning several million of them alive in ovens in Poland and Russia less than seventy years ago by Catholic dictators Adolf Hitler S.J. and Fr Joseph Stalin S.J. represents the largest and most expensive act of mass human sacrifice in history.
So vast were the military and logistical resources ordered to be deployed to this “Great Inquisition” from Rome from 1939 to 1945 that it played a major part to the eventual downfall of the Nazi Third Reich. The effort to efficiently sacrifice the largest number of non-Catholics in 24 x 7 purpose-built ovens [24 hours a day, 7 days a week] was a massive logistical effort- not the least of which required the complete genealogy analysis of most of Europe.
If not for the genius of fledgling American technology companies such as Innovative Business Machines, who created the first computers for the task of confirming who were to be saved and who were to be slaughtered, if not for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research by pharmacetical companies into advance nerve agents to render people unconscious in “gas” chambers for easy transport to the ovens, then the plan would have been impossible.
But most of all, if not for the willing and complicit support by Allied leaders not to interfere with the Vatican project, the Nazismanaged to kill more innocent people by fire in 1944 and 1945 than all the other years combined.
All photos of the camps taken by the allies since early 1940 were classified at the highest level of secrecy. Clear and unmistakable evidence since World War II has emerged that the allied command even went to the extraordinary length of tracking logistical movements and likely process rates of victims by tracking rail movements to the sacrifice camps. In the end, they permitted not one single bomb to be dropped on the Vatican Nazi Death camps.
At the end of the war, the first thing that the Allies did under Eisenhower was pull down and dig up as much incriminating evidence as possible. Many of the oven blocks---ahead of any other buildings---were quickly dismantled and destroyed in many camps. Some camps, such as the only human sacrifice camp dedicated to burning children (Lodz) was virtually wiped from history.
By the time the time the Nuremberg Trials started (secretly directed by Georgetown University Jesuit Priest Edmund Walsh), many of the key Nazis behind the Holocaust were given fake deaths, or safely transported to new countries and new identities, the total number sacrificed was set at the “acceptable” level of six million and no mention of the Roman Catholic Cult, the Roman Catholic statues at the camps , nor the Occult was ever officially mentioned at the trials of hundreds of guards and officers.
“We did not know”, became the official line of denial fed to the public of the winning side. Even evidence was conveniently “found” calling it the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” in a former Gestapo Headquarters. The window of sacrifice was cut short from 1939 to 1945 to just three years (1943-1945) to minimize the complicity of Allied leaders. Yet of all the terrible and criminal lies created by the CFR-led American military and RIIA-led British military it was the argument that people were gassed to death because it was “cheaper” that remains the final and lasting insult to some of the darkest days of human history.
Twenty million people could have been murdered the same as many other dictators had done throughout in history, simply by mass murder and burial or the bodies disposed by creating great pits as was done during the plagues of Europe hundreds of years before which killed ten times more people.
Yet the evil charade, that the Holocaust was merely a hatefully racist, expedient, Nazi system of “cost saving” extermination, remains the accepted view---an absurdity that defies all the evidence to the contrary. That the main architects of this terrible period remain protected to this day is a mockery to the memory of every single Jew, every Russian Orthodox, every Greek Orthodox, every Protestant, every Baptist and every person sacrificed in the ovens.
It is to these souls that we deserve to show better. It is to their memory and peace that this brief article will explore the truth behind the Holocaust- who was really behind it, why? and why justice is still yet to shine upon these millions of victims.

A Dramatically Different History to What You Were Taught

For many readers, just the introduction to this article will be grave cause for concern. First, for many, the fact of the complete and total involvement of the Catholic Church from the highest levels in the sacrifice of millions of innocent people may sound preposterous. For others, the claim that Stalin and even Heinrich Himmler were Jesuit priests will sound farfetched.
Yet at stake is not merely the question of “who was really behind the Holocaust? And why?”, but the need to clearly state the truth that three times more people died in the human sacrifice camps than what they told you- and that the same people that did this have never been punished and have even greater resources and power today than they did seventy years ago.
Many a good Holocaust historian and researcher has known, as they have reviewed what evidence remains, that great and deliberate gaps in our knowledge exist. These honest men and women of academia know in their hearts and in their fine minds that what the Allies said after the war about “not knowing” was just a big lie covering up something else.
For the sake of future generations it is time to set the record straight- it is time to tell the truth who was really behind it and why. I therefore urge you and everyone who starts to read this article to finish it before making your final conclusions.

1930’s Europe

The seeds from which the idea for the greatest human sacrifice of innocent lives originated is first to be found in the changing political fortunes of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe following World War I.
World War I marked a watershed for the Vatican. The destruction of the Austria-Hungary Empire thanks to the war finally freed the Popes---after nearly five hundred years---from treaties that permitted the royal houses descended from the Holy Roman Emperors to directly intervene in Papal elections. The destruction of Germany and French noble influence was “sweet revenge” in response to their pursuit of enlightened policies of secularism in the years leading to the “Great War”.
For the first time in five centuries, the Catholic Church now found itself free to pursue its own course, without fearing the influence of the royal families---with one exception---Germany. Once the German royal family was destroyed- the church would be completely free.
However, its immediate enemy remained the strong movement for major social reform- the end to corrupt capitalism, the promotion of science, education and fair social values---a world that if ever implemented was one in which the Roman Catholic Church would not exist.
It was Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI) who devised a new counter strategy against “modernism” through his Papal Bull Ubi Arcano (December 1922) to encourage, promote and hand pick Catholic men and women who would pursue the best interests of the Church in their respective societies without becoming priests and nuns.
The effect of the policies, plans and edicts of Pope Pius XI were to effectively make the immense Catholic apparatus throughout the world- one giant political party – one which could easily defeat any candidate, president, prime minister – one which could also elect its own leaders with absolute allegiance to Rome.
Consider this fact- what politician running for office in a Christian nation today would be foolish enough to upset the Roman Catholic Church? Yet less than 100 years ago, many industrialized nations expelled the Jesuits (yet again) and considered Vatican the epicenter of evil.
By 1919, a key protégé of Pope Pius, Eugenio Pacelli, had already selected a suitable candidate for the church in Germany ---a young fiercely Catholic intelligence officer named Adolf Hitler who Pacelli meet at least once a week during the early years in Munich as both Hitler’s patron and financier as well as his controller.
By 1933, the Catholic Church had succeeded beyond its wildest dreams with loyal Roman Catholic Dictators now controlling Italy, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Russia (Fr Stalin S.J.) and key nations in South America. It was probably this year---the Vatican and Jesuits holding the greatest power in its hands for over six hundred years--- that the “Final Solution” was hatched between Cardinal PacelliCount Fr. Wlodimir Ledochowski (Jesuit Superior General) and a handful of hardliners of the Curia, including Munich Archbishop, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber.

Building the environment of hatred, racism against minorities

Until the 1930’s the United States Government was still “technically” at diplomatic war with the Vatican on account of the Jesuit-led assassination of Abraham Lincoln seventy years prior. But upon the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President, the Catholic Church found a strong ally and kindred spirit.
Thanks to the work of Georgetown University Jesuit Fr. Edmund Walsh S.J.---arguably one of the most powerful Americans of the 20th Century---FDR and Wall St. backed Hitler and Catholic Dictators as “good for business”. Hundreds of millions of dollars began to be invested into rebuilding the German economy.
With America now firmly a Vatican ally for the first time in history, this left only the United Kingdom and a handful of European governments and minorities as any threat left to Rome when in fact, the Jesuit Order had controlled the English monarchy, Parliament and Intelligence services since no later than the reign of King George III.
Count Wlodimir Ledochowski S.J. then unleashed a stream of literature and propaganda against minority groups, especially the Jews including the infamous The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion---a document that if simply re-edited to replace the word “Jew” with “Jesuit” is a chillingly accurate blueprint for what Roman Catholic Dictators were ordered to do.
Within one generation, the world had turned from philosophical discussions concerning secularism and why “God is dead” to serious discussions on Eugenics, racial purity and how to deal with dangerous “anti-social” minorities.
By 1937, the anti-semitic, anti-minority hatred orchestrated by Fr. Ledochowski S.J. and his Jesuit army had become so pervasive that most Catholic Dictators were comfortable with the idea that the public would not erupt in rebellion if minorities were to be “safely” removed from society.
However, a powerful new enemy appeared at the same time against the propaganda of the Jesuits spurning hatred and fear---Pope Pius XI himself. The Pope had become a fervent critic of the hatefully racist policies now being carried out by Roman Catholic Dictators thanks to Fr. Ledochowski S.J. and the hardliners.
The final straw came in 1939, when the Pope planned to issue a Papal Bull effectively making it a grave sin for any Catholic to act against another human being based on their creed, skin colour or political beliefs. The Jesuit superior general intercepted the Bull before it could be promulgated as new church law and a few days the Pope was dead, another victim of the Company's "poison cup."
A few weeks later, Pacelli was made Pope. A few months later the Jesuit-controlled, Roman Catholic dictators started World War II.

The Final Solution of Pope Pius XII

With the world now at war at the end of 1939, Roman Catholic Dictators had the perfect conditions with which to implement the “ethnic cleansing” programs on an unprecedented scale.
As proof to the premeditated evil of the team of Pope Pius XII and Ledochowski had already forced Hitler to accept the appointment of then 29 year old rank outsider Fr. Heinrich Himmler S.J. as head of the Schutzstaffel (Nazi SS) in 1929. Pacelli and Ledochowski helped protect and guide Himmler so by the outbreak of World War II, he commanded a force of millions from regular police across Germany to specialist scientists and interrogators – ready to spring into action.
Contrary to the propaganda written up by Knight of Malta Dwight D. Eisenhower [New York Archbishop Francis Spellman's great Allied "Crusader"] and others after the war, 1939 marks the beginning of the implementation of the “Final Solution” designed, planned and directed by Pope Pius XII and the Jesuits.
The plan was simple – convince Roman Catholic Dictators to transport the unwanted to “labour camps” where they would be put to use and then later "dispatched", i.e., murdered, discretely using the trusted services of a dedicated “untouchable” unit of the SS. Almost certainly no mention of live human sacrifice, nor satanic rituals would have ever been mentioned to anyone by senior Vatican and Jesuit circles nor by the loyal troop of the SS under the command of Fr. Himmler S.J.
Just as the cover of “labour camps” is still used to cover up the extent of the holocaust today, it is certain this kind of disinformation was fed through to the German High Command as well as Roman Catholic commands in Spain, Italy and Croatia who sent many of their citizens to the death camps.
Now with an agreement in place for Roman Catholic leaders to supply millions of poor souls, the next challenge was where to put them and to hide any obvious, strategic, occult importance.

Why Poland?

One of the obvious historic mysteries of World War II is "why did the Nazi's choose certain locations in Poland to place the sacrifice camps?" To this question a number of traditional answers are given---most notably that Poland was an occupied country and that it was in a central location to which millions could be transported like cattle.
This is true. Roman Catholic Poland was the obvious choice for the death camps- first, because it was occupied territory free from the gaze of citizens of Germany, Italy, Spain and the rest of the world. It was also the center of unrivaled Jesuit spiritual and temporal power in Europe, including Roman Catholic Bavaria.
But there are other, more specific reasons that give flesh to the logic of the precise locations for camps and why. The first piece of the puzzle is to understand the hatred of Polish Roman Catholicism towards the satanic hardliners in the pope's Curia and Jesuits and the personal feud of the Ledochowski family against the disgrace of their patriarch.
Count Mieczyslaw Halka Ledóchowski, uncle of Fr. Ledochowski S.J., had been Cardinal Primate of Poland from 1866 to 1886. The Polish Catholic Church has always been fiercly perochial and in 1867 Cardinal Ledóchowski finally ordered that church ceremonies were to be performed in Latin and not Polish, the forbiddance of Polish songs and that nothing be published without his authority.
These edicts enraged the local Polish clergy who---like the Irish church centuries before---sought to place the mysteries of Christianity into a local community context. The Polish Catholic clergy rebelled against Cardinal Ledochowski and successfully lobbied the Protestant Lutheran Prussian authorities, including Lutherans Prince Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm I, to imprison him, confiscate family property and forever humilate the family name. Eventually Cardinal Ledochowski was released to Rome---a broken man in disgrace.
To Count Wlodimir Ledochowski S.J., the Black Pope and most powerful Jesuit General in the history of the order sinceFrancis Borja, Poland was a cursed place. Probably no more senior satanist within the Roman Catholic Church hated Poland more. During the tenure of his uncle as Primate, he would have been familiar of the shrines to Cybele (Sibyl) located at Warsaw and on the grounds of Czartoryska Palace at Pulawy.
These 19th Century shrines held enormous importance to the ancient satanist Papal families. Apart from the Vatican itself---as the oldest and most important temple of Cybele---and Tivoli (outside Rome), the two temples in Poland were the only other functioning temples within Europe.
Warsaw was too public a place at which to hold supremely evil satanic ceremonies to "harness" the souls of the damned---sacrificed in fire. But Czartoryska Palace at Pulawy and the magnificently architected 19th Century Cybele Temple was perfect.
When the SS began their "cleaning" campaign in earnest, the first district was the region surrounding Pulawy. Next was the precise location of the specialized human sacrifice camps.

The Satanic Pentagram of Pope Pius XII and the Black Pope

The ancient satanic families that have controlled the Vatican for centuries have known that condemned souls---cursed souls---are not at rest. The manipulation and use of this negative energy has always been at the heart of Black Magic.
Historically, Geometry and shapes of power have also played a vital part in the planning and ceremony of real satanists. No shape is considered more powerful for the harnessing of negative energy to one's human will than the Pentagram.
To form a Pentagram of supreme evil, Pope Pius XII and the Black Pope Ledochowski would need at least five sacrifice camps- one for each point of the star. But a system with just five camps would arouse immediate suspicion as to its nature. Instead, the human sacrifice camps and their precise geographic location was deliberately masked in a seemingly random and opportunistic landscape of work camps and other death camps.
But at the heart of this complex system of detention camps, torture camps and sacrifice camps remained the Pentagram of Pope Pius and Fr. Ledochowski S.J.---the channel through which eighteen millions souls passed---damned by the satanic leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
(Click image for enlargement of map)
You can still easily plot this Pentagram for yourself today by simply calling up any map of Poland.
1. First, find Pulawy on a Map---the Palace and Temple to Cybele is located just to the South West of the town itself.
2. Now go directly up and stop just south-East of Ostrow---this is the top tip of the Pentagram and the site for Treblinka Human Sacrifice Camp.
3. Now continue to travel down South -East---past Pulawy until you find the town in Orthodox Ukraine called L'viv. Due west of this town was the Janowska Human Sacrifice Camp---frequently misrepresented as merely a labor camp.
4. Now travel west until you travel past Krakow until just above the town of Bielsko-Biala. This was the site of the massive Auschwitz Human Sacrifice Camp.
5. Now travel north until you find the town of Lodz. This was the site of the only human sacrifice camp dedicated purely to children- the Lodz Human Sacrifice Camp.
6. Finally, travel east again until you find the small town ot Wlodawa---almost on the border of the Ukraine---this was the site of the Sobibor Human Sacrifice Camp.
There is your Pentagram of Pure Evil. There is your Pentagram of death constructed to attempt to channel the greatest amount of negative energy to one location in the history of humanity.
In addition, at least three other Human Sacrifice Camps were set up along the "ley lines" of the Pentagram, including Belzec, Tomaszow Mazowiecki and Majdanek.


The final question is probably why? Why would people be so evil? The answer lies at the heart of how society has been fashioned by forces for centuries---forces that do not wish the world to progress---but people who pretend to be pious but instead plot to keep the world in misery. These forces have plotted to return the world to the pope's feudal Dark Ages while destroying the Modern Era born out of the Protestant Reformation.
At the time, Pope Pius XII and the Black Pope of the Jesuits held supreme temporal power – thanks to the willing implementation by Fr. Heinrich Himmler S.J. and Fr. Alexander N. Poskrebyshev S.J., Soviet Lieutenant General known as the "General of the Lubyanka" (NKVD headquarters in Moscow), and Stalin's right hand and absolute advisor inside the Kremlin.
Maybe the motive was the same as had been all other Satanist leaders of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries---to re-establish control---to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy---to empower and rejuvenate the "Holy Mother Church" in accordance with the Jesuit Orders' Counter Reformation Council of Trent.
However, this argument concerning "rejuvination of power" does not account for the serious attempt at the very least of harnessing, if not “unleashing” some kind of satanic-luciferian power.
In fact, the argument of temporal power, appears quite superficial compared to the prevailing evidence suggesting the oldest fraternity of Satanists and Luciferians, genuinely seeking to somehow “renew” their ancient covenant with dark forces.
If this is the deeper motive, it indicates two things: a long standing absence of visible supernatural force and revelation within the halls and catacombs of the Vatican and second, a terrible miscalculation at the time concerning such forces.

While no mention of the Vatican's complete and total implication in such crimes have ever been publicly revealed, it can be argued that events unleashed at this time are the backdrop to dramatic events as recently as March 2013.
Read "Vatican Holocaust" Part II for even more astonishing and disturbing insights about the Great Pentagram of Evil. Next >>

Britain's Nazi King- Was a member of the British royal family in cahoots with the Nazis? Recently declassified FBI files expose a surprising twist in the legacy of Edward VIII. In 1941, President Roosevelt had the Duke of Windsor investigated for suspicion of sympathizing with Nazi Germany. What the investigation found was an astonishing plot to put Edward VIII on Britain's throne as Hitlers Nazi puppet. Under different circumstances, could this relationship have changed history as we know it?  


Roosevelt ordered surveillance of Windsors
Rob Evans and David Hencke - The Guardian, Saturday 29 June 2002

President Roosevelt personally ordered covert surveillance on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor during the second world war after receiving intelligence that the duchess had been passing secrets to a top Nazi with whom she was alleged to have had a tempestous affair, according to documents released to the Guardian by the FBI.
The damning dossier - released for the first time by the intelligence agency - shows that the main reason why the Americans thought the abdication of Edward VIII had taken place in 1936 was because the duchess fervently supported the Nazi regime and this was totally unacceptable to the then Conservative prime minister, Stanley Baldwin. The official view has always been that he abdicated to marry the person he loved but could not stay on the throne because she was a divorcee.

The papers show that the FBI was told by a minor German royal that Wallis Simpson was having an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop, who was then German ambassador to Britain, while she was seeing the Duke of Windsor.

The minor royal, Duke Charles Alexander of Wurttemberg, who later became a Franciscan monk, said that "he knew definitely that von Ribbentrop, while in England, sent the then Wallis Simpson 17 carnations every day. The 17 supposedly represented the number of times they had slept together."

Later the FBI reported that while in exile in France, the duchess was in regular contact with von Ribbentrop, then promoted by Hitler to foreign minister, and was leaking secrets to him. They were then exiled again to the Bahamas.

The US intelligence operation began in 1941 when the couple came over from the Bahamas to spend a long weekend in Palm Beach, Florida, and were tailed by a FBI agent who had to fool both the Windsors and the US secret service on the orders of President Roosevelt. The FBI also reported that the duke was intoxicated and incapable for much of the time at the beginning of the war.

The papers also contain reports from a party in Paris that the duchess told guests that the duke was impotent and she was the only person who could satisfy his sexual desires.

The documents fuel the long-running controversy over allegations that the disloyal pair secretly admired fascism and that he was lined up to return to the throne if Hitler had conquered Britain.

The FBI first refused to release the documents to the Guardian but the paper appealed against the decision, and as a result 227 new pages - including intelligence reports of the operation and interviews with informants - have been disclosed.

The release comes at a sensitive time as the British public record office has not yet released similar documents which cover this period in deference to the sensibilities of the late Queen Mother. 

Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot
US papers shed light on efforts to spy on fascist sympathisers. 

Rob Evans and David Hencke - The Guardian, Saturday 29 June 2002

When the Duke and Duchess of Windsor sailed into Palm Beach, Florida, on the SS Berkshire from Nassau on April 18 1941 they were looking forward to enjoying three days of relaxation at the Everglades Club playing golf and drinking and gossiping with American high society.
Little did they know that the previous night instructions had gone out from President Roosevelt to FBI chief J Edgar Hoover to launch what was to be an extraordinary covert intelligence exercise that had to fool both the exiled royals and the US secret service agent who was guarding them.

The exercise was launched after the FBI had been passed intelligence that the duke and duchess were being used by the Nazis to obtain secrets which could wreck the allies' war effort. The US investigation became even more lurid when FBI agents interviewed a benedictine monk in a Franciscan monastery in the United States; Father Odo had once been the Duke of Wurttemberg, a minor German royal with connections to Queen Mary, the duke's mother, and her brother, the Duke of Athlone, then governor general of Canada.

He told them that a prime suspect in the investigation - Joachim von Ribbentrop, then the Nazis' foreign minister - had been the duchess's lover when he was ambassador to Britain in 1936. The minister was already thought to have been supplied with information by the duchess during the German invasion of France in 1940. Now it was suggested that there was far closer arrangement.

Father Odo told the agent: "He knew definitely that von Ribbentrop, while in England, sent the then Wallis Simpson 17 carnations every day. The 17 supposedly represented the number of times they had slept together."

He also revealed that the Duchess of Windsor had told guests at a Paris party that: "The duke is impotent and although he had tried sexual intercourse with numerous women they had been unsuccesful in satisfying his passions."

He went on: "The duchess in her own inimitable and unique manner has been the only woman who had been able to satisfactorily gratify the duke's sexual desires."

The duke was forced into exile after he abdicated as King Edward VIII in 1936. He first went with his lover, formerly the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, to France and was only later exiled again to Bahamas to keep him out of the way.

By the time the US president authorised the intelligence operation, the couple had been deserted and snubbed by the royal family and the British establishment. They were suspected of favouring the Nazis after they visited Germany in 1937 and were entertained by Hitler and other senior Nazis.

A year after war broke out, the FBI sent a memo to President Roosevelt outlining the agency's worries about the couple. It stated: "It has been ascertained that for some time, the British government has known that the Duchess of Windsor was exceedingly pro-German in her sympathies and connections and there is strong reason to believe that this is the reason why she was considered so obnoxious to the British government that they refused to permit Edward to marry her and maintain the throne.

"Both she and the Duke of Windsor have been repeatedly warned by representatives of the British government that in the interest of the morale of the British people, they should be exceedingly circumspect in their dealings with the representatives of the German government. The duke is in such state of intoxication most of the time that he is virtually non compos mentis. The duchess has repeatedly ignored these warnings."

When war broke out, the duke, a serving officer, had been posted to France to liaise between the British and French armies. But the secret memo, on September 13 1940, reports that an informant had "established conclusively that the Duchess of Windsor has recently been in touch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and was maintaining constant contact and communication with him."

"Because of their high official position, the duchess was obtaining a variety of information concerning the British and French official activities that she was passing on to the Germans."

After the Germans invaded northern France in May 1940, the couple fled to Biarritz in the south. But the FBI noted that the Nazis were able to score a propaganda coup by broadcasting that the "increasing successes of the German armies" had compelled the couple to retreat to a Biarritz hotel. Within minutes of checking in, Berlin radio announced their hotel room number because the unnamed informant "had ascertained that the duchess had informed von Ribbentrop of her itinerary, schedule, etc, prior to her departure from their villa."

The couple then travelled to Spain in June 1940 "but the communications between the duchess and von Ribbentrop were apparently facilitated because of the pronounced Nazi sympathies in Spain."

In July 1940, the pair moved to Portugal where the duke made indiscreet remarks that Britain stood little chance of resisting a German invasion and may as well try to settle for peace with the Germans. Ribbentrop, encouraged by these remarks, hatched a plot to lure the Windsors into German hands.

But Winston Churchill had arranged for the duke to become governor of the Bahamas in August 1940.

"The British were and are always fearful that the duchess will do or say some thing which will indicate her Nazi sympathies and support, and consequently it was considered absolutely essential that the Windsors be removed to a point where they would do absolutely no harm," wrote the FBI in the memo, one of a batch of 227 pages released to the Guardian under the US freedom of information act. The FBI believed that the Bahamas were selected to prevent the duchess from coming into contact with British officials and scooping up more secrets to leak and that special precautions were taken, presumably by the British, to prevent her from "establishing any channel of communication with von Ribbentrop."

From their base in the Bahamas, the couple made frequent visits to the United States during the war. In April 1941, President Roosevelt ordered FBI agents to tail the Windsors discreetly when they visited Florida. But J Edgar Hoover was alarmed because bodyguards from another government department had been assigned to protect the couple. He warned that the bodyguards "would undoubtedly immediately detect the presence of any undercover agents, which might result in considerable embarrassment to all parties concerned".

Instead, the government arranged for the bodyguards to report back to the FBI on where the Windsors went and whom they met. An 18-page report was subsequently produced on the five-day trip.

On May 2, an FBI agent wrote to Hoover, saying that an English socialite had told an informant that he had definite proof that Herman Goering, Hitler's deputy, and the Duke of Windsor had reached a deal - "after Germany won the war, Goering, through control of the army, was going to overthrow Hitler and then he would install the duke as king of England."

The informant also stated that there was no doubt that "the Duchess of Windsor had had an affair with Ribbentrop, and that of course she had an intense hate for the English since they had kicked them out of England". 
Read document 1
Read document 2
Read document 3


A Lamp in the Dark is an exciting new documentary that unfolds the fascinating "untold" history of the Bible, revealing critical information often overlooked in modern histories. Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins and wolves in sheep's clothing. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Papal Inquisition forbade biblical translation, threatening imprisonment and death to those who disobeyed. Learn the stories of valiant warriors of the faith, such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, the ancient Waldenses, Albigenses and others who hazarded their lives for the sake of sharing the Gospel light with a world drowning in darkness. Once the common people were able to read the Bible, the world was turned upside down through the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers subdued whole kingdoms by preaching the grace of God, and exposing the unbiblical doctrines of Rome. In response, the Vatican would launch a Counter Reformation to destroy the work of the Reformers, including the bibles they produced.

RIP Malachi Martin A Real Martyr. Waist Deep The Smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary. But you must realize anything promoting Death or the image of death is satanic. That's why they put the bodies of all the Popes on display. The best part about this recording is that it was recorded without one of those C Crane antennas because I can hear adjacent radio stations through out the entire interivew. Classic Interview 

The Pope, The Queen And The Pedophile Ring Of Power, Exposed !

Westminster Pedophile Ring 'Abused Children During Drug-Fueled Sex Parties'

By Lilian Anekwe | IB Times – Sun, Jan 12, 2014

Police are investigating a pedophile ring said to include senior politicians and celebrities, after an alleged child abuse victim made shocking claims about drug-fueled sex parties in Westminster during the 1980s. Andrew Ash, now 45, said a female former MP and prominent male MP – who have not been named for legal reasons – abused him and several other children as young as 13 while bingeing on cocaine and speed at parties organised by David Smith, Jimmy Savile's former chauffeur who committed suicide last year on the day he was due to stand trial on child sex abuse charges as part of Operation Yewtree.

Ash told the Sunday Express that he was regularly transported from the care home where he lived in northern England, to sex parties in London. The trafficking was allegedly organised by a pedophile ring that included Savile, his chauffeur Smith and high-profile politicians and businessmen. 

Ash has passed the names of his alleged abusers to the Metropolitan Police – and is now demanding justice. He said: "All I want is justice and for the truth to come out because these people have been protected for far too long. What I want to know is why they [the police] haven't arrested him yet if they have this evidence."
He continued: "It wasn't just politicians. There were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen. There were usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne."

Describing the alleged incidence of abuse by the female former MP, Ash said: "She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it. I didn't really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on. I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated."

Ash claims he was also abused by a senior male MP on several occasions, including one that was filmed. "I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce. Another politician turned up with a video camera but the man abusing me just smirked and joked, 'OK, OK, I'll vote any way you want' as if he was being blackmailed."
Ash says the male celebrity member of the paedophile ring would regularly take children to showbiz nightclubs in London's west end, and that on one occasion: "This particular person invited me and a young girl back to his house where he made us have sex before joining in."

British and Dutch police are also investigated Ash's claims that he travelled to Amsterdam with members of the paedophile ring, where he was abused by a paedophile ring that including convicted child killer Sidney Cooke, and was made to film other young boys being abused.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said the force would not comment on the allegations. 
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/westminster-paedophile-ring-39-abused-children-during-drug-122340851.html #sthash.Mz7x0Byz.dpuf 

Jimmy Savile’s Horror Show: Child-Abuse Allegations Shake the BBC 

The U.K.'s public broadcaster is under pressure as women say a recently deceased children's entertainer abused them as children
Jimmy Savile - AP
Savile, who died last year, hosted prime-time children’s shows in the U.K., including the wishes-come-true favorite, Jim’ll Fix It, and raised over £40 million ($64 million) for charity throughout his life. But in a documentary aired on British commercial television last week, five women claimed to have been raped, molested or forced to commit sexual acts on Savile when they were underage, often on the premises of the BBC, for whom Savile worked. Since the documentary aired, over 40 women have made similar allegations.
The BBC is now facing accusations of an institutional cover-up as it emerges that producers, press officers, executives and other presenters at the BBC were aware of Savile’s alleged behavior at the time. The publicly funded broadcaster buckled under pressure to acknowledge the “horrifying” allegations last week, vowing to support the police in any investigations, although it has insisted that there is “nothing to suggest any wrongdoing was ignored by management.” Prime Minister David Cameron has described the allegations as “deeply, deeply troubling” and hinted in a television interview that Savile could be posthumously stripped of his knighthood.
Savile, who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1990, enjoyed the status of a national treasure in Britain — his list of accolades included even a papal knighthood. When he died last year, approximately 4,000 people journeyed to Leeds to pay their respects to the coffin of such a tireless charity worker. The broad respect he enjoyed may have prevented alleged victims from coming forward. Many of the women who have accused Savile of abusing them say that they didn’t think anyone would believe their claims. Well-known BBC presenter, Esther Rantzen, concluded in the documentary that “the jury is no longer out” on the case.
The allegations made by the women who say Savile abused them when they were children were further supported by an assistant producer from the BBC who spoke in the documentary of opening the door to Savile’s dressing room to find a girl of about 14 sitting on Savile’s lap, with his hand up her skirt.
Industry professionals from the time say that rumors were constantly circulating concerning Savile’s conduct. Rantzen admitted: “We all blocked our ears to the gossip. We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable.”
New figures are emerging almost every day with further claims. Former producer of Savile’s BBC radio show Teen Scene, Wilfred De’Ath, told ITV News that he warned Savile — informally — for having spent the night in a hotel with a girl “who was at the most 12 or probably 10.” A former press officer told BBC News that the late Douglas Muggeridge, when in his role as controller of the BBC’s main pop-music station, Radio 1, knew enough to ask his staff to ascertain whether newspapers were on Savile’s trail. And former chairman of the BBC, Lord Michael Grade, told Britain’s Channel 4 News that he “fleetingly” heard rumors when working at BBC television in the 1980s, but did not see cause to address them.
The accusations against Savile have angered his family members, one of whom criticized the documentary that started the airing of accusations against Savile for being “totally and utterly one-sided.”
It is too early to say what the damage will be to the BBC, but it appears that for some months there has been anger internally about the long-known allegations about Savile. The British press has reported that last year reporters at the BBC evening news show Newsnight were enraged when editor Peter Rippon decided not to air a story his reporters had worked on. Reports say that Newsnight’s journalists had collected the accounts of up to 10 alleged witnesses to crimes apparently committed by Savile, and believed themselves to have sufficient evidence to run a report in December. The BBC has said the story was not broadcast for purely journalistic reasons.
The public response to this news has been one of sadness and anger; comments among those on Twitter complain that childhood memories have been forever “tainted” by the revelations. The memorial plaque at Savile’s former home in the northern seaside town of Scarborough has been vandalized with the words “paedophile” and “rapist” written on it, and security has had to be tightened at the nearby cemetery where he is buried, for fear of attack. Statues and street signs have had to be taken down across the country, and the supermarket chain Asda has withdrawn the sale of Jimmy Savile costumes from its website.
George Entwistle, the director general of the BBC, has apologized to the alleged victims on behalf of the broadcaster. A police investigation into the claims is ongoing.
Jimmy Savile caused concern with behaviour on visits to Prince Charles 

Former royal aide says TV presenter would greet young female assistants at St James's Palace by 'rubbing lips up their arms'

Robert Booth - The Guardian - Monday 29 October 2012 

A former senior royal aide has revealed that Jimmy Savile's behaviour when he visited Prince Charles's official home at St James' Palace was a cause for "concern and suspicion".
Dickie Arbiter, who handled media relations for the Prince and Princess of Wales while spokesman for the Queen between 1988 and 2000, said the suspected paedophile TV presenter used to rub his lips up the arms of Prince Charles's young female assistants as a greeting.
Savile is understood to have visited Prince Charles's official London residence several times in the late 1980s when he was acting as a kind of marriage counsellor between Charles and Princess Diana. A spokesman for the Prince of Wales confirmed the prince and Savile formed a relationship in the late 1970s after coming together through their work with wheelchair sports charities. Charles led tributes to Savile when he died a year ago.
"He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves," Arbiter said of Savile. "If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James's Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work."
Arbiter did not raise his concerns formally and there is no suggestion Savile committed any crimes while on royal premises or when he was with Prince Charles on numerous occasions from the 1970s onwards. But the concern over his behaviour expressed by a senior aide will raise questions over how Savile, who is now under investigation in relation to child abuse involving 300 potential victims, managed to develop such a long-standing relationship with the heir to the throne.
Asked about Savile's behaviour with the royal assistants or whether Prince Charles had taken any action to find out if anyone in his family or staff might have suffered any abuse or have any information relating to the criminal investigation into Savile's alleged paedophilia, a spokesman for the prince said: "We have no record of anyone making a complaint."
"The prince first met Savile through their shared interest in supporting disability charities [the prince became patron of the British Wheelchair Sports Foundation in the late 1970s] and it was primarily because of this connection that they maintained a relationship in the years that followed," the spokesman said.
Arbiter said he thought the women might have thought Savile's greeting was "rather funny", but he said it was a cause for concern and he struggled to understand why Savile was granted such access to the royal family.
"I looked at him as a court jester and told him so," said Arbiter. "I remember calling him an old reprobate and he said 'not so much of the old'."
Concern about Savile's behaviour at the palace emerged as Sir Roger Jones, former chairman of the BBC's corporate charity Children In Need, said he had been so uncomfortable about Savile that he did not allow him to have any association with the cause. Jones, a BBC governor from 1997 to 2002, said he had "no evidence" that Savile was up to anything but "we all recognised he was a pretty creepy sort of character".
"When I was with Children In Need, we took the decision that we didn't want him anywhere near to the charity," he told the BBC.
Prince Charles met Savile on numerous occasions. In 1999 he accepted an invitation to a private meal at Savile's Glencoe home which was this week daubed with graffiti reading "Jimmy the beast". Savile asked three local women to dress up in pinafores emblazoned with the letters HRH and Charles subsequently sent the television presenter a Christmas card with the note: "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland."
Charles reportedly sent him a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday with a note that read: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that."
Savile used to boast of his royal connections, made sure to be photographed with Charles on numerous occasions and ingratiated himself once telling the Daily Mail the prince was "the nicest man you will ever meet".
"Royalty are surrounded by people who don't know how to deal with it," Savile said in an interview. "I have a freshness of approach which they obviously find to their liking. I think I get invited because I have a natural, good fun way of going on and we have a laugh. They don't get too many laughs."
The day after the meal in Glencoe Savile persuaded Charles to join him for a photo opportunity at his local post office where he went to pick up his pension money.
"The post office photo opportunity was definitely [down to] him [Savile]," said Coleen Harris, Prince Charles's press secretary. "You always think that other people are getting more out of these things [than the prince] but on the whole it is for a good reason, for the charities and it is a positive thing."
She added: "Personally I always thought he was slightly eccentric, but beyond that I had no idea. He was a slightly odd bloke, but not in a cruel way."
Arbiter said that despite Savile's unusual behaviour with the royal administrative staff there was no evidence of any other cause for suspicion.
"There was a limit to what he could get away with in the royal household," he said.
He also said palace advisers felt the prince's charities might benefit from a connection with Savile, at the time one of the country's most famous TV stars.
Perhaps Savile's most unlikely role was that of personal counsel to Prince Charles in the late 1980s at a time when the royal family was in deep trouble. The marriages of Charles and Diana and Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were disintegrating. Around new year 1990 Charles asked Savile to help the Duchess of York with what Savile later said was keeping her profile down.
Princess Diana was recorded telling James Gilbey on the so-called "squidgygate tape": "Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said: 'I'm just ringing up, my girl, to tell you that His Nibs [Prince Charles] has asked me to come and help out the redhead [the Duchess of York], and I'm just letting you know, so that you don't find out through her or him; and I hope it's all right by you.'" 

Covered-up: Prince Charles’ links to mass pedophile Jimmy Savile 

by Clark Kent - 16 May 2013 - HangTheBankers 

A top-level cover-up was ordered to hide close links between Prince Charles and paedo Jimmy Savile, we can reveal today.

The full truth has been uncovered following a seven-month battle by the Daily Star Sunday.

A raft of documents was released last year showing former Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher’s dealings with Savile.

But Whitehall mandarins ordered key paragraphs to be blanked out to save people’s blushes.

We challenged that ruling under Freedom Of Information laws and were initially turned down.

It was only after a further appeal, when we said it was in the public interest to expose what Thatcher and her officials were discussing, that the information was finally released last week.

It shows Savile claimed Prince Charles had agreed to be a patron of one of his charities – and, crucially, 
last year someone in power had decided we shouldn’t know that fact, despite it being common knowledge that the Prince and weirdo Savile were pals.

Officials at the National Archive, which houses the documents, last night blamed the Cabinet Office, 
under the control of Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, for redacting the documents.

The cover-up concerned Savile asking Prince Charles to be patron of his Stoke Mandeville appeal.

The letter to Thatcher from one of her aides reads: “Even more encouraging, though again confidential at this stage, Jimmy Savile tells me that the Prince of Wales has agreed to be Patron of the Appeal.”

The nugget was contained in a one page letter headed PRIME MINISTER dated March 6, 1980, and initialled G.V.

The letter was part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, last year.

It included pervert Savile declaring his love for the former PM, showing how well connected he was to establishment figures.

A National Archives official explained the Charles paragraph was excluded under sections 40 and 41.

Section 40 refers to information that it would breach the Data Protection Act to reveal that that person would have a “legitimate expectation” that the information would remain private.

Section 41 covers information that was given in confidence.

Two documents in the dossier are still being covered up and will stay secret for 40 years after a ruling last October when claims about Savile began to emerge.

One, misspelling Savile’s name, is described as “Letter from Jimmy Saville to Prime Minister (undated).”

The other is “Telephone message from Jimmy Savile” dated February 5, 1980.

Last night it was still unclear whose blushes were being spared by those sections ­remaining blanked out.

Freedom of information campaigners have criticised officials for misusing the rules to keep information secret.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign For Freedom Of Information, said: “They often use these sections to protect the identity of people who are actually players in the decision-making process who ought to be identified.

“Sometimes people haven’t behaved properly and shouldn’t have any expectation of having their identity protected. 
If you persist, you can succeed in overturning these decisions.”

Former Top Of The Pops presenter Savile was a fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville hospital in Buckinghamshire, 
where he also preyed on young patients.

One paralysed woman said Savile abused her when she was 13 and recovering in the children’s ward in 1971.

Nurses even warned youngsters “pretend to be asleep” when he visited.

The hospital launched its own inquiry after a catalogue of attacks was revealed across the country, dating back to 1955.

Savile was also allowed in and out of Charles’ residence St James’ Palace when he acted as a marriage guidance counsellor for Charles and Diana.

Charles, who led tributes when Savile died, aged 84, in October 2011, had sent him cigars and gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday.

A note with the gifts read: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. 
This is to go some way in thanking you for that.”

Last night, a spokeswoman for Charles said the redaction was nothing to do with his office. 
It was public knowledge that he was patron of that appeal, she said.

And the Cabinet Office added: “As a result of the review of the FOI request, the Cabinet Office decided a small amount of information may be released.

“The reason it was originally redacted is quoted in section 40 and 41.

A review decided that a small extract could be released.” 


Operation Yewtree – the biggest Police cover-up since Hillsborough
  • Crime and Parliamentary Affairs correspondent TIM HICKS follows up on the incredible revelations of misconduct in North Yorkshire Police revealed by the BBC Inside Out programme.
That particularly dubious Constabulary that merits careful consideration
[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, commenting on North Yorkshire Police, following his involvement in the case of Mrs Barbara Hofschröer].
Jimmy Savile’s principal residence was in Leeds and he travelled regularly toScarborough from 1960 onwards to visit his mother and to stay with her. He continued his close association with Scarborough after her death, staying there regularly in his flat at the Esplanade. It follows from this that the full and meticulous investigation of his activities in Leeds and Scarborough are of critical interest to Operation Yewtree, the Home Office, HM Inspector of Constabulary and the IPCC in determining why it was that he was able to offend for so long, without being arrested by the Police.
Yet the West Yorkshire Police investigation into Savile, called Operation Newgreen, has been widely condemned as a farce.  Alan Collins, a solicitor representing 40 of Savile’s victims, is quoted in the press as having told ITV’s Daybreak programme:
The report begs a lot more questions. It provides some answers but the report reveals memories that are not as sharp as perhaps they ought to be, ‘can’t remember’, documents that can’t seem to be located. It doesn’t add up.  But my take is that there seems to be a collective myopia and the collective myopia is evidenced by Savile. He was able to run rings around the police for decades. He used police officers.  He was ingrained with them, dovetailed with them.
Unusually, Chief Constable Nick Gargan of Avon and Somerset has broken ranks and also criticised West Yorkshire Police over its handling of its Savile enquiry. He is quoted in the Yorkshire Post as saying:
It seems clear to me that Operation Newgreen does not have the look and feel of an independent report. As I turned from one page to the next, I saw example after example of the author putting the case for West Yorkshire Police. At times this case was put with some force and emotion and more than a hint of exasperation with other bodies. In that respect,Operation Newgreen was unsuccessful if it was its intention to give an impression of independent assurance: it may even have had the effect of strengthening suspicion that West Yorkshire Police was at the very least being defensive.”
Mr Gargan suggested the force carry out a “very open and public examination of its actions” and a public engagement strategy to deal with issues raised by the review. He said:
I think you will benefit from a situation in which your staff respond to criticism with the questions ‘maybe this person has a point’ more readily than ‘how do I prove them wrong?’.
North Yorkshire Police deny all knowledge
The initial response of North Yorkshire Police was to deny all knowledge, despite the fact that Savile had been mentioned in the press and on the BBC regularly as living in Scarborough and was well known there as a Freeman of the Borough. A force spokesman commented in 2012:
When the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile were publicised, we carried out extensive searches of force records which did not reveal a local connection”.
Given that North Yorkshire Police nevertheless provided Savile with a police car and driver to take him to a community event for young people it had organised in Selby in 2008, where Savile shared the platform with the Chief Constable, this was clearly a lie.
On the 27th of April 2013 following confirmation from the Detective atOperation Yewtree who liaised with Real Whitby, that all the information gathered by the Metropolitan Police as part of Operation Yewtree would be passed on to North Yorkshire Police, who would conduct the investigation from then on, I wrote to Operation Yewtree stating (prophetically) that:
“A central issue of the Scarborough aspect of Operation Yewtreeis that there are consistent allegations of corruption within North Yorkshire Police in respect of their response to Jaconelli and Savile.  I am satisfied that North Yorkshire Police will not investigate the allegations concerning Savile, Jaconeli and the response of Scarborough Police impartially and that referring the investigation to North Yorkshire Police means that the integrity of this aspect of Operation Yewtree has been completely compromised.”
Our analysis of the North Yorkshire Police investigation by Deputy Chief Constable Cross showed that it is also another whitewash.
Enter the BBC
The following revelations were made in the BBC Inside Out documentary aired on Monday the 10th of February 2014 at 7.30 pm:
  • Archive BBC film was shown proving that Jaconelli was an associate of Savile, practised judo with Savile, filmed in Scarborough for the BBC.
  • Multiple witnesses alleged that complaints had been made to North Yorkshire Police about Peter Jaconelli in his lifetime, alleging that he was a paedophile.
  • It was alleged that North Yorkshire Police had admitted at the time it was completely aware of the allegations about Jaconelli, that there had been other complainants, but Peter Jaconelli was not arrested because of his status as a Councillor and Mayor.
  • It was further alleged that a statement had been taken as part of a formal criminal complaint.
  • It was also alleged that it was common knowledge throughout Scarborough that Peter Jaconelli was a paedophile.
  • It emerged that North Yorkshire Police Operation Yewtree investigation had not bothered to interview any of the witnesses developed by Real Whitby.
BBC programme and trailer are below:
This has some profound implications for Operation Yewtree.
Peter Jaconelli was a close associate of Savile and therefore falls within Strand 2 of Operation Yewtree.  Although he is unquestionably Britain’s longest offending and most successful paedophile ever, probably having committed thousands of offences in Scarborough over fifty two years, he is not mentioned anywhere in Operation Yewtree. Yet the BBC programme showed there was ample evidence of his offending being known to the Police.
A follow up article in Real Whitby alleged that Officers had deleted and withheld intelligence on Savile and his associates and that there had been other examples of misuse of police intelligence in connection with other cases in North and West Yorkshire Police. These concerns now stand vindicated:
  • The BBC quoted a victim confirming that he had made a complaint and given a statement to Police about Jaconelli. Yet this information has miraculously disappeared from Police intelligence.
  • It was alleged, on Inside Out, that other complaints had been made to the Police. Yet this information has also miraculously disappeared from Police intelligence.
  • Every schoolboy and most parents in Scarborough knew of Jaconelli’s offending and yet we are asked to believe that he was completely unknown to Police and does not appear anywhere in any Police note-book or intelligence system.
  • In 2003 North Yorkshire Police conducted a major paedophile investigation in Scarborough which generated so much intelligence it had to be managed through HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Intelligence System).  According to local and national newspaper reports , Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan featured in this investigation as suspects. The intelligence generated in this major operation has also miraculously disappeared.
  • As part of its Operation Yewtree investigation, North Yorkshire Police should have interviewed the witnesses identified by Real Whitby, entered their evidence into HOLMES and then tasked a specialist sexual offences intelligence detective to compare it to the original intelligence that had been gathered during the 2003 investigation to see what additional evidence this produced. It appears that no criminal record check was conducted. A cold case review may also have resolved any outstanding offences. However, Deputy Chief Constable Cross did none of these things, effectively ensuring that intelligence on Savile, Corrigan and Jaconelli which could have been developed was withheld through inaction.
Deputy Chief Constable Cross is a most capable and formidable detective, with extensive CID training recently retired after a distinguished career. She is widely admired in the British Police Service for her textbook investigation of the murder of Jenny Nicholl and her contribution to the development of forensic linguistics.  So what possible explanation can there be for her inexplicable omission of Peter Jaconelli from her report, the effect of which is to airbrush Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile out of North Yorkshire Police history?
Why has Peter Jaconelli disappeared into the Operation Yewtreeblack hole?
The two critical failures of the British Police Service to arrest Savile both occurred in North Yorkshire. They are:
1.  The failure of North Yorkshire Police to arrest Jaconelli and Corrigan, which would surely have led them to Savile, (Britain’s most prolific paedophile and rapist).
2.  When asked for intelligence on Savile by Surrey Police in 2007, North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau replied that it had none, although Jaconelli and Corrigan are alleged to have featured in a 2003 paedophile investigation conducted by North Yorkshire Police and entered into HOLMES. As a result, Surrey and Sussex Police did not have the intelligence from North Yorkshire necessary to assist in its investigation – and the best opportunity of bringing him to justice was lost.
It is widely alleged that North Yorkshire Police knew all about Jaconelli and that Police Officers covered up for him and allowed him to carry on offending, because he was a prominent local Councillo,r businessman and Mayor.  So if Deputy Chief Constable Cross were to admit that Jaconelli had been a paedophile, this would raise all sorts of questions as to why the Police had not arrested him. Clearly this would be a huge embarrassment to North Yorkshire Police.
Deputy Chief Constable Cross of the North Yorkshire Police started her career in Leeds with West Yorkshire Police, the two forces that Savile was most closely associated with – and which have suffered severe criticism over their collective failure to arrest him. Neither force has confirmed if Cross knew Savile there.
Chartered Accountants and indeed all investigators are taught that when conducting investigations they should develop as much evidence as possible, then consider all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.  However, this did not trouble Deputy Chief Constable Cross. She simply ignored the witness evidence provided by Real Whitby, wrongly stated that Jaconelli and Savile did not feature in any North Yorkshire Police intelligence, and used this as an excuse to exonerate North Yorkshire Police from any criticism.  In short, she appears to have conducted a cover up to save the face of North Yorkshire Police -  which if true, is a corrupt act.
As a result of the Cross Report, both the above key questions – arguably the two most important questions in the entire Savile investigation – remain completely and conveniently ignored, and the ability of Savile and Jaconelli to offend in Scarborough and Whitby for fifty years untroubled by the local Police remains completely unexplained. Until North Yorkshire Police answer these questions, Operation Yewtree has no credibility.
North Yorkshire Police ordered to re-open its investigation
So concerned was I at the blatantly inadequate nature of Deputy Chief Constable Cross’s detective work that I raised my concerns with HM Inspector of Constabulary Dru Sharpling CBE.  On the 14th of February 2014, she responded to me confirming that she had caused North Yorkshire Police to make further enquiries.
The effect of this announcement by HM Inspector Sharpling is that North Yorkshire Police has been forced to re-open its Operation Yewtreeinvestigation into Savile and his associates in Scarborough. The same day, North Yorkshire Police issued the following statement:
Historic allegations made on Inside Out – statement”
Further to the historic allegations made against the late Peter Jaconelli, a former Mayor of Scarborough, on BBC1′s Inside Out (North East and Cumbria), 7.30pm, 10 February 2014: North Yorkshire Police is considering the content of the programme, its effect on previous matters and the potential need for any future investigative work that would best serve the interests of those directly affected.  In so doing, North Yorkshire Police would encourage those individuals who took part in the programme, who were the subject of direct contact with the late Mr Jaconelli, to get in touch as soon as possible in order that their allegations and wishes are fully and properly considered.  Please call North Yorkshire Police on 101, select option 1, ask for the Force Control Room and state it is for the attention of Detective Superintendent Steve Smith.  Alternatively, contact can be made or information reported via email:
North Yorkshire Police have been ridiculed on the BBC and forced, by RealWhitby, to re-open a major investigation . The former Deputy Chief Constable has been accused publicly of incompetence on the BBC and despite the availability of trained detectives, forensic scientists, powers of arrest, access to the media, extensive Police intelligence systems and the assistance of Scotland Yard, three amateurs have been shown to have conducted a far more credible and meticulous investigation than North Yorkshire Police.
This will have come as a major embarrassment for Chief Constable Dave Jones, who has consistently refused to respond to Real Whitby’s concerns, on the ridiculous and asinine basis that this is not in the interests of “the efficient and effective use of publicly funded resources”. Well neither is ignoring the evidence unearthed by journalists, being caught out in a cover-up and then being compelled to re-open a major investigation at huge cost to the taxpayers of North Yorkshire.
The BBC and the intervention of HM Inspector Sharpling has vindicated the concerns raised by Real Whitby about North Yorkshire Police. It has also vindicated the concerns expressed about North Yorkshire Police in parliament by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass concerning the case of Mrs Barbara Hofschröer, in which Deputy Chief Constable Cross also featured.
The policy of ignoring evidence from Real Whitby continues
Detective Superintendent Steve Smith has only appealed for information relating to the five witnesses interviewed by the BBC and has made no attempt to interview Real Whitby, or any of the many other witnesses we have developed. We did not make all of the information we have available to the BBC, because the primary focus of the programme was Jaconelli, so this is another major and continuing failure in the North Yorkshire PoliceOperation Yewtree investigation which will again allow witness evidence to be ignored.
Our investigation has revealed that there was a paedophile-ring operating in Scarborough from about 1960 onwards. Using Operation Yewtreeterminology, it consisted of:
Strand 1.  Savile:  Known to have committed eight offences in North Yorkshire, but we believe committed many more.
Strand 2.  Associates of Savile:  Jaconelli and Jimmy Corrigan (both deceased) and three other persons, two of whom may have acted as procurers.
Strand 3.  Persons unconnected with Savile: One other person who is now dead.
Real Whitby is still developing further witness evidence.
This is the second major paedophile investigation I have participated in. The first led to the arrest and indefinite detention of a paedophile and the break-up of the ring associated with him. On that occasion, a very fine Police Officer whom I greatly admire – Chief Constable SE Bailey QPM – wrote to me and thanked me for the assistance I had given to his force. In this case, by acting in cooperation with local people, my colleagues and I have produced a stream of witnesses that can assist the Operation Yewtreeinvestigation. The response of North Yorkshire Police was that Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick wrote to me threatening to arrest me if I continued to comment on North Yorkshire Police operations.
Following the acquittal of William Roache and Dave Lee Travis, the wider concern around the conduct of Operation Yewtree must be that whilst the Police will go after high-profile celebrities to excuse their failure to arrest Savile and Jaconelli, they will not prosecute fellow Police Officers that were responsible for letting them escape justice. Nor will the Police take action against Officers like Deputy Chief Constable Cross who conceal Police misconduct.
It remains a concern that the policy of protecting high profile politicians like Jaconelli still continues – witness the attempt to arrest me for harassment by Detective Superintendent Heather Pearson, because Real Whitby had shown that the then Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Councillor Jane Kenyon, was the Chief Financial Officer of a bankrupt company, which she had not declared in her Register of Interests – a criminal offence under the Localism Act.
The threats to arrest me for expressing opinions and comments on North Yorkshire Police (such as the ones I have expressed here and on the BBC) and the demands that I remove all of my articles on North Yorkshire Police from Real Whitby internet site are classic examples of a force that is culturally unable to accept criticism – even when accurate and in the public interest – and will abuse Police powers to prevent it.
Under these circumstances, in my opinion only a full independent judicial enquiry will get anywhere near to establishing how Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile were able to offend for so long without being arrested by North Yorkshire Police. 

Incest Survivor Exposed Illuminati Satanists

March 31, 2009 by Henry Makow Ph.D.
Perhaps the best example of the continuing legacy of the Sabbatean-Frankist cult, the satanic forebears of the Illuminati. 
On May 1, 1989, a "nice Jewish girl", age 29,  appeared on the Oprah Show and said her family was part of a Satanic cult that dates back to the 1700's.

Although they appear to be upstanding citizens --lawyers, doctors, police officers etc. -- they engage in Satanic ritual human sacrifice, incest and cannibalism, often in synagogues. They drink blood and eat babies.

She is describing the Illuminati which originated in the Frankist Movement in the Eighteenth century. Jacob Frank, born Jacob Leibowitz (1726-1791) led a major Satanic heresy that shook the Jewish world. They believed that the Messiah would return if the world went over to evil completely, so they encouraged all sexual licence and Satanic Evil as the ultimate Good. Financed by the Frankist Rothschild banking syndicate, they subverted all religions and national elites by assuming every religious and political hue. They took over Freemasonry and are now in the final stage of establishing their world government a.k.a "globalization."

The abuse Polin suffered is a textbook example of how Illuminati families --Jews and non-Jews-- treat their children. George W. Bush and Barack Obama may have suffered simllar trauma and, (like Polin,) have multiple personality disorder. Vicki is from Chicago and there is no telling how many Chicagoans surrounding Barack Obama are part of this Satanic cult.


Polin told Oprah that she witnessed babies sacrificed and consumed for the "power" this gave. These babies are bred within the extended family for this purpose.  She said she was raped several times, and elsewhere says she had five abortions due to intercourse with her father.

Polin said her family was "extremely involved" in these practices. Her mother is "on the human relations commission of the town that she lives in, and she's an upstanding citizen. Nobody would suspect her. Nobody would suspect anybody involved in it. There's police officers involved in it. There's, you know, doctors, lawyers..."

"I mean, to the outside world, everything we did was proper and right, and then there were the nights that things changed, that things just got turned around. What was wrong was right, and what was right was wrong. That's what helps to create some of them to develop MPD."

Polin's therapist, Tina Grossman was on the show but edited out of the YouTube. She told Oprah that she had treated over 40 survivors from many states and Canada. They have never met each other yet say the "identical same things."

Ms. GROSSMAN: They are describing identical rituals, just the same as, since I'm Jewish, you could go to New York or California and describe a seder in one state or another and, as a Jew, you would recognize it. This is the belief system in evil and the power that evil gives you, and so it has these certain rituals, so they are very similar with all of the survivors.

OPRAH: See, but I am very surprised because the Jewish faith is the Jewish faith. and worshipping the devil is not a part of the Jewish faith. I mean, Jewish people do not worship the devil.

Ms. GROSSMAN: But before there was Christ and before there was a system of one God, there was Paganism- and it still exists in the world, and in many cultures, you still find the belief that there is strength and power in the actual consumption of human flesh or animal flesh.

In spite of the fact that both Vicki and Oprah said many times this behavior was not typical of most Jews, the B'nai B'rith-ADL attacked the show as "anti-Semitic."  Oprah did her penance and obviously has been forgiven.  Vicki was stopped on the street and told her testimony would start "another holocaust." Vicki's response was that denying these crimes was akin to holocaust denial. In July of 1989, she penned this statement and sent it to all concerned:

"Our society believes the myth that Jews can't be pedophiles, or abuse their own children. This is a "MYTH," they do abuse children. There are even those who practice cannibalism, and perform human sacrifices. Believe me I saw it with my own eyes. I've come to the point in my life where I feel I need to bear witness. I have and will continue to until I'm sure what I had to endure as a child is believed by you and others like you. I will do whatever is possible so what happened to me doesn't happen to anyone else!"

Vicki became a therapist herself, moved to Baltimore and opened a practice.  She has articles about the Frankists on her website. I attempted to contact her without success. But I found an extensive profile  with interviews on Luke Ford's website. Included is an Affidavit from a rabbi Vicki contacted in 2004 regarding an exorcism of her cult upbringing. She described their evil ANTI-RELIGIOUS, ANTI JEWISH intent to him in these terms:

"The essence of her story was that there are currently many rabbis involved in this cult who brought their satanic rituals with them to the USA from Europe. That she was born into one of the Jewish families owing allegiance to the cult. She claimed to have been used as part of an organized child sexual abuse ring organized by the rabbi of her synagogue, and that the sexual abuse took place on Sifrei Torah Scrolls laid out on the floor of the synagogue. That the abuse began in early childhood and continued over a period of many years, through her teen years and into adulthood, and that she was only one of the many young children, boys and girls used in this manner. I did not ask for specifics of the rituals but she mentioned cannibalism, defecation and the sacrilege of sacred objects." 

A friend believes that the Illuminati want power but he can't believe they worship Satan and eat babies.  I certainly wouldn't invent such an implausible scenario. As J. Edgar Hoover said, "We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. ... The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst."  (Elks Magazine, August 1956.)

People like my friend have little knowledge of history. Does he really think over 180 million people could be massacred in the 20th century merely by accident? Hiroshima, the holodomor, the holocaust and 9-11 were the products of a single Satanic mindset. Does he think the steady decline of popular culture into degeneracy and obscenity is a coincidence? Does he think the gradual mainstreaming of incest homosexuality, pederasty and the occult is random? Does he think the destruction of higher education (in the humanities) and the family is coincidence too? (Forty per cent of US kids were born to single mothers in 2007 compared to 4% in the 1950's.) Mankind is in the thrall of a powerful Satanic cult intent on destroying and enslaving it.

As the therapist Grossman said, Vicki's claims are corroborated by many others. I have reported on them in articles like "Illuminati Sex Slaves Paint Horrifying Picture;" "The Root Problem: Illuminati or Jews?"  and "Illuminati Defector Details Pervasive Conspiracy." I have an audio interview with Mary Anne on my site which refers to human sacrifices eight times a year. Both Svali and Fritz Springmeier have described Illuminati trauma brainwashing and satanic rituals. These activities are also practised by high level Masons and members of intelligence agencies like MI-5 and MI-6.

As long as we deny that society has been subverted by a Satanic cult, that our leaders are dupes or agents, we won't be able to address our predicament. As long as we smear  truth tellers like Vicki Polin, we will either implicate ourselves, or continue to be accomplices in our own demise.

The logical outcome of this demented ideology is the destruction of everything we hold dear.
Obviously society needs a major cleansing but this won't happen as long as the levers of power are in Illuminati hands and the masses remain apathetic. Hopefully the economic crisis will alert many more people to the danger we all face. 

- See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/incest_survivor_lifted_veil_on.html#sthash.1iKacgOM.dpuf

Queen Elizabeth admits cannablism Horror 

London : United Kingdom | May 24, 2011 BY lonewolfofhackney 

Queen Elizabeth the Second, the British monarch has confirmed reports made by top scientists, that she and other royals regularly eat HUMAN flesh.
The admission came after Dr Richard Sugg of Durham University analysed ancient royal stool samples. David Icke and other wildly excited experts said after the news broke: 'See, I told you so!'
The Queen found she could no longer deny the reports that had curculatd for some time after being exposed by ex-royal flunkie Bertie Brathweight (who was until recently the official Burk of the Bed-Chamber, a post awarded to Bertie in 1930 and whose duties included performing the daily royal enema). The palace tried to suppress the story and Bertie was approached by a very posh man in a hat recently who looked at him 'Strangely'. This has led him to flee the country and he now lives under the assumed name Doris, somewhere in Spain.
Bertie said in the late 1930s there were strange goings on in the palace and that guardsmen regularly disappeared. After being given the job of doing the royal enema he noticed strange smells coming from the bowels that he had to sluice everyday.
'It turned your stomach!' Doris (Bertie) said yesterday by secret telephone. 'Something like fish poo, if you can imagine, like a sharks poo, or perhaps Blue Whale plop; nasty stuff. The queen's was the worst although Camilla's crap regularly busted the equipment because she doesn't chew properly.'
Now Queen Elizabeth has come clean about the claims it's rumoured that the royal flesh-eating was for medical reasons. David Icke has long said that Lizard Breath (or Elizabeth) needed to drink human blood to keep her human shape and that she would revert into a giant snail if this wasn't done regularly. This patently ridiculous theory palls into insignificance now the truth has been exposed.
'Apparently Charles 11 made his own punch from corpses.' Dr Sugg says in his new book. '..and this raises important issues for us today.'
He then goes on to suggest that the Queen isn't the only person who could get a longer life or a softer morning motion from eating murdered humans and that we should all try it at some point. Perhaps, he says, 'There's a granny no one will miss or an Aunt that no one likes any more, put them in a pot and make a fondu, that's nice, or even a Barbi now the summer's here.' 


British royalty dined on human flesh (but don't worry it was 300 years ago)

By FIONA MACRAE - 20 May 2011 - Dailymail.co.uk 

They have long been famed for their love of lavish banquets and rich recipes.  But what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh.
A new book on medicinal cannibalism has revealed that possibly as recently as the end of the 18th century British royalty swallowed parts of the human body.
The author adds that this was not a practice reserved for monarchs but was widespread among the well-to-do in Europe.

Even as they denounced the barbaric cannibals of the New World, they applied, drank, or wore powdered Egyptian mummy, human fat, flesh, bone, blood, brains and skin.
Moss taken from the skulls of dead soldiers was even used as a cure for nosebleeds, according to Dr Richard Sugg at Durham University.
Dr Sugg said: 'The human body has been widely used as a therapeutic agent with the most popular treatments involving flesh, bone or blood.

'Cannibalism was found not only in the New World, as often believed, but also in Europe.
'One thing we are rarely taught at school yet is evidenced in literary and historic texts of the time is this: James I refused corpse medicine; Charles II made his own corpse medicine; and Charles I was made into corpse medicine.
'Along with Charles II, eminent users or prescribers included Francis I, Elizabeth I's surgeon John Banister, Elizabeth Grey, Countess of Kent, Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, William III, and Queen Mary.'
New world: Depiction of cannibalism in the Brazilian Tupinambá tribe as described by Hans Staden in 1557.
Whether true or not, the myth ignored the fact that Europeans consumed human flesh
The history of medicinal cannibalism, Dr Sugg argues, raised a number of important social questions.
He said: 'Medicinal cannibalism used the formidable weight of European science, publishing, trade networks and educated theory.
'Whilst corpse medicine has sometimes been presented as a medieval therapy, it was at its height during the social and scientific revolutions of early-modern Britain.
'It survived well into the 18th century, and amongst the poor it lingered stubbornly on into the time of Queen Victoria.
'Quite apart from the question of cannibalism, the sourcing of body parts now looks highly unethical to us. 
'In the heyday of medicinal cannibalism bodies or bones were routinely taken from Egyptian tombs and European graveyards. Not only that, but some way into the eighteenth century one of the biggest imports from Ireland into Britain was human skulls. 
'Whether or not all this was worse than the modern black market in human organs is difficult to say.'

The book gives numerous vivid, often disturbing examples of the practice, ranging from the execution scaffolds of Germany and Scandinavia, through the courts and laboratories of Italy, France and Britain, to the battlefields of Holland and Ireland and on to the tribal man-eating of the Americas.
A painting showing the 1649 execution of Charles I showed people mopping up the king's blood with handkerchiefs.
Dr Sugg said: 'This was used to treat the "king's evil" - a complaint more usually cured by the touch of living monarchs.
'Over in continental Europe, where the axe fell routinely on the necks of criminals, blood was the medicine of choice for many epileptics.
'In Denmark the young Hans Christian Andersen saw parents getting their sick child to drink blood at the scaffold. So popular was this treatment that hangmen routinely had their assistants catch the blood in cups as it spurted from the necks of dying felons.
'Occasionally a patient might shortcut this system. At one early sixteenth-century execution in Germany, 'a vagrant grabbed the beheaded body "before it had fallen, and drank the blood from him..".'
The last recorded instance of this practice in Germany fell in 1865.

Whilst James I had refused to take human skull, his grandson Charles II liked the idea so much that he bought the recipe. Having paid perhaps £6,000 for this, he often distilled human skull himself in his private laboratory.
Dr Sugg said: 'Accordingly known before long as "the King's Drops", this fluid remedy was used against epilepsy, convulsions, diseases of the head, and often as an emergency treatment for the dying. 
'It was the very first thing which Charles reached for on February 2 1685, at the start of his last illness, and was administered not only on his deathbed, but on that of Queen Mary in 1698.'
Dr Sugg's research will be featured in a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary with Tony Robinson in which they reconstruct versions of older cannibalistic medicines with the help of pigs' brains, blood and skull.
The book, called Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires, will be published on June 29 by Routledge and charts the largely forgotten history of European corpse medicine from the Renaissance to the Victorians.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389142/British-royalty-dined-human-flesh-dont-worry-300-years-ago.html#ixzz2qrnFYpkd 

God makes two kinds of promises in the Bible, conditional and UN- conditional. He promised Israel blessings for keeping His Law. He promised Jeroboam a dynasty for keeping His Law. These were conditional promises. However, God gave no conditions when He told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, and kings would come out of him. Gen 17:4,6. Likewise when He said that the heir would come out of Sarah. God put no conditions on His word. He spoke it as though it would be fact. This is also the case when God talks about David in II Sam 7:16. 

David is promised, unconditionally, that his bloodline would never run out. God also said that David's kingdom AND throne would go on forever. David had no say in the matter. He couldn't do anything to hasten or stop those events from occurring. God didn't give David a choice, He just said that those things would come to pass. The whole passage from verse 10 on doesn't seem to make any sense.

When this prophecy of Nathan was given, Israel was at peace with everyone. In fact David ruled from the Euphrates to the Nile. There was peace, prosperity. The Israelites had finally settled down in one place and united as one nation under God and David. Well, then, how can Nathan come and say that God has appointed a place for Israel, He would plant them IN that place, from which they'd move no more, and be free from their old enemies? Weren't they IN their own place? Weren't they at peace with their enemies? And who was thinking of moving? We'll come back to these questions. Verses 11 through 13 don't look so unusual. They portray David's soon to come family history. David will be "made an house(dynasty), he will die a natural death, Solomon is to be king, Solomon will build the temple. And the followup is easily disconnected from David. It says that "his (Solomon's) throne shall be stablished forever." BUT, the first and last parts are very hard to accept. Well, the part about David's bloodline (his house) might be OK. David had a lot of kids and they all lived 3000 years ago, so there are probably some people around who come from David's bloodline. But can anyone believe that the last part is true? Does David's "throne" exist today? Today is part of forever, isn't it? 

Let's go one step further in establishing the impossibility of this promise. We have to tie these two parts together. Psalms, Jeremiah and I Kings all say that the "house" and the "throne" go together. I Kings 2:4, "shall not fail thee a man on the throne of Israel." And did you notice how that statement adds a whole new dimension to the picture? Not only must there be a direct, bloodline descendant of David ruling, he or she must be ruling over some Israelites!! Is it possible that in today's modern world we can fulfill these conditions? Yes, but only through the teaching on the Lost Tribes. 

Let's fill out this promise to David by looking at Psalm 89. We have two renderings of the events. First an overview of the basics, verse 4. David's "seed is stablished forever, and his throne to all generations." Then starting in verse 22, David is promised that no enemy would exact (prosper, Isaiah 54:17) upon him, nor through war would his old enemies, Canaanites, Egyptians, Edomites, etc., hurt him. He also gets honor and other good stuff. 

Then God reiterates the forever part in verse 29. Not satisfied, God makes sure we heard by pinning His promise to the Sun and the Moon. Jeremiah echoes Nathan in chapters 31 and 33. In 33:17 he says that, "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." And 31:35-36 says if there's a sun, moon or stars, there'll be a nation Israel. Mission impossible. 

The only conclusion that can be drawn from these promises is that somewhere in the world, this minute, there is a bloodline descendant of King David ruling over the descendants of the Israelites. 

Let's show off God a bit. See how He worked out this mission. Gen 49 is a crossroads of the Bible. Yet most people don't understand the implications of Jacob's actions in passing out the blessings and birthright before he dies. Jacob gives Joseph, and therefore his boys Ephraim and Manasseh, all the good stuff. Virtually the whole birthright. Jacob only keeps back the right to be king of the family and make it's governing laws. This means that although Joseph and his family will be the rich nobility of Israel, someone from Judah (a Jew) will beWJoseph dies, the Tribe of Ephraim will be the pre-eminent tribe of the nation, but will accede to Judah in being king. As soon as Joseph dies in Egypt, some one from the tribe of Judah will take the rulership under Pharaoh. This person will be from the Zarah family of Judah; he was firstborn. Two hundred years after the secession of Judah from the nation Israel, Assyria conquers Samaria and deports the ten tribes(millions of them) to northern Mesopotamia. Most of them migrate to northwest europe and the British Isles over the next 17 centuries. But never fear, we still have a Judahite king in Jerusalem named Zedekiah. Oops! Here comes Nebuchadnezzor. He conquers Judah, kills Zedekiah's sons and carries Zedekiah and 95% of the people to Babylon. The line is cut!! What about David's promise now? 

No problem. The Zarah line is ruling all across the northern Mediterranean. By this time they've got colonies in Spain, Ireland, and Britain. But the "throne of David" is not in those places. It is in Jerusalem. And the male bloodline has been cut! But not the FEMALE. God allowed the daughters to inherit when no male heirs were available. So Jeremiah takes the King's two daughters, and leaves for Ireland. He drops off one daughter in Spain and then marries the Pharez-Judah daughter of Zedekiah to the Zarah-Judah High King of Ireland. This final move sets things straight; the way God outlined them. Zarah is back on top. The "throne" is preserved. The resting place for Israel is being prepared for the arrival of the ten tribes as they begin to migrate across europe. 

All things are possible with God. 

The chart below briefly shows the progression of the Royal lines Zarah-Judah and Pharez-Judah. I have read that Queen Victoria spent one million Pounds establishing her genealogy. There is a wonderful genealogy chart produced by R.H. Milner which lists ALL the kings to descend out of Judah. Let me bore you with the list of Royal lines included on this chart: Troy, Sicambrians, Franks, ancient British, Byzantine, Tudor, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Normans, Guelph, Wettin, Skiold, Irish, Scottish, and Hungarian.

You can obtain this chart by going to The Source, Dr. Gene Scott
General genealogy from 
Judah to Queen Elizabeth II



I can recall one place in Spain that is named after a Biblical family; however not one of the tribes. This is Zaragosa, which comes from Zarah, Judah's first-born.

It was Zarah's family that ruled for over a 100 years in Egypt after Joseph's death, and before the Egyptians revolted against the (Hyksos) foreign rulers. At that time the nobility, the Zarahites, fled across the Mediterranean sea to already established cities. Cities that had been founded by their own family: Troy, Athens, Miletus, and more. Diodorus talks of two exoduses out of Egypt, one by sea, one under Moses. These Zarahites then migrated west, the Milesian/Zarahites arriving in Spain and Ireland near 600-700 BC.

One famous Trojan/Zarahite named Brutus landed in Britain 1103 BC and founded New Troy; later to be renamed London.

It's this Zarah stream of the Judah line that makes sense out of Ezekiel's prophecy of 17:22-24 and 21:25-27. The high tree is the Pharez line, the low tree is the Zarah line. Him that is high is Pharez, him that is low is Zarah. It was the Pharez line that came out of Egypt as the rulers of the Judah line(Jacob gave Judah the sceptre and lawmaking). With the Zarahites gone to the northern Mediterranean, the Pharezites took their rightful place as rulers.

The exalting of the Zarah line was when Jeremiah married off one of King Zedekiah's daughters to the High Zarahite King of Ireland about 583 BC. Thereby bringing the two lines together and establishing the Zarah line again as pre-eminent. All the kings and queens of the British Isles and northwest Europe come out of that union.

And why not? Didn't God say that David would "never want for a man on the throne?" These kings and queens out of the line of Judah were and have been ruling over the Lost Tribes these many centuries: 25-plus.

I haven't time to properly research the subject, but it has come to my attention that George Washington and other American Fathers had ties back to British nobility. And John F. Kennedy's heritage included kings of Ireland. Methinks Judah is ruling the United States as well. Here's some more information on American Presidents' ties with the line of David/European royalty




God had to get the "Isles afar off" ready for the House Israel, so He sent two Houses of Zarah-Judah; the Trojans to Britain and the Milesians to Ireland. Brutus, the grandson of the Trojan King Aeneas, rounded up hundreds of defeated rebels after the seige of Troy, and made his way to Spain where some of his countrymen had previously migrated. Many of these compatriots sailed with Brutus as he went to Britain. He landed there in 1103 BC, moved inland somewhat until coming to a likely spot for a settlement. He gave this town the name of New Troy. This was later to become the capitol of the reconstituted tribe of Ephraim, and the final resting place of the Davidic Throne. London. God was also preparing this land for the influx of Israelites which started some 500 years later.

Some centuries later, God had replaced those Spanish Zarahite Trojans with their cousins the Zarahite Milesians. After living for some time in Spain, some of the princes struck out to establish new kingdoms in Ireland. To do this they had to conquer their cousins of the tribe of Dan; the Tuatha de Dannan. After a family squabble that left only one of the original three brothers who came to Ireland, Eochaidh (Yo-kee) The Heremon (king) assumed the throne of Ard-Righ, High King. This all happened around 600 BC. Eochaidh was well in place to receive the bloodline of the Davidic line of Pharez-Judah.

Within three years of the final fall of Jerusalem, God's Trustee of the Davidic Throne, arrives in Ireland with his scribe Simon Brug, a curious collection of ancient relics, which include a harp, a large chest, a three hundred pound stone, and more. Beside one other in the party, the band of four was rounded out by the daughter of the blinded, imprisoned King of Judah, Zedekiah.

It wasn't enough for God to keep the promise that Judah would supply the rulers of the Tribes of Israel. If that were the case, then God could have quit right there and had a day off. He would have had some Zarah-Judah kings ready for the Lost Tribe's arrival starting around 500 BC. But He'd made that promise to David. So David's bloodline had to be in the mix, too. That's why He had to draft Jeremiah to "plant" that bloodline in the future land of Israel. God's plan for Israel had been side-tracked. With the marriage of Zarah-Judah Eochaidh to David-Pharez-Judah Tea Tephi, things were again set right according to God's Plan, Promise and Prophecy:

  • 1-Judah would have the sceptre; Gen 49:10
  • 2-David would have his "man on the throne;" II Sam 7:16
  • 3-Israel would assume it's new land, II Sam 7:10, to "renew" it's strength, Is 41:1, for the spreading of Christianity.
  • 4-The fulfillment of a multitude of prophecies by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Hosea, and others.
Jeremiah even set the future "priesthood" of the church in motion when he established Colleges in Ireland. You could say the he was the author of our Constitution. Besides schools, he's the great Law-Giver of Ireland. It's Jeremiah's Law that became Irish Common Law, then British Common Law, which processed through our Pilgrims as the Mayflower Compact, and became our Constitution. Jeremiah also instituted the Three Great Faires of Ireland. Do you suppose that these political/business gatherings fell approximately at the same times as Passover, Pentacost, and Tabernacles? Hmmm.

Knowledge is Power. God knows everything, hence is All Powerful. Neat.

Who have been the two most powerful nations on earth, excluding that Johnny Come Lately the USSR? The United States, as a single nation. Britain as an Imperial nation. These two countries controlled most of the world's information. They are the ones who "pushed the people's to the end's of the earth." They have for 200 years controlled and contained most of the world's knowledge.

The point I make is that we're well educated people, we Americans and British. That condition is no accident of history. It's a move on God's part. 2500 years ago God sent Jeremiah to Ireland to establish the educational system that would weather the Satanic Ignorance of the Dark Ages, and provide a foundation for our modern level of education. Who still has the best schools today? The Irish.

Or perhaps you think the various conquerors and emperors of history, and even the mighty Roman Empire itself, had a blind-fit and never knew that Ireland was there. The Romans went to Britain and spent many resources to maintain a hold in Britain. They never could bring the whole country in line, as Isaiah predited, Is 54:17; they had to give up and build walls. They wouldn't have had near the trouble with Ireland.

Ireland is a VERY special place. It's the Cradle of the Spiritual and State governments of modern Israel. 

Queen Elizabeth II - NOT the rightful heir to the Throne of England   

Secrets Of The Royals 

By Gordon Winter and Wendy Kochman 
St Martin's Press, New York 1990, ISBN 0-312-04415-1

When Queen Victoria died senile in 1901, her elder son Albert Edward came to the throne as KING EDWARD THE SEVENTH. Although he was a fair old monarch who gave his name to what became famous as the "Edwardian" age, Edward was a sexual cowboy who spent his whole life chasing skirt in order to get as many notches on the butt of his pistol as possible. More than ten thousand notches is a fairly conservative estimate because he sampled at least four women a week from the age of nineteen until he died at sixty-nine. The actual figure could be between fifteen and eighteen thousand, though, because in good weeks he managed six or seven different bed partners.

To regain his strength, Edward usually devoured an eight course breakfast, and his dinners often ran to twelve courses. When it came to sexual intercourse, however, Edward's eyes were greedier than his famously fat stomach. Proof of this came when he tried to seduce an outrageously sexy blonde wearing a long slinky silk dress at a party-only to discover to his horror that the "blonde" was actually the transvestite Russian prince Felix Yusupov, wearing full drag. (Source: Prince Felix Yusupov: The Man Who Murdered Rasputin by Chris Dobson [Harrap, 1989].)

Rather more amusing for the king was the millionaire Indian prince who was so impressed by His Majesty's sexual comings and goings that he sent him an unforgettable birthday present: a golf bag made from an elephant's penis.

Edward's best-known mistress was Lillie Langtry, the most outrageous "Scarlet Woman" of her time. During the height of her affair with Edward (then the Prince of Wales), a gossip columnist cunningly wrote this sentence in a weekly London journal: "There is nothing whatever between the Prince of Wales and Lillie Langtry." Readers were mystified by this dotty denial but in the very next edition, in exactly the same place, appeared the four words: "Not even a sheet"

Although she was a parson's daughter, Lillie Langtry was an uninhibited character who disrupted many a sedate cocktail party with her outrageous antics. But Edward's ardor for her cooled permanently when she jokingly poured a large helping of melting strawberry ice cream down the back of his neck at a boring dinner party.

Having fallen from the royal gravy train, Lillie took advantage of her notoriety as a former Buckingham Palace intimate by becoming an actress. During a whistle-stop tour of America in the early 1880s, she stayed overnight in a- newly formed settlement in Texas where she charmed the local judge Roy Bean so much (by her skill at poker) that he named the town Langtry in her honor.

Lillie also had an affair with Prince Louis of Battenberg (father of Lord Mountbatten) and by him is said to have given birth to an illegitimate daughter named Jeanne Marie. Later still, Lillie married a baronet's son and became the rather more sedate Lady de Bathe. She died in 1929 at the age of seventy-six.

Another of Edward's sleeping partners was the even more famous actress Sarah Bernhardt She not only had an affair with Edward, but also claimed to have had one with his son, Prince I Eddy. She was also the mistress of the Belgian prince Henri de Ligne, and her bastard son Maurice was said to have been sired by him.

Sarah Bernhardt was as dramatic offstage as on. She kept a silk-lined coffin in her bedroom, and the spiciest tidbit of gossip in London at the time was that she once had sex with Edward as he lay supine, but very much alive, in that coffin.

Just before she died in 1923; at the age of seventy-nine, Sarah coyly indicated that she had "entertained" other famous lovers, such as the French novelist Victor Hugo and Napoleon III, in the coffin and that its pink silk lining had to be changed quite regularly-for wear-and-tear reasons.

Edward's longest serving mistress was Alice Keppel, the wife of an earl. She spent six weeks of every year making love to His Royal Highness in the then-popular French coastal resort of Biarritz. Alice was a real survivor who held Edward's hand as he lay on his deathbed in May 1910 and sobbed that if he died she no longer wished to live. This was not quite true. She clung to life until 1947, when she died at the age of seventy-eight.

Another long-favored mistress was "Daisy" Warwick, the wife of Lord Brooke. But soon after King Edward died, Daisy tried to blackmail the royal family by producing a collection of his sizzling love letters. Although everybody in London society knew all about His Royal Highness being an adulterer, these letters were political dynamite because their publication in a newspaper would have proved it to the workers-who were not supposed to know.

So Buckingham Palace arranged for an urgent application to be made to the High Court, restraining Daisy from selling the letters to the gutter press. Daisy then threw the royals into a dither by threatening to sell them to one of America's biggest newspapers. At this stage, Arthur du Cros, of the famous Dunlop rubber (tire) company, stepped in and paid off £64,000 worth of Daisy's debts in return for the love letters. Mr. Du Cros was later created a baronet. Daisy, by the way, died in 1938, at seventy-six.

The most revealing story about Edward the Seventh-in terms of social hypocrisy-is that while staying in a friend's house one night, he felt rather randy and had to make do by calling for a maid. This was Rosa Lewis, who was made to measure for Edward as she not only served him adequately but told him about several other pretty little young servant girls who would simply adore to be in royal service.

After accepting many of Rosa's recommendations, the king realized she was far too talented to remain in below-stairs service to the top nobs and should give them pleasure upstairs instead. So he gave her the money to open London's (now respectable) Cavendish Hotel in Jermyn Street, just opposite the back door of Fortnum and Mason's Royal Grocery shop.

There, from 1902 until she died in 1952, Rosa ran Britain's most famous high-class brothel where she provided classy harlots for members of Parliament, high-ranking military officers, and much of the aristocracy. The hotel-brothel became so famous that in the forties and fifties many members of the British nobility took their sixteen-year-old sons there to introduce them to the pleasures of the flesh and, often, to discreetly ascertain whether or not they were gay.

Rosa's guests were not all Brits. Her hotel was used by thousands of visitors from overseas, including many of America's most prominent politicians and millionaires, who were taken to the Cavendish by trusted friends in London for discreet afternoon sessions of tea and crumpet. And tarts. This world-famous cat house somehow managed to escape the attention of Scotland Yard's vice squad. Not once during her fifty-year reign as Britain's Queen of Sex was Rosa Lewis charged with keeping a brothel.

Although King Edward the Seventh was a regular visitor at this house of pleasure that he had bankrolled, he still admired his faithful wife Alexandra, the lovely daughter of Denmark's King Christian the Ninth. Alexandra didn't mind the fact that her husband had sex with thousands of other women. What upset her was that all those other ladies knew what a terrible sex life she had with him as he took less than a minute to complete the sex act. In spite of this, Alexandra managed to produce three daughters and three sons. Two of those sons went on to great fame.

Son number one was PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR, known as Prince Eddy. Born in 1864, he was lazy, a poor reader, an atrocious speller, and such a total dunce that his tutors despaired of him. Yet this did not stop a university awarding him with an honorary doctorate of law.

When the truth leaked out about his backwardness, the royal family tried to cover up by claiming he was "slightly deaf." They said this made it difficult for him to hear what his teachers said. Some people might wonder why this normally spoiled young prince was not supplied with an ear trumpet if he did have a hearing defect. But of course he didn't, because when it came to sex, Eddy was a genius who could hear the rustle of silk knickers two boudoirs away.

The most disgraceful but nonetheless intriguing rumor about Prince Eddy is that he was Jack the Ripper. Several books have linked him with the sensational murders that rocked Britain in 1888. The common denominator in these books is that Prince Eddy contracted syphilis from one of the thousands of prostitutes in London's deprived East End area.

Some say Prince Eddy obtained his revenge by returning to the East End one night and killing the disgustingly diseased tart by disemboweling her. Other books state that her fellow prostitutes were murdered by Queen Victoria's royal physician, Sir William Gull.

When Britain's Thames TV showed its three-part Jack the Ripper series, starring the actor Michael Caine in 1988, it categorically named Sir William as the Ripper. Viewers were told:

"We have come to our conclusions after careful study and painstaking deduction. Other researchers, criminologists and writers may take a different view. We believe our conclusions to be true."

Possibly to protect itself against hostile reaction from admirers of the royal family, Thames TV did not suggest that Sir William Gull had been "recruited" by Queen Victoria, or Prince Eddy, to kill the prostitutes. The filmmakers explained that problem away by saying the royal physician was just "insane."

But the late Stephen Knight, in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, took the subject further. He said Prince Eddy had fallen in love with a Catholic shop-girl named Anne Crook, had secretly married her in a Catholic ceremony, and that she had given birth to his child, a girl named Alice. To prevent a religious scandal erupting, which could easily have toppled the then unpopular Queen Victoria, Sir William Gull was commissioned to kidnap Anne. He did, and rendered her insane by operating on her brain-after which he had placed her in a mental institution.

According to Mr. Knight, this disgraceful plot backfired because Anne Crook had left her baby in the care of Mary Kelly, an amateur prostitute living in London's East End who, in collusion with three full-time whores, tried to blackmail the royal family.

The result, stated Mr. Knight, was that the British prime minister, Lord Salisbury, sent Sir William to "eliminate" all those dangerous guttersnipes in a desperate last-ditch attempt to protect the British monarchy. To give the impression that a total madman was responsible, Sir William Gull had cut out the prostitute's wombs and ovaries or committed other atrocities, such as chopping off their breasts or ears.

Sir William is said to have died in 1890, but there is doubt about this because, contrary to usual medical ethics, his death was certified by Dr. Theo Ackland, who just happened to be his son-in-law.

Stephen Knight's findings were so well researched and convincing that somebody thought him dangerous. Perhaps that is why he was smeared by several newspapers, which tried to claim he had got his facts wrong. He hadn't. His book, which was originally published by Harrap in 1976, has been reprinted twelve times since by Grafton Books of London.

The whole Ripper saga has been confused, perhaps deliberately, by various conflicting claims-the most ridiculous being that Moscow had sent a Russian spy over to kill those prostitutes, just to embarrass the British government. No, that is not one of those anti-Kremlin jokes. The claim appeared in Things I Know by William Le Quex in 1923.

Three years after the Ripper killings, Queen Victoria decided that Prince Eddy, then second in1ine to the English throne, needed a strong-willed wife to keep him in line. The woman chosen was the Princess of Teck, and she agreed to take on the job. Their marriage was/planned for February 27, 1892, but Prince Eddy died suddenly six weeks before that. The Buckingham Palace version is that he died of influenza, though other sources insist it was caused by a softening of the brain due to syphilis.

His intended bride plunged herself into one year of mourning for her lost beloved. After emerging from that mourning, Queen Victoria called her in and told her there had been a change of plan and she must marry Prince Eddy's brother, Prince George.

We are told' she was "affronted and embarrassed" by the idea. But the truth is, she was most eager to be a possible queen and willingly obeyed. The story was then put out that the Princess of Teck had never really loved Prince Eddy but had always secretly loved his brother George, and the couple were speedily married two months later in July 1893. They enjoyed their honeymoon at Sandringham-where poor Prince Eddy had died just eighteen months earlier!

When King Edward the Seventh went to heaven in 1910, Prince George and his wife came to the throne as KING GEORGE THE FIFTH and QUEEN MARY. The diaries of various royals unnecessarily confirm that their marriage was one of total convenience and that no love was involved on either side. But the public was later told that their marriage developed into "a deep and lasting love."

Although she was a very German lady with not a drop of English blood in her veins, Queen Mary's ramrod-back deportment was seen to epitomize British royalty for over forty years. Her regal appearance hardly changed. Jeweled toques topped her tightly packed curls, and there was always the same style of coat and silver-topped cane. Her loyalty to the Crown was beyond any possible criticism-even to the point, as we have seen, of being willing to die for it rather than endanger the coronation of her grandchild, Elizabeth, in 1953.

There has never been one breath of sexual scandal about her. It is not unkind to emphasize that she had not the slightest interest in sex. Some historians have made this abundantly clear by recording her own comment that when her husband did visit her royal bedchamber to provide heirs, she "closed her eyes and thought of England."

This does not mean Queen Mary's character had no blemishes. The big skeleton in her cupboard is that she was "unfortunately afflicted with kleptomania." This is a disease affecting only the rich. When poor people steal, they are thieves. If Queen Mary liked a Georgian snuff box or a similarly valuable silver trinket when visiting the home of a friend, she swiped it.

So many aristocrats complained to Buckingham Palace about her theft of their objects d'art that Queen Mary's lady-in-waiting was told to watch her like a hawk when she went visiting. If she slipped something into her handbag, the lady-in-waiting would later retrieve it and mail it back to the owner with a covering letter stating that it had been taken "by mistake." Some psychiatrists say this kind of unnecessary stealing, particularly shoplifting by rich women, is a subconscious substitute for sex.

Queen Mary was a disinterested mother who gave little love or cuddles to her children-. When she died in 1953 her son, then the Duke of Windsor, told his wife, Wallis: "I'm afraid the fluids in her veins have always been as icy cold as they now are in death."

Queen Mary's husband, George the Fifth, had sowed plenty of wild oats in his youth. At one time he shared a girl with his sexy and alleged "Ripper" brother, Prince Eddy. They kept her in a luxury apartment in London's St. John's Wood area. But, after marrying, George is said to have settled down, and we are told he was a "paragon of virtue."

There is, however, one strange story about George. This surfaced in a French newspaper named The Liberator when he became king. Copies of the article were sent to all members of Parliament - obviously to ensure that the royals did not get the news smothered. It was terribly embarrassing because the story claimed that while in Malta, when he was still Prince George, the king had legally married a British admiral's daughter, Mary Culme-Seymour, and had sired several children by her.

This was political dynamite because, if true, those children were claimants to the English throne. Furthermore, it was alleged that Prince George had decided to abandon Miss Culme-Seymour only when his brother Eddy died and the royal family delicately pointed out to him that, as second in line to the throne, he should quickly discard this little commoner.

The journalist who wrote this story was an E. F. Mylius and not surprisingly, he was charged with writing lies. If he had been allowed to get away with it,. some nasty-minded people might have thought that King George's marriage to Queen Mary was not legal, which would have meant that her children were illegitimate.

During the court hearing evidence was given that, quite apart from never having married Prince George, Mary Culme-Seymour had not even met him during the years in question (1879 to 1898). Journalist Mylius was found guilty in 1911 and sentenced to one year in jail. After serving his sentence, he had a pamphlet published in New York in which he produced evidence, in the form of British newspaper clippings, that witnesses had lied at his trial.

This showed that Prince George had, in fact, met Mary Culme-Seymour in August 1891 when she opened the dancing with him at a large ball in Portsmouth. Ah yes, said Mary Culme-Seymour, "I had forgotten about that." Mr. Mylius, who was still unable to get the justice to which he said he was entitled, commented that he found it rather difficult to believe a pretty young lady could forget the great honor of opening the dancing at a ball with a handsome prince.

In 1917, toward the end of World War I, the British public developed such a hatred of anything German that they kicked innocent little dachshund dogs in the streets. Some people even suspected the German-blooded British royal family of having secret sympathy for the hated "Kaiser Bill"-Wilhelm the Second-who was, of course, Queen Victoria's grandson.

The publicity experts at Buckingham Palace urged King George to change the German name of his royal British house from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. So the magic royal wand was waved and overnight the royal family became known by the much more English-sounding name, Windsor.

Another patriotic little story about King George is that he did not want to give Britain's Victoria Cross medal to America's "Unknown Soldier" when that revered serviceman was to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery in 1921. Quite definitely not, said the king. Even when his advisors explained that America had given its Congressional Medal of Honor to the British Unknown Warrior one year earlier, George was not impressed.

He said it was ridiculous to compare the illustrious British VC with the Medal of Honor, which, he sneered, having been instituted in only 1862, "has no history behind it." The British VC, by the way, was instituted by Queen Victoria in 1856. So six years was obviously a long time in the mind of old George Five. In the end, however, he was forced to grant the VC to the anonymous American when the Whitehall diplomats pointed out that America was a valuable ally and could not be insulted with a lesser medal.

Fate sometimes plays cruel tricks, King George the Fifth insisted that his royal physician, Bernard Dawson, be sworn of the Privy Council-an extremely unusual honor for a doctor. As we have seen, Lord Dawson of Penn went on to thank King George by murdering him in 1936.

When that happened, George's son came to the throne as KING EDWARD THE EIGHTH. Although his marriage to Wallis Simpson was described by Winston Churchill as "one of the greatest love stories of history," King Edward had sown a lot of wild oats in his youth. But he was double smart. To prevent the gossip columnists writing scandal stories about his affairs, he only bedded married women. Their husbands did not complain as it usually raised their social standing and even helped them make better contacts in the City, which brought them juicy contracts.

One of his mistresses was Giulia Barucci. She was so open about it that she went around London bragging "I'm the greatest whore in the world." He also had a fling with Gloria Vanderbilt's twin sister, Thelma, Lady Furness. She was not his first titled lady. At the age of twenty-one he had quenched his sexual thirst with the much older Lady Coke. But it wasn't the real thing so he moved on to Freda Dudley Ward, wife of a Liberal member of Parliament.

Later, in September 1934 (when Wallis Simpson was away on vacation), it is said he dallied with Freda's sister Vera, who gave birth to a boy in mid-1935. After being educated at Eton, that boy become an actor and played the part of Ned opposite Marlon Brando in the 1962 film Mutiny on the Bounty. His name is Tim Seely, and in March 1988 the British Daily Express ran a front page story naming him the Duke of Windsor's "secret son."

In this article, fifty-three-year-old Mr. Seely admitted that he bore an extraordinary resemblance to the duke. "It is something I have had to live with most of my life," he said. But it has not hurt him socially. He still rides to hounds with the upper set-sometimes in the company of Prince Charles.

When King Edward the Eighth abdicated for the love of Wallis Simpson and went into exile as what the royal family described as the "Puke of Windsor," his brother took the throne as GEORGE THE SIXTH-although all his family called him Bertie.

As a child he was knock-kneed so they put his legs in painful iron braces to make him walk properly and appear perfect. It didn't work. To make matters worse, his father, King George the Fifth, was a bad-tempered old bully when it came to disciplining kids and would threaten to punish the left -handed little weakling if he didn't stop whining. That is probably why the highly nervous Bertie became terribly shy, developed an appalling stammer, nervous facial twitches, and a chronic stomach complaint.

When Kingship was unexpectedly thrust upon him in 1936, he told his wife he was terrified he would be unable to cope. Without that wife, he never would have managed. In truth, Elisabeth was the real ruler behind the throne but, just like any loving wife, she gave the outside world the impression that he wore the trousers. Even more shrewdly, she pressed the point that her husband was a shy and sensitive man who, in spite of his terrible stammer and ill health, was absolutely determined to be a good king for them. Pure unadulterated brilliance. No wonder the British public came to love and admire him.

Nobody in the history of the British royal family has ever manipulated the media as brilliantly as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, who was later to become world famous as the "Queen Mum."

In 1940 when Buckingham Palace was slightly damaged by a German bomb, she took full public relations advantage by telling journalists: "I'm glad we have been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the [badly bombed] East End in the face." No wonder Adolf Hitler had earlier told his Nazi propaganda expert, Joseph Goebbels, to describe her as "the most dangerous woman in Europe."

The Queen Mum scored another victory during World War II. With the help of her husband, she gave the royal family the appearance of being typically "English" once more. She helped to condition the British public into forgetting about the German blood in the royal veins and the incredible background of names such as Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Wurttemburg, Teck, Hanover, and Wettin. Yet even today, the real top-drawer aristocrats smile patronizingly at the Royal House of Windsor, saying "They are still Krauts after all, old chap."

Although she was born in England, the Queen Mother usually described herself as a Scot. Great mystery surrounds her birth. It is definite that her mother, Lady Glamis, gave birth to her in August 1900. But incredibly, nobody seems willing to say where. Her father, Lord Glamis, illegally forgot to register the birth, and for that he had to pay a fine of seven shillings and sixpence. And when he did register the birth he deliberately, or accidentally, gave the wrong place of birth-for which he could have been fined under the Forgery Act.

So where was the Queen Mum born? In her wickedly irreverent book Queen Elizabeth, a Life of the Queen Mother (Viking, 1986), the brilliant writer Penelope Mortimer tells us that the odds are strong that she was born in the backseat of a horse-drawn vehicle going through central London (or parked under a lamppost). When asked to confirm or deny this, the Queen Mum answered, through a spokesman, that she "had no interest in the subject."

Way back in 1923, when Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married her husband in Westminster Abbey, she showed that she under stood all about the mystique of monarchy-by agreeing with the archbishop of Canterbury that the BBC should not broadcast the ceremony over the radio. Why. not? Because "Some disrespectful people might hear it while sitting in public houses with their hats on!" She was obviously referring to her disgustingly vulgar working-class subjects, because the more refined English do not wear hats when they sit in up-market hotels and cocktail bars.

The Queen Mother also understood pictures. Skim through any of the thousands of photographs showing the Queen Mum standing outside Clarence House celebrating one of her many birthdays and you will see that she usually tilted her head slightly to one side. Some Hollywood film stars can learn from that clever trick as it puts "movement" into what could otherwise look like a stiff or posed picture. Whenever the Queen Mum did it, she gave the impression that she was nodding to each and every one of us. Pure genius!

Just like Queen Mary, there has never been one breath of sexual scandal associated with the Queen Mother although several gossip columnists forecast she would marry her long time friend, Sir Arthur Penn, after her shy, sensitive, and retiring husband died. But obviously, Sir Arthur was not one of the marrying kind.

The only commoner we know to have kissed the Queen Mum full on the lips was the American president Jimmy Carter. He clearly did not turn her on, as the comment she leaked to the press was: "He will never be forgiven for that!"

When King George the Sixth died of lung cancer in 1952, his daughter came to the throne as QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND. Just like her mother, she has a perfect genius for the right kind of publicity. Perhaps the best example of this came when a TV film unit was allowed to photograph her enjoying a family picnic in the grounds of her holiday home at Balmoral.

The Queen shrewdly made a point of allowing the camera men to film her helping to wash and dry the plates and cutlery at the end of the meal. And, exactly as intended, this down-to earth ploy gave tremendous psychological reassurance to millions of suburban housewives who turned to their husbands snoring on the sofa and cooed: "There you are, you see. She's just like us really, isn't she?"

Without a shadow of doubt Elizabeth the Second is the best queen the English have ever had. The only scandalous thing we have read about her was written by Nigel Dempster, who has long been famous as the high society and royal gossip columnist of the Daily Mail. On the very first page of his super spicy book H.RH. The Princess Margaret. A Life Unfulfilled, (Quartet, 1981) he wrote that when Queen Elizabeth married her first love Prince Philip, she was: "as virginal as her eponymous ancestor."

WOW! That raises a most fascinating question: Did Nigel not know that the queen's ancestor, Elizabeth the "Virgin Queen" who ruled from 1558 to 1603 was certainly no virgin? That she had several young lovers and, at the late age of fifty-four, even started a twelve-year affair with a handsome young fellow of twenty? Really, Nigel, you should never have associated our Queen Elizabeth with a shady lady like that.

To be fair though, it must have been a genuine mistake because the Queen's name had never been tarnished by British press speculation about her love life.

In fact, only one English person has ever dared to mention the subject of sex in relation to Her Majesty the Queen. This was her son Prince Andrew, who once said: "You know, the one thing I can never possibly imagine is'11lY mother and father making love." Randy Andy's comment is said to have made his father "furious" and "outraged" his mother. (Source: Charles and Diana by that entertaining American writer, Ralph G. Martin [Grafton Books, 1986.])

In 1941 an American named Henry "Chips" Channon made the most astonishing prediction. Writing in his diary, he stated that the handsome Philip of Greece "is to be our Prince Consort, and that is why he is serving in our Navy."

This really was an incredibly accurate prophecy because Prince Philip did not propose marriage to Princess Elizabeth until six years later in 1947-and even then, it took the world by surprise.

How on earth could Henry Channon have been privy to such a secret? The answer is that he received it from an impeccable source-none other than Princess Nicholas of Greece, who told him, on January 21, 1941, that a marriage was "being arranged" between Philip and Elizabeth!

This rather contradicts the fairy-tale love-at-first-sight stories churned out by Buckingham Palace. Could this be the reason why Sir Henry "Chips" Channon has been denigrated by many historians as an "unreliable diarist" and "an American snob who was obsessed by titles and money?"

Overseas newspapers and magazines have nibbled at the subject of the Queen's marriage to Prince Philip by claiming (about seventy times) that it was "on the rocks," that he had a long-term woman friend who had an interest in a top-society nightspot, and that there was a gigantic cover-up about his alleged involvement in the infamous Profumo "sex and secrets" scandal-which, in truth, should have been tagged the Stephen Ward scandal.

The son of a vicar, Ward was born in 1912 and traveled to America when' he was twenty. After studying at the College of Osteopathy in Missouri, he returned to London as a doctor and achieved success by giving relief to top-drawer people suffering backache and other muscular problems-such people as Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Paul Getty, Nancy Astor, and Ava Gardner.

A sophisticated and elegant man, Stephen Ward also sketched portraits in pencil and crayon of such famous people as Princess Margaret, the Duke of Kent, the Duchess of Gloucester, and Prince Philip. Ward was not your tradesman's entrance type of artist who was summoned to the palace to do his sketches. He was friendly enough with Prince Philip to have lunched with him in central London. Philip also visited Ward's home several times.

In the early sixties, Ward turned from giving the nobility relief for their back pains and focused on other parts of their anatomy. He introduced them to pretty young working-class "models," such as Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies who were only too delighted to oblige the noblesse by having sex with them, and even dressing up as nannies and spanking their bare bottoms for them.

In 1961 a British Intelligence officer named Keith Wagstaffe recruited Stephen Ward as an undercover agent for MI5's Counter Intelligence Section. Ward's assignment was to persuade a London-based Russian naval attaché, Captain Eugene Ivanov, to defect. The son-in-law of Alexander Gorkin, the chairman of the Soviet Supreme Court, Captain Ivanov was known to be an undercover agent for Russian Military Intelligence (GRU).

Ward introduced Christine Keeler to Ivanov, but the plot went seriously wrong because Ward had also introduced Christine to John Profumo, who was then Her Majesty's war minister. Profumo had several sex sessions with Christine, the most famous of which took place in the bed of Profumo's actress wife, Valerie Hobson. When Fleet Street became aware of this adulterous relationship, Profumo tried to silence them by lying to Parliament that he had never had sex with Miss Keeler and that he would sue the pants off anyone who dared to say he had.

When he was proven to be a liar, Profumo was forced to resign in total disgrace. This made world headlines and brought horrendous embarrassment to the Tory government. To deflect the massive media heat from government, the British Establishment had to find a scapegoat. The man chosen was Stephen Ward, who was framed on a charge of living on the immoral earnings of Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies -although both women later admitted telling lies against Ward after being subjected to police pressure.

Stephen Ward denied all the charges. He said he had first been introduced to Captain Ivanov by Sir Colin Coote, then the managing editor of the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph. (Sir Colin, who died in 1979, is now known to have been a long-term propaganda agent for Britain's MI6.) Ward said he had later been recruited by British Intelligence to persuade Captain Ivanov to defect, but that the intelligence boys had disowned him in order to avoid becoming embroiled in the Profumo scandal. Ward was not believed at the time but, years later, several MIS officers admitted to various journalists that Ward had been telling the truth about being a secret agent for the British.

Anyone wishing to know the full details can read two excellent books on the subject. An Affair of State: The Profumo Case and the Framing of Stephen Ward by Phillip Knightley and Caroline Kennedy (Cape, 1987) and Honey trap by Anthony Summers and Stephen Dorril (Weidenfeld, 1987). Both books convincingly demonstrate how Stephen Ward was framed by evidence produced in a manipulated trial, during which some of the main prosecution witnesses were later shown to have lied under oath.

Stephen Ward cheated the court that found him guilty of living on immoral earnings. He committed suicide by swallowing a large number of Nembutal capsules. At the time, his sketches were on show in a Bloomsbury art gallery and something very odd took place there. A tall, elegant, and well-spoken man walked into the gallery, selected every drawing of the royal family, including those of Prince Philip, paid £5,000, and carried them away without giving his name. The man was never identified although some journalists insist he was Sir Anthony Blunt, the British Intelligence agent (later exposed as a double agent for the KGB) who then worked at Buckingham Palace as Keeper of the Queen's Pictures.

So ended Britain's favorite high society bedtime story. Until 1987, that is. This was when Anthony Summers (co-author of Honeypot) made the shocking allegation that photographs removed from the home of Stephen Ward showed a likeness of Prince Philip alongside various naked girls. Buckingham Palace did not react publicly to this distressing claim, although they let it be known that they considered it "outrageous."

Today Christine Keeler lives quietly in a modest, low-rent apartment about two miles from Buckingham Palace in an area of London aptly named World's End.

Millionaire John Profumo is still a member of high society. After cleansing himself morally and publicly by working for a charity in London's East End, Buckingham Palace arranged for him to be photographed shaking hands with Queen Elizabeth in 1971. In effect, this gave the royal seal of approval to the man who once laid a dubious lady on his wife's bed and then lied to Parliament. Four years later, just to prove that Her Majesty's highly bred, elegant, honorable, repentant and totally reformed former Minister of War really had been completely forgiven, the Queen agreed to the now sweet-smelling Profumo being accorded the high honor of the CBE-Commander of the British Empire.

Another naughty fellow who was given the cleansing royal handshake in public was Major Ron Ferguson, the father of Prince Andrew's wife, Fergie. His sexy saga exploded in May 1988 when the British Sunday newspaper The People front-paged a fantastic scoop disclosing that Fergie's dad had been a regular punter at a high-class London brothel.

Covering its back against the predictable cries of "Lies, all damned lies," the newspaper published a photograph of the galloping major licking his lips salaciously as he emerged from the brothel, which, for reasons of "respectability," called itself the Wigmore Massage and Sauna Club. The People not only told how Fergie's father had paid blonde, brunette, and redhead prostitutes, but also published photographs of three of the girls he had paid for sex and other excitements! One of the girls described what the major looked like without his clothing, including his freckles and "patchy scabs like eczema."

Even more revealing was that during one session with a girl, Fergie's father had asked her: "What does it feel like to be dealing with royalty?" We can't help wondering whether the girl was quick-witted enough to ask him what it felt like to be felt by a non royal.

The sexploits of Fergie's disgraced dad presented the Queen with a major problem. Although she was privately "fuming with anger" about his immorality (or stupidity in being caught), it was more important to put on a great display of royal family unity. Ron Ferguson could not be fired from his job as polo manager to Prince Charles, and he could hardly be dropped socially as this would have been demeaning for his daughter, Fergie, the Duchess of York-as well as reflecting badly on Fergie's husband, Prince "Randy" Andy.

That is why, on June 5, 1988, the Queen gave Major Ron Ferguson that now-famous "royal pardon" handshake at a polo match. Not by coincidence, several press cameramen were there to record the royal "cleansing" operation, and next day, most British newspapers carried photographs of the Queen clasping the hand that had caressed those blondes, brunettes, and redheads. That handshake was a clear royal message to the terrible tabloids, which had been enjoying themselves immensely. It was: "Now shut up."

But five days later, Sun columnist Fiona Macdonald Hull, who is as delectable to behold as she is to read, accurately placed her finger on the public pulse by writing: "The Queen has muddled me. She obviously thinks that perverts who consort with prostitutes are acceptable, while tax-fiddlers are not." (Fiona mentioned tax-fiddlers because earlier, the Queen had withdrawn the Order of the British Empire decoration from Britain's most-loved jockey, Lester Piggot, who had been jailed for failing to disclose all his earnings to Her Majesty's tax inspectors.)

Fiona criticized the Queen for removing jockey Piggot's OBE with one hand "while she extended the other to warmly greet Major Ronald Ferguson." Pointing out that it was the Queen's duty "to set us all a moral example," Fiona said that if any ordinary person had done what Major Ferguson had done, he or she would not be allowed within "spitting distance" of the Queen.

"But when it's one of their own, the Royal Family will forgive ANYTHING. And you or I can either like it or lump it." Fiery Fiona ended her article by stating: "If this is what Monarchy is all about, we are better off without it."

Another married member of the royal family who caused great embarrassment to the Queen was Princess Michael. In 1985 a British paper secretly photographed her entering a London house for an alleged overnight rendezvous with Texas billionaire John Ward Hunt. But this whole affair was solved when Mr. Hunt, being a perfect gentleman, refused to say one word to the British press and flew back to America on the next possible flight.

The Queen then ordered Princess Michael to repair some of the damage caused to the family name by being photo graphed in public cuddling up to her long-suffering husband, Prince Michael, and gazing into his face with absolutely sincere love and total adoration in her eyes. Although she did it brilliantly, most people were not really fooled.

Despite all the sexual scandals and problems the Queen has had to tolerate within her family, her marriage to Prince Philip is perfect-as far as the British public is concerned. They know that their Queen, as Defender of the Faith, is a good woman. She must be, because she is the keeper of the nation's conscience and the guardian of Britain's (fast-sliding) morality.

And publicly, Elizabeth and Philip really do try to set a good example. They are proud when their children score a success, they adore their grandchildren, and Philip is always loyal and protective toward his Queen to the point that we are told her face still "lights up with pleasure" when she sees him walk through the door.

Throughout the 1980s, the royal with the biggest marriage problem was PRINCESS ANNE-though Buckingham Palace tried to convince the public otherwise. When it comes to Anne and her husband, Captain MARK PHILLIPS, we have personal knowledge that the palace is not always totally honest. In April 1973 (when it was no secret in Fleet Street that Mark was in love with Anne), we applied to the palace for guidance in connection with interviewing the handsome twenty-four-year-old Queen's Dragoon Guards officer.

After telling us how to contact Mark, the assistant press secretary at the palace, Anne Hawkins, warned us: "For goodness sake, don't bore him with questions about Princess Anne. You press men seem determined to marry him off to the princess, but they are both on record as having said there is no romance as such."

One hour later Mark Phillips, gave us an exclusive interview, which was published. Mark has been unkindly described as "Foggy" by some members of the royal family who seem to think he is "thick and wet," but we found him to be totally straight, honest, and intelligent. Obeying the palace request, we conducted that interview without once mentioning Princess Anne's name. How stupidly trusting we were! Six weeks later Anne and Mark announced their engagement.

Yet even then we did not expose Buckingham Palace's double-talk. Instead, to keep in their good books (so that they would continue to feed us other stories), we wrote a shoelicking story telling how wonderfully Mark had proposed to Princess Anne. In our published article, to our everlasting shame, we repeated how "even the Royal corgis had seemed to approve" and how they had wagged their tails when the engagement was officially announced. Now there's a perfect example of how a Buckingham Palace tale wagged the dog.

Princess Anne married Mark in November 1973 but the couple, although they continued to share their home in Gloucestershire, agreed to go their separate ways in other ways in 1980, at about the time Princess Anne was pregnant with her second child, Zara (Arabic for "Morning Star"). They led virtually separate lives but, to keep the public happy, they pretended to be man and wife for the sake of appearances. Yet even when they made official overseas trips together, they stayed in separate hotels.

This did not go unnoticed by the gossip columnists, who repeatedly told their readers that Princess Anne's marriage was on the rocks, although the Buckingham Palace press prestidigitators, with hands on heart, solemnly denied any such thing. There was no doubt about it though, because Mark was regularly photographed in the company of various worn en

including the controversial good-time naughty girl Pamella Bordes, who made world headlines when it was discovered that she had increased her' bank balance by spending romantic £500 evenings with various politicians and millionaires she had met while working as a researcher in Parliament.

Princess Anne also made some friends of her own. One of them was her handsome personal bodyguard, Sergeant Peter Cross of the Royal Protection Squad. This affair reached a climax when a Buckingham Palace spy discovered Anne was kissing and cuddling Peter privately, and he was quietly removed by Scotland Yard for being "overfamiliar" with the princess.

At that stage, Peter Cross presumed he had been ditched by Princess Anne because she had tired of him. But later, just before Christmas 1980, when Princess Anne was four months pregnant with Zara, he met her secretly at her Gatcombe Park home and discovered she had been informed that he had left the Royal Protection Squad for domestic reasons.

Realizing that he had been "framed," Peter decided to get his revenge by offering a kiss-and-tell story to Fleet Street newspapers. He is said to have asked for $700,000 on the basis that he had enjoyed a "special relationship" with the princess. He did not get anywhere near that amount, but a carefully worded part of his story was later published by The News of the World in September 1985.

It was a fantastic scoop. Peter Cross said he had met Princess Anne secretly on several occasions whenever she telephoned him and asked him if he would like to spend "a day in the country" with her. Sometimes they met at a cottage in the grounds of Princess Anne's country estate but also two or three times at a friend's modest little house in Surrey where they spent several hours together, completely alone.

Their friendship was such that the princess telephoned her former bodyguard to say she was going into hospital to have baby Zara. Next day, on May 15, 1981, Anne telephoned Peter Cross at his home to say: "I've had my baby-it's a girl. We're both fine." One month later Peter was invited to Princess Anne's home for lunch, and after the meal she took him to the nursery to see the baby. Peter said he had given the little girl a teddy bear he had bought for her and, one year later, he gave Zara a jumpsuit for her first birthday.

Buckingham Palace did not appreciate Peter's disclosures one little bit, and, in an attempt to trash his credibility, they let it be known that he was "a vain man who had indulged in several extramarital affairs." Tut-tut. The News of the World was proved correct though. In September 1989 it was officially disclosed that Princess Anne and Mark Phillips were to be separated.

This "shocked" those members of the British public who had believed all those denials of a marital rift issued by Buckingham Palace. But some of the damage was quickly repaired by gushing newspaper stories that Anne and Mark still "admire each other" and, although separated, will remain "the best of friends. "

It is also reassuring to know that Princess Anne's two children "understand," and that the problem of "sharing" them has mostly been solved by the fact that their son, Peter Phillips (born in November 1977) likes going out with his dad, whereas daughter Zara, who has a much stronger bond with her mother, mostly accompanies her.

The big gossip around London town these days is that Princess Anne will definitely apply for a divorce after paying Mark off with a big cash settlement in the region of $2 million. Not that Princess Anne has any intention of remarrying at the moment. Her friendship with former bodyguard Peter Cross ended in November 1983 when she telephoned him and asked him if he would like to enjoy "a day in the country." He took a raincheck by saying he had a new girlfriend. Peter Cross is now married to Angie, a dental nurse.

The latest man to be linked closely with Princess Anne is the dashingly tall dark and handsome "Tiger" Tim Laurence. Their friendship came to light in April 1989 when a Buckingham Palace servant of humble background who was earning $10,000 a year (live in), became so annoyed by the opulent life-style of the royals that she took possession of four intimate letters from Princess Anne's unlocked writing desk. The letters had been written to Princess Anne by the Queen's equerry Tim Laurence, and, in them, he made it abundantly clear, that he was madly in love with Anne.

Cleverly using a front man to protect her identity, the royal servant sent the letters to Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Sun, the only newspaper in Britain that has consistently proved that it is not at all overawed or frightened of the royal family.

In this instance, however, realizing that they did not possess the copyright to Princess Anne's letters, The Sun behaved impeccably and returned them to the palace unpublished. But word leaked out and the super spicy story was chased by every newspaper. That's when Princess Anne's love life once again hit the fan.

The tragedy here is that Anne is the most honest and down-to-earth member of the royal family. When she married Mark Phillips, it was considered unthinkable that he could remain middle-class Mark without a title to his name. But Princess Anne felt otherwise. She refused pointblank when the Queen offered to give him an earldom, as had been done for the commoner Tony Armstrong-Jones when he married Princess Margaret. Anne said it seemed rather pompous to her that Mark should be given a high falutin' title just because he was marrying a woman who was a princess by an accident of birth.

The same applied to Anne's children, Peter and Zara, who, at the time of writing, are the only members of The Family not to have titles. The Queen was insistent that they should be known as Prince Peter and Princess Zara, but Anne said no way. Her actual comment on this subject was: "They are not royal. The Queen just happens to be their grandmother."

Princess Anne is an original who likes to do it her way. She has no intention of copying Princess Diana's engaging but shrewd way of saying "Cheese" for press cameramen and refuses to behave like a performing. seal for them. She prefers to wear trousers, jumpers, and check shirts rather than flashy dresses, saying she would like to be judged by what she does, not by what she wears. Unlike Princess Di, Princess Anne does not have vast walk-in closets containing thousands of garments, and she does not have a private hairdresser who visits her every day. Neither does she have a manicurist in daily attendance, as can be seen from her often chipped and unpolished fingernails.

The hardest working member of the royal family, Anne hates trotting out much of the tripe written for her by Buckingham Palace. Tripe, because she has told friendly journalists that it's often "ridiculously pompous and even patronizing." She loathes pretentious people and also those who show off or crawl to her. She refuses to have the usual army of royal kitchen maids at her country home and keeps a small staff who help her by "mucking in" with the housework, with everybody wearing blue jeans. When competing at horse trials, she likes to drop her Princess title and asks to be known as plain Anne Phillips. In other words, we admit to having a sneaking regard for her.

Compare all that with the Queen's cousin, LORD LOUIS MOUNTBATTEN, he who was Mountbatten of Burma, Viceroy of India, Chief of the Defence Staff, and a truly brilliant but sneaky man who handled himself and manipulated everybody else so well that he was known as the shop steward of the British royal family. That is until 1979, when the Irish Republican Army blew his body to pieces while he was fishing on a small boat near his magnificent Classiebawn Castle in the Irish county of Sligo.

Mountbatten was not only the most crashing snob in royal history but also one of the naughtiest sex-wise. Yet he always managed to get away with it. Most senior British journalists knew that Mountbatten and his vastly rich wife, Edwina, spent most of their married life jumping in and out of other people's beds. It was also no secret that Mountbatten was a bisexual, which might explain why his wife searched for affection in the arms of well-known public figures such as Indian Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru.

Anyone wanting further details about Lord Louis can read The Mountbattens (Constable, 1989), written by Lord Lambton who is no amateur when it comes to sex scandals. He was a Cabinet Minister serving as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and was in charge of the Royal Air Force. In 1973 he was forced to resign after being secretly filmed in bed naked (and smoking pot) with London's then famous prostitute, Norma Levy.

Millionaire Tony, who now lives in happy exile in a sixteenth-century villa near Siena, Italy, discloses in his meticulously researched book that Mountbatten was not only a charlatan and a snob but also a pathological liar who disguised his ancestry ("pastry cooks, tailors, and pastors") in order to enhance his claims to royal status.

Not mentioned in Lambton's book are the latest and most astounding claims against Lord Mountbatten. Someone in British Intelligence is leaking rumors to authors and journalists that Mountbatten was a Soviet sympathizer who secretly helped the Russians during the Cold War. Equally incredible is the claim that Mountbatten was murdered on the orders of the KGB, as they feared he might have been intending to disclose his role as a Russian agent.

This rumor was ridiculed by some but in August 1989, top British journalist Richard Ingrams opened a new can of worms. In his weekly Observer column he stated that Mr. Alan Clark (now Britain's Minister of State for Defence) had told him the same story about Lord Lambton.

It's a strange world. Apart from Her Majesty the Queen, nobody in the royal family is safe from naughty disclosures these days. Except perhaps the Queen's gentle and sensitive bachelor son, PRINCE EDWARD, who was called a wimp by his angry father when he deserted the famously tough Royal Marines in 1987 because he found their assault coarse.

Being a great lover of the performing arts, Edward decided to learn his desired trade from the bottom up by taking a job as a tea boy working backstage at a London theater. But you can safely bet that in years to come he will end up laying them in the aisles as a famous impresario mounting some great stars in a spectacular musical.

At the moment however, central stage is being occupied by the astonishing antics of three of the prettiest young female royals. This unusual soap opera started in October 1989, when newspapers in Italy, France and Germany disclosed that Princess Margaret's unmarried daughter, twenty-six-year-old LADY SARAH ARMSTRONG, was living with her actor boyfriend Daniel Chatto who was described as "the illegitimate half-brother of the two famous movie stars, James and Edward Fox."

Major London newspapers disclosed this to the British public rather tactfully by saying Lady Sarah was "quietly and discreetly" living with Daniel. Sarah's father, Lord Snowdon, reacted by acidly telling a journalist: "Sarah is a student and Daniel is a 'resting' actor. How can they get married yet?"

Another shock for Buckingham Palace came when it was disclosed that twenty-six-year-old LADY HELEN WINDSOR, the unmarried daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Kent, was also "quietly and discreetly" living with her art gallery boss, Tim Taylor.

As both girls are in line to the throne, these revelations caused severe embarrassment to the Queen because she likes to perpetuate Victorian values and cannot possibly be seen to condone any suggestion that her young relatives are "living in sin." She was horrified when she heard that foreign "paparazzi" cameramen were responsible for uncovering such naughty goings on. They had shadowed the two pretty young ladies night and day and had discovered they were keeping their bedroom slippers at the homes of their boyfriends.

But the biggest shock for the Queen came a few days later when her twenty-three-year-old unmarried cousin, MARINA OGILVY, created the most diabolical royal scandal by telling her parents (Princess Alexandra and businessman Sir Angus Ogilvy) that she was several months pregnant by her commercial photographer boyfriend, Paul Mowatt, aged twenty-four. Mum and Dad quite naturally suggested that a marriage should be speedily arranged so that the royal baby would not be born a royal bastard.

Being a fiercely independent girl, Marina said she didn't want a shotgun wedding and that she was determined to live with boyfriend Paul for a while to make sure they were right for each other. But as Paul did not have any money, Marina asked her millionaire father to buy her a house.

Both parents were appalled at the idea of a young lady royal living in sin while carrying a "love child" (only common people have bastards). So much so that they not only refused to buy her a house, they also threatened to cut her off from the family completely. And, as a little taster-to show they meant business-they stopped Marina's monthly pocket money of $420 and also instructed their lawyers to block her from touching any of the substantial funds being held in trust until her twenty-fifth birthday. To round all this off, Marina's boyfriend Paul was told that if he ever darkened a royal doorstep again, the police would be called and he would be arrested.

Marina was so incensed by all this that she went public and gave her story to a British tabloid newspaper. The very first royal in British history to do that! Suspecting that Buckingham Palace might arrange some kind of kidnap in an effort to suppress the story, the newspaper (Today) spirited Marina and her boyfriend off to a secret hideaway in Ireland. When the story hit Page One, Buckingham Palace leaked some viciously wounding stories to friendly newspapers. One was that Marina and her boyfriend Paul hit the bottle just a little too much because at least $750 worth of empty liquor bottles had been seen in the trash bins outside the love nest they were sharing.

That shaft was presumably aimed at Paul, to indicate he was a bad influence on sweet naive little Marina. But Marina did not escape the vitriol either. Another story leaked to the newspapers alleged that she was not quite right in the head, poor dear. She had earlier gone through a "personality change" you see. And this had worried her distraught family so much that they had thoughtfully placed her in a posh private clinic in Surrey, where she had spent some time having "psychiatric counselling. "

Being mightily displeased by the suggestion that she was off her rocker, Marina made an astounding counter attack by going on television and telling millions of viewers all her problems. The very first British royal to do that! During the program she cried her heart out and begged her parents to telephone her, saying: "I want you to stand by me and love me. I am your child. I want you to understand that this is what I want."

British newspapers had a field day. Some of them lashed out at Buckingham Palace for being "old-fashioned," whereas others said the Palace must not knuckle under to permissive attitudes. The papers were equally divided about Marina. Some described her as "a bewildered and rather naive young mother-to-be," while others portrayed her as "a vindictive and manipulative, Royal brat" who had betrayed her class.

When Marina's parents refused to weaken in the face of all this scandal, she played her trump card and caused another avalanche of bad publicity by writing a six-page letter to the Queen. Starting it with "Dear Cousin Lilibet" (Queen Elizabeth's family nickname) shrewd little Marina begged Her Majesty: "Please help me to save my unborn child." She rounded this off nicely by alleging that her parents had tried to trick her into having a secret abortion during "a routine check" with a top Harley Street doctor.

That did it. Her Majesty the Queen simply could not risk becoming embroiled in a highly religious controversy involving the royals in an alleged abortion attempt. So Princess Alexandra took some of the heat out of the explosive issue by denying she had wanted her daughter to have the unborn baby's life terminated. She said poor little Marina must be confused. In royal terms, that meant: "She's either mad, or a liar."

For some strange reason, Marina suddenly stopped shooting her pretty little mouth off in public. Cynics claim she was paid to shut it. But even then, she still put two fingers up many upper-class noses by moving into the modest terraced home of her boyfriend's parents who live in the relatively social backwater of suburban Kingston. This was a most unusual act for Marina when you know she is twenty-fifth in line to the English throne! Goodness gracious, whatever next? 


Written by Debra Siddons    Friday, 27 May 2011 07:51

If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."
For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-
7/7/ Ripple effect http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/

There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned.
There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority. That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.
The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God.
These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.
To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.
Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.
Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now.
For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR.
So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".
For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit: http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes
By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case.
While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is.
This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also found not guilty).
John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event.
As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record.
And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record.
This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke



1.  Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Fraudulent Coronation.

  1. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film “The Coronation Stone”, (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: “No Stone Unturned” (pages 36, 44), “A Touch of Treason” (page 50) and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny” (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself.  The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at:  http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm .
  1. The real Coronation Stone (“National Treasure No. 1”), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton’s books – “No Stone Unturned” and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny”, and the factory-manager, when I visited him.
  1. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew’s Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the “queen’s” coronation, according to Bertie Gray’s children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.
Link to Daily Record article
  1. The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled “The Stone of Destiny”, “Symbol of Nationhood”, obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Major’s Conservative government in 1996.
  1. As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone, for that and other reasons, that I will go into in great and minute detail later, during the hearing on 9th May 2011.
Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s “authority” comes from her.
Further, and without prejudice to the above...
2.  Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s other Crimes.
Sample Crimes/Points of Law:-
1.      Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called “crown” is attacking the Defendant with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendant.
2.      Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it.  She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so.  She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you.
11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
A Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law). 
3.      Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25).
Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
17:20 That his (the Sovereign’s) heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left…
Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
4.      Removal of the death-penalty that is prescribed as the deterrent for capital crimes in The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; e.g. Sodomy (Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 20:13); Pedophilia; Rape; Murder; Adultery; etc., thus encouraging these crimes, that are now legion.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Etc., etc., etc.
5.      Actually encouraging and promoting sodomy, by legalizing it, then further enacting un-Lawful anti-discrimination legislation, promoting it in schools, and giving knighthoods to high-profile sodomites in the music, film and fashion industries, instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others.
Music - Elton John
Film - Ian McKellen of Stonewall; John Gielgud
Fashion – Norman Hartnell knighted 1977 and Hardy Amies knighted 1989.
6.      Enriching herself in defiance of God’s Law that she swore to uphold, at the expense of her subjects, driving them into debt-slavery (Egypt), poverty and homelessness (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).  Including the collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Fabergé collections, etc.)
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, WHOM THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (see Psalm 2): [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
17:20 That his heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…
7.      Legalising, facilitating and engaging in usury/interest, that has caused the ruin, bankruptcy and debt-slavery of the entire nation.http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
8.      Ignoring the “Year of Release,” where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the “Year of Jubilee” every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people.
Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; …
Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
9.      Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg has also broken God’s Law by allowing the EU, which is not the British people’s racial brother, but is a stranger, to rule over you / us, in contravention of Deuteronomy 17:15.
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
7:7 The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
7:8 But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the Oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth Covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations;
7:10 And repayeth them that hate (or disobey) Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth (or disobeyeth) Him, He will repay him to his face.
7:11 Thou shalt therefore KEEP the Commandments, and the Statutes, and the Judgments, which I command thee this day, to DOthem. 
7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee The Covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers:
7:13 And He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which He sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
7:15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that [will be] a snare unto thee.
7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations [are] more than I; how can I dispossess them?
7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: [but] shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt (and pharaoh ruled the whole known world at that time);
7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
7:20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God [is] among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
7:24 And He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the Lord thy God.
7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: [but] thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it [is] a cursed thing.
8:1 All the Commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.
8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to test thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His Commandments (Law), or not.
God warned His people, YOU, the British-Israel people ( http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm ), in the Revelation/Apocalypse to John, to come out of the Mother of Harlots’, abominable (Rev. 17:5) Babylonian ( http://jahtruth.net/robab.htm ) Market System:-
Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, MY people, that ye take not part in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (punishment).
10.  She has allowed Witchcraft and condoned it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284449/100-UK-servicemen-class-pagans-MoD-reveals.html - and Satanism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm - in her/the realm and in her/the armed forces.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a WITCH,
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a WIZARD, or a necromancer (medium).
18:12 For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God (Matt. 5:48).
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But the Beloved waxed fat, and rebelled: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [withfatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they Him to anger.
32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Revelation/Apocalypse 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my (adopted) son.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
She has given an O.B.E. to Joanne "Jo" Rowling (J. K. Rowling), who promotes witchcraft, thus herself condoning the promotion of witchcraft, and the poisoning of the minds of the nation and its children.
The other and major part of witchcraft/sorcery, that she has also allowed, and probably actually invested in, is the chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is slowly poisoning the nation through chemical-fertilizers, pesticides, chemtrails, vaccines, etc., and other pharmaceutical products/medicines/poisons (witches’ brews / potions) in order to maximize their profits, because they do not make any money from healthy people. That is why there are more sick people every year and a correspondingly higher NHS budget, rather than less sick people and a correspondingly shrinking NHS budget. The NHS, doctors and pharmacists are therefore obviously harming the population, not healing it. http://www.rense.com/general34/quotes.htm http://jahtruth.net/heal.htm
Note well that it states in Revelation/Apocalypse 21:8 “ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone . . .” and the word Parliament means “Speaking Lies” from the French words Parler which means to speak, and mentir which means to tell lies. Also the word Politicspoly meaning many; tics are blood-sucking parasites; thus politics means many blood-sucking parasites.
11.  Each and every single one of the above crimes carries the death-penalty, with public execution; under The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; for not doing so, along with all those who likewise reject The Law of God — Deuteronomy 17:8-13, 27:26; Malachi chapter 4.
Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee The Sentence of Judgment:
17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it to the right hand, nor to the left.
17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thus thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).
27:26 Cursed be he (like Elizabeth) that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to DO them.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (in the Greek Original – pleroo = to fully preach it).
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL (the Prophecies) be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees (politicians), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
James 2:10 He who breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do so is guilty of all.
The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereign’s Bible (Exhibit 2) upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’sCoronation Oath (Exhibit 1) was sworn (all emphasis mine), containing God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1).
12.  Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. That Perfect Royal Law of Liberty was given by God to the British-Israel peoples to protect the British-Israel peoples from exploitation, oppression, poverty and harm, and which God has warned the British-Israel peoples to return to, with dire consequences for failure to do so. Her obscene wealth and that of her relatives, cronies and accomplices must be seized and shared out amongst the poor and homeless.
Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch(nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye (and return to) The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord:
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 1).
13.  The person who purports to be queen was, in fact, as proven above, never rightfully nor Lawfully the Sovereign/Crown. Therefore the Crown/Prosecution/Regina has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s authority comes from her.
14.  In addition, without prejudice to the above, based on God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1) the “queen” is in breach of contract. She has amongst other things accumulated a large amount of personal wealth and done many other things that are expressly forbidden, some of which are listed above, and so she has breached her contract with God and the British-Israel people. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted, the “queen” was genuinely crowned, the breach of contract disqualifies her from sitting and renders null and void proceedings instituted in her name.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg and the Sovereign’s Bible, that is kept in Lambeth Palace*, be present in court on May 9th for my challenge to her jurisdiction and sovereignty to be heard, and for me to face my false-accuser, examine her and have her arrested.

* Class-Mark Ref. No.: E185 1953 [**] Signed: _______________________ 
  Date:  31/03/2011  

Queen Elizabeth II - is NOT the rightful heir to the throne of England  - If this is true, then according to Debrets the experts on royalty genealogy then every law ever created by every government in Britain going right back to the King Edward the (bastard) IV is actually unlawful. This means that every law that is NOT COMMON LAW is also unlawful and cannot be lawfully executed. Which also means that our membership of the European Union is also unlawful and all the laws that they impose upon us are also unlawful as well. WOW, this video has massive constitutional implications for anyone who is intelligent, ruthless and determined enough to use it.

Act of Settlement 1701 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. 

The Act of Settlement is an Act of the Parliament of England that was passed in 1701[2] to settle the succession to the English andIrish crowns and thrones on the Electress Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England) and her non-Roman Catholic heirs.
The act was prompted by the failure of William and Mary, as well as of Mary's sister Anne, to produce any surviving children, and theRoman Catholic religion of all other members of the House of Stuart. The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of convinced Protestants. Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714, at which time Sophia's son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty.
The act played a seminal role in the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Scotland had shared a monarch since 1603, but had remained separately governed countries. The Scottish parliament was more reluctant than the English to abandon the House of Stuart, members of which had been Scottish monarchs long before they became English ones. English pressure on Scotland to accept the Act of Settlement led to the parliamentary union of the two countries in 1707.
Anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, becomes disqualified to inherit the throne under the Act of Settlement. The act also placed limits on both the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to the Parliament of England, though some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation.
Along with the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the successionnot only to the throne of the United Kingdom, but also to those of the other Commonwealth realms, whether by assumption or bypatriation.[3] The Act of Settlement cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament and, by convention, only with the consent of all the other realms, as it touches on the succession to the shared crown.[4]
Original context 
Following the Glorious Revolution, the line of succession to the English throne was governed by the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that the flight of James II from England to France during the revolution amounted to an abdication of the throne and that James' son-in-law and nephew[5] William of Orange, and his wife, James' daughter, Mary, were James' successors, who ruled jointly as William III and Mary II. The Bill of Rights also provided that the line of succession would go through their descendants, then through Mary's sisterPrincess Anne, and her descendants, and then to the issue of William III by a later marriage (if he were to marry again after the death of Mary II). During the debate, the House of Lords had attempted to append Sophia and her descendants to the line of succession, but the amendment failed in the Commons.[6]
Mary II died childless in 1694, after which William III did not remarry. In 1700, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who was the only child of Princess Anne to survive infancy, died of a fever at the age of 11. Thus, Anne was left as the last remaining legal heir to the throne. The Bill of Rights excluded Catholics from the throne, which ruled out James II and his descendants. However, it also provided for no further succession after Anne. Parliament thus saw the need to settle the succession on Sophia and her descendants, and thereby guarantee the continuity of the Crown in the Protestant line.

The Act of Settlement provided that the throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover – a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England, niece of Charles I of Scotland and England – and her Protestant descendants who had not married aRoman Catholic; those who were Roman Catholic, and those who married a Roman Catholic, were barred from ascending the throne "for ever". Eight additional provisions of the act would only come into effect upon the death of both William and Anne:[7]
  • The monarch "shall join in communion with the Church of England." This was intended to avoid a Roman Catholic monarch. Along with James II's perceived despotism, his religion was the main cause of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the previous linked religious and succession problems which had been resolved by the joint monarchy of William and Mary.
  • If a person not native to England comes to the throne, England will not wage war for "any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament." This was far-sighted, because when a member of the House of Hanover ascended the British throne, he would retain the territories of the Electorate of Hanover (in what is now Lower Saxony). This provision has been dormant since Queen Victoria ascended the throne, because she did not inherit Hanover under the Salic Laws of the German states.
  • No monarch may leave "the dominions of EnglandScotland, or Ireland," without the consent of Parliament. This provision was repealed in 1716, at the request of George I, who was also the Elector of Hanover and Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg within the Holy Roman Empire; because of this and also for personal reasons he wished to visit Hanover occasionally.[8]
  • All government matters within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council were to be transacted there, and all council resolutions were to be signed by those who advised and consented to them. This was because Parliament wanted to know who was deciding policies, as sometimes councillors' signatures normally attached to resolutions were absent. This provision was repealed early in Queen Anne's reign, as many councillors ceased to offer advice and some stopped attending meetings altogether.[8]
  • No foreigner, even if naturalised (unless born of English parents) shall be allowed to be a Privy Councillor or a member of either House of Parliament, or hold "any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him." Subsequent nationality laws made naturalised citizens the equal of those native born, and this provision no longer applies.
  • No person who has an office under the monarch, or receives a pension from the Crown, can be a Member of Parliament (MP). This provision was inserted to avoid unwelcome royal influence over the House of Commons. It remains in force, but with several exceptions. (As a side effect, this provision means that MPs seeking to resign from parliament can get round the age-old prohibition on resignation by obtaining a sinecure in the control of the Crown; while several offices have historically been used for this purpose, two are currently in use: appointments generally alternate between the stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and of the Manor of Northstead.[9])
  • Judges' commissions are valid quamdiu se bene gesserint (during good behaviour) and if they do not behave themselves, they can be removed only by both Houses of Parliament, or the one House of Parliament, depending on the legislature's structure. This provision was the result of various monarchs influencing judges' rulings, and its purpose was to assure judicial independence.
  • No pardon by the monarch can save someone from being impeached by the House of Commons.

Acts of Union 1707 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

"Union of England and Scotland" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Union of England and Scotland Act 1603 or Treaty of Union

The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland. They put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain".[2]
The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, whenKing James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain). There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.
The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament.[3] Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world ... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."[4]

Previous attempts at union

England and Scotland were separate states for several centuries before eventual union, and English attempts to take over Scotland by military force in the late 13th and early 14th centuries were ultimately unsuccessful (see the Wars of Scottish Independence). The first attempts at Union surrounded the foreseen unification of the Royal lines of Scotland and England. In pursuing the English throne in the 1560s, Mary, Queen of Scots pledged herself to a peaceful union between the two kingdoms.[5]
England and Scotland were ruled by the same king for the first time in 1603 when James VI of Scotland also became the king of England. However they remained two separate states until 1 May 1707. 

Early Stuart union

The first attempt to unite the parliaments of England and Scotland was by Mary's son, King James VI and I. On his accession to the English throne in 1603 King James announced his intention to unite his two realms so that he would not be "guilty of bigamy". James used his Royal prerogative powers to take the style of 'King of Great Britain'[6] and to give an explicitly British character to his court and person.[7] Whilst James assumed the creation of a full union was a foregone conclusion, the Parliament of England was concerned that the formation of a new state would deprive England of its ancient liberties, taking on the more absolutist monarchical structure which James had previously enjoyed in Scotland.[8] In the meantime, James declared that Great Britain be viewed 'as presently united, and as one realm and kingdom, and the subjects of both realms as one people'.[9]
The Scottish and English parliaments established a commission to negotiate a union, formulating an instrument of union between the two countries. However, the idea of political union was unpopular, and when James dropped his policy of a speedy union, the topic quietly disappeared from the legislative agenda. When the House of Commons attempted to revive the proposal in 1610, it was met with a more open hostility.[10]

Union during the interregnum 

The Solemn League and Covenant 1643 sought a forced union of the Church of England into the Church of Scotland, and although the covenant referred repeatedly to union between the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, a political union was not spelled out.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, in which the Covenanters had fought for the King, Oliver Cromwell occupied Scotland and began a process of creating a 'Godly Britannic' Union between the former Kingdoms.[11] In 1651, the Parliament of England issued the Tender of Union declaration supporting Scotland's incorporation into the Commonwealth and sent Commissioners to Scotland with the express purpose of securing support for Union, which was assented to by the Commissioners (Members of Parliament) in Scotland. On 12 April 1654, Cromwell – styling himself Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland – enacted An Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland which created 'one Commonwealth and under one Government' to be known as the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.[12] The ordinance was ratified by the Second Protectorate Parliament, as an Act of Union, on 26 June 1657.[13]One united Parliament sat in Westminster, with 30 representatives from Scotland and 30 from Ireland joining the existing members from England. Whilst free trade was brought about amongst the new Commonwealth, the economic benefits were generally not felt as a result of heavy taxation used to fund Cromwell's New Model Army.[11]
This republican union was dissolved automatically with the restoration of King Charles II to the thrones of England and Scotland. Scottish members expelled from the Commonwealth Parliament petitioned unsuccessfully for a continuance of the union. Cromwell's union had simultaneously raised interest in and suspicion of the concept of union and when Charles II attempted to recreate the union and fulfil the work of his grandfather in 1669, negotiations between Commissioners ground to a halt.[14]

Later attempts 

An abortive scheme for union occurred in Scotland in 1670.[15]
Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the records of the Parliament of Scotland show much discussion of possible union. William and Mary, whilst supportive of the idea, had no interest in allowing it to delay their enthronement. Impetus for this incorporating union came almost entirely from King William, who feared leaving Scotland open to a French invasion. In the 1690s, the economic position of Scotland worsened, and relations between Scotland and England became strained.[16] In the following decade, however, union again became a significant topic of political debate.

Treaty and passage of the Acts of 1707

Deeper political integration had been a key policy of Queen Anne from the time she acceded to the throne in 1702. Under the aegis of the Queen and her ministers in both kingdoms, the parliaments of England and Scotland agreed to participate in fresh negotiations for a union treaty in 1705.
Both countries appointed 31 commissioners to conduct the negotiations. Most of the Scottish commissioners favoured union, and about half were government ministers and other officials. At the head of the list was Queensberry, and the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Seafield.[17] The English commissioners included the Lord High Treasurer, the Earl of Godolphin, the Lord KeeperBaron Cowper, and a large number of Whigs who supported union. Tories were not in favour of union and only one was represented among the commissioners.[17]
Negotiations between the English and Scottish commissioners took place between 16 April and 22 July 1706 at the Cockpit in London. Each side had its own particular concerns. Within a few days, England gained a guarantee that the Hanoverian dynasty would succeed Queen Anne to the Scottish crown, and Scotland received a guarantee of access to colonial markets, in the hope that they would be placed on an equal footing in terms of trade.[18]
After negotiations ended in July 1706, the acts had to be ratified by both Parliaments. In Scotland, about 100 of the 227 members of theParliament of Scotland were supportive of the Court Party. For extra votes the pro-court side could rely on about 25 members of theSquadrone Volante, led by the Marquess of Montrose and the Duke of Roxburghe. Opponents of the court were generally known as theCountry party, and included various factions and individuals such as the Duke of HamiltonLord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke forcefully and passionately against the union. The Court party enjoyed significant funding from England and the Treasury and included many who had accumulated debts following the Darien disaster.[19]
In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, he received much criticism from local residents, but in England he was cheered for his action. He had received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster treasury for himself. In April 1707, he travelled to London in order to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace.[20]

Princess Diana murder

Was Princess Diana Murdered by the British Military? 

Nico Hines - 08-18-2013 - DailyBeast

Sixteen years after a fatal car crash in a Parisian tunnel, Scotland Yard is investigating claims that Princess Diana was assassinated by the British military. Nico Hines reports.
Was Princess Diana assassinated by the British military? Scotland Yard announced this weekend that they were examining that possibility after the family of a former Special Forces operative allegedly broke the code of silence surrounding her death.

Sixteen years after a fatal car crash in a Parisian tunnel, some argue that questions still remain over the cause of a collision that killed Diana, her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul. Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, and a host of conspiracy theorists have claimed that the British military or the royal family were behind the crash.

Since the closure of a formal inquiry into her death, the British police have not considered any of the theories worthy of investigation, until now.

The latest claims originate from the family of a star witness who appeared in a recent court case involving members of the elite SAS Special Forces unit. In a letter written by the estranged in-laws of a man known only as “Soldier N,” it is claimed that the ex-Special Forces operative had boasted that the SAS “was behind Princess Diana’s death” in conversations with his ex-wife. 

A spokesman for London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed to The Daily Beast that they have received a copy of that letter. Sensitive sections were redacted during the court hearing, but reportedly included claims that the soldier told his wife the unit had “arranged” the princess’s death, which had subsequently been “covered up.”

The allegations will be examined by specialist officers at Scotland Yard, according to a spokesman who said: "The Metropolitan Police Service is scoping information that has recently been received in relation to the deaths and assessing its relevance and credibility.”

The letter in question, which has been seen by Britain’s Sunday People newspaper, does not include any first-hand evidence. A senior military official told me there were serious doubts over the source of the claims. “This allegation was made after a marriage had broken down, based purely on comments that were, rightly or wrongly, taken seriously. That’s if they were ever said at all,” he said. “The case of Princess Diana has had a lot of conspiracy theories bandied about around it—and I’m sure this won’t be the last.”

The first of those conspiracy theories emerged in August 1997, within hours of a black Mercedes 280-S striking the 13th pillar of the Pont de l'Alma road bridge near the river Seine in Paris. The shocking death of Diana, who was 36 at the time, prompted an unprecedented outpouring of public grief in Britain led by Tony Blair, the newly elected prime minister.

Diana had divorced Prince Charles a year earlier, and the horror and anger surrounding her death inspired people to question what had seemed impossible: how could “the People’s Princess” have been cut down in her prime?

Al Fayed claimed that his son and Diana were killed by the British military at the behest of the royal family because they wanted to ensure the couple would never be married. He claimed Diana was pregnant with his son’s child and the royal family was horrified by the prospect of a union with a Muslim family. The former owner of Harrods alleged that the Queen’s husband had instructed MI6 to carry out the hit. “Prince Philip is the one responsible for giving the order,” he said. “He is very racist. He is of German blood, and I'm sure he is a Nazi sympathizer.” 

Diana herself had apparently feared that members of the royal family were plotting to murder her.  A decade after her death, it emerged that she had sent a letter to her butler, Paul Burrell, in which she claimed that Prince Charles was planning to have her killed. "This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous,” she wrote, in the 1993 note. “My husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury.”

Lady Colin Campbell, a former friend and biographer of Diana, said she may well have outlined those fears to a confidant but it didn’t mean she necessarily believed them herself. “If you weighed everything she said as absolute truth you would be hurtled down many alleys,” she told me.”She was an expert in winning attention.” Lady Colin interviewed many of the witnesses to the crash in the course of writing a book about the princess and said there was absolutely no evidence that a nefarious plot had been employed. “You have to look for motive: there was no need for anybody in the royal family to want to bump her off because she had already bumped herself out of the social scene,” she explained in a telephone call. “Anyone who knows the Duke of Edinburgh would tell you that the idea of him busily trying to have Diana killed is just beyond ridiculous.”
In 2004, Scotland Yard’s commissioner, Lord Stevens, launched an investigation into the deaths of Diana, Dodi, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul. Operation Paget, which was completed two years later, rejected the murder claims and found that Diana was not pregnant nor engaged to Dodi at the time for her death.

An inquest that followed in 2008 ruled that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed due to the “grossly negligent driving” of their chauffeur and the vehicles following them.

Dai Davies, the former head of royal protection for the Metropolitan Police, said three separate inquiries had ruled that the deaths were an accident, and nothing was likely to change that. "I am absolutely convinced this was an accident so I'm mystified," he told ITV news this weekend.

Although the police confirmed that they were investigating the latest claims, they said they had not re-opened Operation Paget or their original investigation into Diana’s death.

The most likely scenario, of course, is that the world’s most famous woman died just as inquests in France and Britain had found. Their car was being pursued by a gang of paparazzi and the chauffer, who had been drinking, was driving too fast, lost control of the vehicle, and crashed at a notorious accident black spot in the Pont d’Alma tunnel.

Henri Paul, the driver, had been recalled unexpectedly for a shift at the Ritz at 10pm three hours after his normal working day had ended. He was seen at the hotel bar drinking pastis, a cloudy French aperitif which looks like fruit juice but is usually served with higher alcohol content than wine.

In Paul, the conspiracy theorists found an intriguing character: he did seem to have some dealings with the French security agencies, he did have multiple bank accounts and irregular income streams. In truth, that was most likely because he dabbled in some of the darker arts favored by hotel security guards. That would involve taking small backhanders, or telling intelligence officers when certain people had checked-in, rather than carrying out assassinations. This low-achieving heavy-drinker was hardly the sort of man the British military would select for one of the most daring crimes of the 20th century.

To Al Fayed, the driver’s blood alcohol reading was a minor detail on the fringes of a conspiracy that took in the entire British establishment. He recently put an end to his habit of making grand sweeping allegations but a spokesman for the Egyptian businessman said he was following the latest twist closely. Al Fayed would be “interested in seeing the outcome” of the latest investigation, which he expected to be completed “with vigor.” 


The Stone of Scone/Destiny

Stone of Destiny as it used to be "housed" in the Coronation Throne.On left the Stone of Destiny as it used to be "housed" in the Coronation Throne.

The Celtic name of the stone now in the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey is Lia Fail, "the speaking stone", which named the king who would be chosed. Cambray in his "Monuments Celtiques" claims to have seen the stone when it bore the inscription: Ni fallat fatum, Scoti quocumque locatum Invenient lapidiem, regnasse tenetur ibidem: If the Destiny prove true, then the Scots are known to have been Kings where'er men find this stone. 

A few miles up the river from Perth is the site of the historic Abbey of Scone, where the kings of Scotland were crowned. But the glory of Scone has long departed, for, even in the time of the writing of the old "Statistical Account"...."on the spot where our ancient kings were crowned there now grows a clump of trees." 

At Scone the Coronation Stone or Stone of Destiny was "reverently kept for the consecration of the kings of Alba" and, according to an old chronicler, "no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at Scone, which by the kings of old had been appointed to the capital of Alba." The Stone of Destiny, now in Westminster Abbey (at the time this was written), is an oblong block of RED SANDSTONE, some 26 inches long by 16 inches broad, and 10 1/2 inches deep: on the flat top of the stone are the marks of chiselling. 

Tradition (legend) affirms that it is the same stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel and then set up as a pillar and anointed with oil: later, according to Jewish tradition (possible legend), it became the pedestal of the ark in the Temple. The stone was brought from Syria to Egypt by Gathelus, who in order to escape the plague, sailed, on the advice of Moses, from the Nile with his wife and the Stone of Destiny, and landed in Spain. Gathelus sent the stone to Eire when he had invaded that country, and it was later brought to Scotland where it remained in the Abbey of Scone until, in the year 1296, Edward I of England carried it off to Westminster Abbey in England. 

An interesting tradition (again possibly legend) that had been given me (Seton Gordon) by the Earl of Mansfield, whose family have owned the lands of Scone for more than 300 years. The tradition, which has been handed down through several generations, is that, somewhere around the dates 1795-1820, a farm lad had been wandering with a friend on Dunsinnan, the site of MacBeth's Castle, soon after a violent storm. The torrential rain had caused a landslide, and as a result of this fissure, which seemed to penetrate deep into the hillside, was visible. The two men procured some form of light and explored the fissure. They came at last to the broken wall of a subterranean chamber. In one corner of the chamber was a stair which was blocked with debris, and in the centre of the chamber they saw a slb of stone covered with markings and supported by four stone "legs". As there was no other evidence of "treasure" in the subterranean apartment the two men did not realise the importance of their "find" and did not talk of what they had seen. Some years later one of the men first heard the local tradition, that on the approach of the King Edward I , the monks of Scone hurriedly removed the Stone of Destiny to a place of safe concealment and took from the Annety Burn a stone of similar size and shape, which the English King carried off in triumph. When he heard this legend, the man hurried back to Dunisinnan Hill, but whether his memory was at fault regarding the site of the landslide, or whether the passage of time, or a fresh slide of earth, had obliterated the cavity, thefact remains that he was unable to locate the opening in the hillside. It may be asked why the monks of Scone, after the English king had returned to England, did not bring back to the abbey the original Stone of Destiny, but the tradition accounts for this explaining that it was not considered safe at the time to allow the English to know that they had been tricked, and that when the days of possible retribution were past, the monks who had known the secret were dead. This tradition, it is held, explains why the Coronation Stone in Westminster Abbey resembles geologically the sandstone commonly found in the neighbourhood of Scone. 

This states clearly that the stone is of red sandstone and although in person appears brown-grey, geologists assure it is indeed sandstone inside. They have apparently tested it before. 

Taken from "Highways and byways in the Central Highlands"

UPDATE: The Stone of Destiny 

On St Andrews Day, 30th November 1996, Scotland's coronation stone, the Stone of Destiny, was installed in Edinburgh Castle. About 10,000 people lined the Royal Mile to watch the procession of dignitaries and troops escort the stone from Holyrood Palace to the castle. In a service at St Giles cathedral the Church of Scotland Moderator, the Right Reverend John MacIndoe, formally accepted the stone's return saying it would "strengthen the proud distinctiveness of the people of Scotland". 
Once inside the castle the stone was laid on an oak table before the grand fireplace of the early 16th century Great Hall. The Scottish Secretary of State Michael Forsyth ceremoniously received it from Prince Andrew, who was representing the Queen. 

Outside the castle, under clear blue skies, a twenty-one gun salute was fired from the Half-Moon Battery, echoed by HMS Newcastle lying anchored off Leith harbour in the Firth of Forth. When asked of an official why the Scottish flag, the Saltire (St Andrews Cross) was not flying at the highest point. He replied that because Prince Andrew, (second son of the Queen) was inside, the flag of the United Kingdom, the Union Jack, had to fly on top. 
An alternative view 

Below are printed two articles from JAP. They make interesting reading and enhance the many myths that surround Saint Columba and the foundation of Scotland in general. (A separate note on JAP is to be found at the end of these articles). Scottish element reasserts itself, sustained by a set of myths and legends which have never quite been extinguished. 

The definition of myth here has been set out by three researchers at Edinburgh University's Centre for Educational Sociology, John Gray, Andrew McPherson and David Raafe. In their book – ‘Reconstructions of Secondary Education; Theory, Myth and Practice Since the War’ - they put it as follows: 'We do not mean by myth things that are thought to be true, but that are, in fact, always false; nor do we mean things that are valuable but that are, in fact, beyond human attainment or consent. Instead we use the term myth to refer to a story that people tell about themselves, and tell for two purposes. These purposes are, first to explain the world, and second, to celebrate identity and to express values.' 
Saint Columba and the Stone of Scone 

Columcille (Columba) was born on December 7, 521, at Gartan in County Donegal, Ireland and was later driven out of Kells in Co. Meath, where he had gone to live, by the clergy and he went to, and founded a monastery on, the Island of Iona. Columba ("Dove") was born Crimthann a nephew of Fergus Mac Erca (the then king of Scotland) and Fergus' brother, the then reigning High-king of Ireland, Muircheartach Mac Erca. A High-king who reigned later in COLM'S [Irish name for Columba] career, Ainmire, was his cousin. His father FEIDLIMID, was chieftain of the particular territory of TIR-CONAILL, in which he was born. And his mother, EITHNE, was daughter of a Munster chief, of the line of Cathair Mor. It was only in a time when, as then, the fires of Christianity glowed at white heat, that a man of such, and so many ROYAL ENTANGLEMENTS could turn his back upon wealth, rank and power, and give himself to God. -- "The Story of the Irish Race." The Devin-Adair Co., N.Y. 1949. P.160. 

Columba studied under the distinguished "Finian of Clonard" and, in 551, was ordained a priest of the CELTIC CHURCH. During his residence in Ireland, he lived at Kells and founded a number of churches and the famous monasteries Daire Calgaich (Derry) on the banks of Lough Foyle, and Dair-magh (Durrow) in King's county. As a member of the Celtic church, which was founded DIRECTLY upon the teachings of the Apostles of Christ who reached Britain, with Joseph of Arimathaea and Virgin Mary, shortly after the death of Christ, Columba observed the CORRECT PASSOVER (not the Babylonian Mystery religion's Ishtar-Easter) and evidently kept God's true SABBATH day (Saturday NOT the Babylonian's SUN-day, the day of SUN-worship). That is why the Irish catholic clergy censured him in 563 and drove him out of Kells and Ireland, as recorded by Adamnan. 

The island of Iona, where Columba went in 563, was part of the Scotic Dalriada; colonized and ruled by the (Irish) Scots. King Conal, who at this time reigned there, was a direct descendant of Fergus Mor Mac Erc and of the TIR-CONAILL family. He was, in fact, Columba's own kinsman! To his kinsman the king made a grant of land where Columba and his disciples could build a home and establish a monastery. 

One of the first things Columba did upon his arrival was to visit and pay homage to the Pillar-Stone of Jacob which had been placed in the church previously built by his uncle king Fergus. He then expelled the PAGAN Druid priests who inhabited the island. The non-pagan Druids were converted. Iona had been known as INNIS NAN DRUIDHNEAH ("THE ISLAND OF THE DRUIDS"), and was a sacred spot long before Columba made landfall in 563. 

After a small settlement was constructed, Iona "developed into the most famous centre of CELTIC CHRISTIANITY, the MOTHER COMMUNITY of numerous monastic houses, whence missionaries were dispatched for the conversion of Scotland and northern England...."("Encyclopedia Britannica." 1943 edition. Vol.12, p.573). 

Nine years after Columba arrived in Iona, Conal, king of the Dalriadic Scots in the West of Scotland, passed away. AIDAN, the son of Gauran, succeeded to the throne. Columba was held in such high regard by the clergy and the people; and being related to the recently departed king; that he was selected to perform the CEREMONY OF INAUGURATION on the accession of the new king (on An Faradh - the Inauguration Mound - the Eminence). According to tradition "Columba had been, at first, unwilling to perform this ceremony [crowning of Aidan on the LIA FAIL]; but an ANGEL, as his biographers say, appeared to him during the night, HOLDING A BOOK CALLED 'THE GLASS BOOK OF THE ORDINATION OF KINGS,' which he put into the hands of Columba, and ORDERED HIM TO ORDAIN Aidan king, according to the directions of that book. This LIBER VITREUS (Glass Book) is supposed to have been so called from having its cover encrusted with glass or crystal." ("The History of Ireland," by Thomas Moore. Footnote p.247). 

As E. Raymond Capt notes, "Aidan was crowned king of Scotland in a CORONATION RITE THAT HAS BEEN USED EVER SINCE by the succeeding monarches of Scotland and England. The ritual included a CONSECRATION declaring the future of Aidan's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, exactly as was done by JACOB when he blessed his sons before he died." ("Jacob's Pillar," p.45). 

Columba is believed to have slept on a flagstone in Iona with a rock as his pillow. Being himself the custodian of the Bethel - Lia Fail Stone, it is possible, if not actually probable, that the rock he used as his pillow was the Lia Fail - Jacob's pillow - the Stone of Destiny upon which Jacob saw his visions from God. 

In the year 597 death came to Columba. During the May of that year, he visited the farm on the west side of the island where his brethren grew the crops necessary for the survival of the settlement. "On SATURDAY of that week he visited the great barn in which was stored the community's stock of food, and rejoiced in the great store he found there, which would insure plenty for his beloved ones for that year. With exceeding earnestness he blessed the barn that it should ever hold and give in plenty to the ardent servants of God. Then he said to those who stood around him: 'THIS DAY IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IS CALLED SABBATH, which means rest. And this day is indeed SABBATH TO ME, for it is the last day of my laborious life, AND ON IT I REST. And this night...I shall go the way of my fathers.'...At the end of the day, when it came time for the SABBATH VIGILS [evening prayers], having reached the end of a page, he laid down his pen, saying: 'Let Baithen write the rest.' And his last written words were those of the thirty-third psalm -- 'They that seek the Lord shall want no manner of thing that is good.' 

So that the first words which his successor...Baithen, was to write were: 'Come, ye children, and hearken unto me. I will teach you the fear of the Lord.'" ("The Story of the Irish Race," by Seumas MacManus. Revised edition. The Devin-Adair Co., Connecticut. 1992. Pp.172-173). 
Shortly afterwards, this remarkable man of God, and guardian of the Stone of Destiny, went to his rest. 

The Lia Fail Stone was never returned to Ireland, but, as prophesied, stayed in Scotland where all of the Scottish kings were crowned on it up to 1296 A.D. After Fergus the Great was crowned on the Lia Fail it was moved from Dunadd to Iona around A.D. 563, which is the same year that Columba arrived in Iona; then from Iona to Dunstaffnage near Oban and then later still to Scone near Perth. 

"In 843 A.D., Kenneth Mac Alpin was crowned on the Lia Fail Stone as the first King of the United Kingdom of the Picts and the Scots. One of his first acts as King was to found a church at Scone (near Perth, Scotland) because it was there that he had gained his principal victory over the Picts. 
"King Kenneth 2nd (d.995 A.D.) had the Stone placed on a wooden pedestal in front of the high altar of the Abbey of Scone.... The ancient Abbey of Scone was destroyed in 1559 A.D. at the time of the Reformation. Today... on Moot Hill (the Hill of Credulity) stands a stone chapel, marking the place where the Stone of Destiny had rested and where the kings of Scotland presided over their Parliaments. According to the official Westminster Abbey Guide (book) - 1918 edition, on page 87, "It is said that the following distich had been engraved upon it by Kenneth:- 
Ni fallat fatum, Scoti quocunque locatum 
Invenient lapidem regnare tenentur ibidem."
Edward the 1st of England (Edward "Longshanks" in the film Braveheart) invaded Scotland and removed the Stone to England in 1296 A.D. Edward took The Lia Fail to London where it was placed in Westminster Abbey and all of the kings of England right up to and including George the 6th were crowned on The Stone of Destiny. 

In Westminster Abbey Edward's Chair, in which the succeeding kings and queens of the realm have been inaugurated, is in height six feet and seven inches, in breadth at the bottom thirty-eight inches, and in depth twenty-four inches; from the seat to the bottom is twenty-five inches; the breadth of the seat within the sides is twenty-eight inches, and the depth eighteen inches. At nine inches from the ground is a board, supported at the four corners WITH AS MANY LIONS [SYMBOL OF JUDAH]. Between the seat and this board is ENCLOSED A STONE, commonly called JACOB'S, or THE FATAL (Lia Fail) MARBLE STONE, which is an oblong of about twenty-two inches in length, thirteen inches broad and eleven inches deep; of a steel colour, mixed with some veins of red. HISTORY RELATES THAT THIS IS THE STONE WHEREON THE PATRIARCH JACOB LAID HIS HEAD IN THE PLAINS OF LUZ (BETHEL). Genesis 35:6 So Jacob came to Luz, which [is] in the land of Canaan, that [is], Bethel, 
Some Scots have always maintained that the real Scottish Coronation Stone was a different colour and shape and it never left Scotland; but that a fake was foisted on the English soldiers of Edward "Longshanks" by the Abbot of Scone, who knew in advance that Edward's soldiers were coming to take the stone from the Scots. 

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from all of the facts; prophecies and legends; using the fact that the simplest answer is usually the right one; is the only conclusion that fits perfectly with all of them. 

I know from various sources that there were in fact two stones in Scotland; one of which I will call (1) the Stone of Destiny (bluish/purplish steel colour with veins of red) and the other (2) the Scottish Regal (black marble), for ease of explanation. 

Some of the ancient chroniclers state that the Scottish Regal Stone was hollowed like a seat or chair, others that it was black; marble; carved; sculptured; that it had an inscription; that it had metal bands around it with metal hooks on all four corners by which to carry it. 
There are what appear to be two conflicting stories about the Stone of Destiny and how it came to Scotland at two different times, being brought by two different people by similar but nevertheless two different routes, which most historians have tried to lump together and which, like a square peg and a round hole, do not fit. This has caused great confusion for them and also for the readers of their history books. The reason that these two stories do not fit together is because although they are similar in content, they are in fact two totally separate stories about two separate stones* that were used for the same purpose by two separate branches of the same people that historians have tried to make into one and therein lies the cause of the confusion. 

* It became a common practice for nations to have a special stone or stone chair that they used for coronations. 

One story from the "Chronicles of Scotland" by Hector Boece relates how (in 1300 BC) Gathelus (Gallo) and his wife Scota who married in Egypt; then sojourned in Spain before coming (or their descendants) to Pictland (now Scotland) with the black marble Regal Stone used as the Coronation Stone by the Zarah (Red Lion) branch of Judah. 

The other tells how (in 583 BC - 700 years after Gathelus and Scota) Jeremiah brought king Zedekiah's daughter Tamar "Teia" (Tea) Tephi and the Stone of Destiny - Jacob's Pillar (Bethel) used as the Coronation Stone by the Pharez (Golden Lion) branch of Judah from Jerusalem to Ireland, via Egypt, Gibraltar, Spain and Cornwall and that after more than a thousand years at Tara, it was brought to Dunadd in Western Scotland (the Eastern Dalriada) by Fergus Mor mac Erc in c. 500 AD. 

The confusion has come about because people have tried to amalgamate the two stories, instead of realising that they are about different people and stones (700 years apart). The key to the mystery would be Kenneth MacAlpin who was descended from Teia Tephi from the line of David and Eochaidh mac Duach from the line of Zarah on his patriarchal side and whose mother was a Pictish princess and it was he who united the Picts and Scots into one kingdom - the kingdom of Scotland at which point the two Coronation Stones came together at Scone. 

Then in 1296 when Edward 1st "Longshanks" decided to take the Scottish Coronation Stone from Scone, Abbot Thomas kept the Scottish Regal (Gathelus') black marble stone that had been the throne of the Picts and gave the Stone of Destiny (Bethel - Jacob's Pillar) to Edward 1st's soldiers, thereby fulfilling the third overturn prophesied by God in Ezekiel 21:27. Abbot Thomas was then still able to crown Robert the Bruce on the Scottish Regal as king of Scotland at Scone in 1306 and was subsequently arrested by Edward; taken to England; imprisoned; kept incommunicado in chains until he died without revealing the whereabouts of the Scottish Regal, which was found in 1819 at Dunsinane and reported to have been taken to London. 

There are two accounts of this part of the story from the early nineteenth century of a possible original stone at Dinsinnan/Dunsinane, the site of Macbeth's Castle just a few miles from Scone. One account, that has been passed down through generations of the Earls of Mansfield who have possessed the lands at Scone for almost 400 years, is that farm lads who, due to a landslide brought on by torrential rain, discovered a fissure in the rocky hillside, and, on exploration, found themselves in a chamber containing "a slab of stone covered with hieroglyphics and supported by four short stone legs" The second account was reported in the London Morning Chronicle of 2nd of January 1819, telling how, during excavations among the castle ruins, ground collapsed and workmen fell into an underground vault which contained "a large stone weighing about 500 pounds which is pronounced to be of the meteoric or semi-metallic kind". The report goes on to say that the stone was shipped to London for inspection. Nothing has been heard of it since then. 

It is this black marble stone found in 1819 that is the Scottish Regal belonging to the Scots and it should be on display in Edinburgh Castle or Scone Palace, not the Scottish sandstone fake made by Baillie Robert Gray of Glasgow in the 1920's and left at Arbroath Abbey on 11th April 1951 that Elizabeth 2 was crowned upon; nor the real Bethel Stone of Destiny that is currently held either by Ian Hamilton or his friends and has been since 25/12/1950 and belongs in Ireland, at Royal Tarah, from where it was borrowed by Fergus Mor mac Erc, from his brother Muircheartach the king of Tarah, in 500 AD. 

It's a well-known fact that as London was being bombed by German Luftwaffe during World War 2, contingency safety plans were written-up to protect The Stone. Not until the 1950's was it revealed that the then Prime Minister of Canada was the only person outside a group numbering no more than 10 men, caretakers of the Relics at Westminister Abbey who knew where The Stone was hidden on the Abbey grounds. NO similar plans had been made to secrete away the Crown Jewels. 
The Coronation Chair with the Stone in it were kept for a time in Winchester Cathedral. 
In "Jacob's Pillar", E. Raymond Capt, Artisan Sales 1977, writes, "Dean Stanley, one-time custodian of the Stone , in his book Memorials of Westminster Abbey, sums up its historical importance in these words; "It is the one primeval monument which binds together the whole Empire. The iron rings, the battered surface, the CRACK which has all but rent its solid mass asunder, bear WITNESS of the English Monarchy -- an element of poetic, patriarchal, heathen times... carries back our thoughts ... a link which unites the Throne of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona" (2nd Edit. pg. 66). Capt (p. 57). The final breaking of The Stone would witness the end of the reign of the Line of David and the transfer of the sovereignty to Joseph/Ephraim (Genesis 49:10, 22-24). 

In appearance the rugged surface of The Stone of Destiny is of a steely dull-purplish colour, varying somewhat, and with some reddish veins. It is composed of calcareous sandstone and imbedded in it are a few pebbles; one of quartz and two others of a dark material (porphyrite or andesite?). Its shape is roughly "pillow-like" being about 26" in length; 16" in width, and 10.5" in depth. Across its surface runs a crack and some chisel-marks are still visible on one or two sides. It appears to have been in the process of being prepared for building purposes, but was discarded before being finished. 

In preparation for king George 6th's coronation, The Stone was temporarily removed from the Coronation Chair, and a photograph was taken of it. This photograph disclosed that a groove runs right across The Stone from ring to ring. From its appearance this groove was not cut, but was clearly the result of friction from a single pole being passed across from ring to ring. Such an indentation and wearing-away of material indicates the enormous amount of carrying that The Stone was subjected to. If, as it appears, a single pole was used, because of the weight of The Stone (458 lbs.) it is probable that more than two persons actually carried The Stone. 
Ian Hamilton, a Scottish Nationalist, studying law at Glasgow University; not realising that he was being inspired by God to do it in fulfillment of His Prophecy to Ezekiel; decided something had to be done about recovering The Stone from England, and, when he met Kay Matheson at the Covenant party in October 1950, he found her in a similar frame of mind. He got money from a Glasgow businessman who had been involved in the previous nineteen-thirties attempt to liberate The Stone. 

In the early hours of Christmas morning (clue) in 1950, the Lia Fail (Stone of Destiny) was removed from Westminster Abbey by four Scottish Nationalists:- Kay Matheson, Ian Hamilton, Gavin Vernon and Alan Stuart, and taken back to Scotland, with the assistance of two new members of the team: Johnny Josselyn and Bill Craig. 

Big Ben struck 4 a.m. as Kay Matheson drove the Anglia into a lane at Palace Yard by the Abbey. Ian Hamilton parked the known car on nearby Millbank. She stayed in the car as the other broke into the Abbey near Poets' Corner and made for the Confessor's Chapel. Hamilton laid his coat reverently on the ground to receive the Stone, but it wouldn't budge.He pulled one of the rings, and suddenly it was sliding towards him as easily as though THE HANDS OF ANGELS WERE HELPING. To his horror he realised that only part of the sandstone (porphyry) block was attached to the ring. 
* Towards the end of December 1950 four young students visited Westminster Abbey with a plan to remove the Coronation Stone and take it back to Scotland. Those months of preparation should have been devoted to removing 458 pounds of sandstone from England to Scotland, especially on Christmas day, proves that at least they knew a great deal more about the Stone than most people. They succeeded in their plan. When the disappearance was discovered, the hue and cry was unprecedented. The practice they had on removing a stone of similar proportions in Glasgow (weighing 336 lbs.) turned out to be of little use for two reasons, (1) the Coronation Stone was heavier by far (122 lbs. heavier), and (2) it was cracked diagonally across the surface, and broke in the course of its removal. LIA FAIL or THE STONE OF DESTINY - George H. Thompson and Rev. McKelvey - 1977. 

No Stone Unturned, Ian R. Hamilton (1925), London, Gollancz 1952. page 36, para 3, line 4:- "I examined the Stone carefully. It is a block of rough-hewn sandstone twenty-six and three quarter inches long, by ten and three quarter inches deep, by sixteen and three quarter inches broad. I had not been able to find its weight, but we had reckoned (based upon the practice copy they made) that it would not be more than three hundredweights (the exact weight of their pinkish buff Scottish sandstone copy 336 lbs., made by Bertie Gray now on display in Edinburgh Castle crown room), though we were later to discover to our cost that it was more than four [cwt.] (458 lbs.). On either end a few links of chain terminating in an iron ring . . ." 

A Touch of Treason, Ian R. Hamilton, Q.C., Lochar, 1990. page 50 para 2, line 2:- "It was a great rough piece of sandstone, as big as a sack of coal, and it weighed more than four hundredweight (448+ lbs.)." 

The Taking of the Stone of Destiny, Ian Robertson Hamilton, Q.C., Lochar 1991, ISBN 0-948403-24-1, page 26, para 6, line 4:- "I examined the Stone carefully. It is a block of rough-hewn sandstone twenty-six and three quarter inches long, by ten and three quarter inches deep, by sixteen and three quarter inches broad. These measurements came from a book. I did not measure it. I had not been able to find its weight, but we had reckoned (based upon the practice copy they made) that it would not be more than three hundredweights (the exact weight of their pinkish buff Scottish sandstone copy 336 lbs., made by Bertie Gray now on display in Edinburgh Castle crown room), though we were later to discover to our cost that it was more than four [cwt.] - (458 lbs.). On either end a few links of chain terminating in an iron ring . . ." 

"The Times" - Thursday July 8 1999, News, page 5, by Jason Allardyce, Scottish Political Reporter. 
"SNP pioneer knew the 'real' story": 

A woman who died last week in her 100th year may have taken the secret of the Stone of Destiny to the grave. Margaret "Pearl" Cook, one of the five founders of the SNP in 1927, told relatives that she knew where the "real" stone was. 

    Miss Cook was in the "inner circle" of nationalist supporters who planned the audacious snatch of the stone from Westminster Abbey in 1950. Her nephew Bill Simpson, 58, said that Miss Cook had hinted strongly before she died that the stone handed back was a fake. 
"Glasgow Herald" - Wednesday July 17th, 1996 (News Focus section, page 7). Report by Rob Robertson and Carlos Alba. 

"The X-ray files: how historic secrets over a bizarre theft were finally unlocked before the press -

"In a small reading room at the General Registrar's Office in Edinburgh yesterday, the secrets of the Stone of Destiny were finally unlocked. . . . an after-hours X-ray investigation carried out on the stone to try to prove once and for all whether the one returned to Westminster Abbey was real. 
At the time of the theft in 1950, an endorsement by abbey staff (who had never seen the real Stone) that the correct stone had been returned seemed to satisfy most people's curiosity, despite a claim by Bailie Robert Gray, a well-known SNP activist, that he had kept the real one in Scotland. 

It was in Mr Gray's building (Monumental Sculpture) yard (Lambhill Store) in Glasgow that the stone stolen from Westminster, which had broken in two, had been repaired. Crucially, as it would turn out, he used four metal rods (one per cwt. of stone) to put the (real 458 lbs.) stone back together. 
It was these rods, three (one per cwt. of stone) of which showed up in an X-ray (of the 336 lbs. fake-stone that Elizabeth Mountbatten was crowned upon and is now on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996), that the Scottish Office believes helps show that the stone returned to Westminster was the correct one, although the Government papers do show concern only three rather than four were recorded." 

(Glasgow) Chief Constable Kerr admitted he had become close friends with Mr Gray, Mr Hamilton and Mr Alan Stewart, who was also involved in the theft of the stone. 

In a letter dated August 3, 1973, the police chief said he had lunch occasionally with the men and the theft of the Stone of Destiny was brought up. 

"Eventually, all the gaps were filled in (on the theft) by both them and myself", he said. 
The police chief said that Mr Gray, who repaired the broken stone and claimed he had kept it after the repair, had confessed over a drink that he was worried about getting a prison sentence over his involvement. 
Therefore the stone that Elizabeth was crowned on in 1953 and then returned to Edinburgh in 1996 is absolutely without doubt a fake.  Q.E.D
Heaving it like a rugby ball, he sprinted out to dump it in the car. Dashing back into the Abbey, he helped manoeuver the main part onto his coat. They started to slide it out through the door. Suddenly Kay started the car. Hamilton left the others, ran down the lane and leapt into the passenger seat. What was she thinking about? They weren't ready to leave yet. 

Kay whispered 'A policeman is coming towards us' and promptly melted into Hamilton's arms. So affected was the constable by the young lovers that he spent time kindly explaining where they could find a darkened car-park. When they knew the Anglia's number was also now on record, Kay decided to get her part of The Stone out of London, immediately. 'We didn't break it, you know. It had been cracked by a suffragette's bomb.' 
Not true, they did break it as is obvious from reading Ian Hamilton's book "No Stone Unturned" page 83, para 4,  "I shall not forget what the faint light revealed, for I had pulled a section of the Stone away from the main part, . . ." 

Para 5:- "'We've broken Scotland's luck,' came Alan's awful whisper. 

 I shone the torch on the break. Suddenly I saw that the greater area of the break was much darker than the thin wafer round the top edge (which broke cleanly when they dropped the Stone). The Stone had been cracked for years, and they had not told us." 

Hamilton also confessed to breaking the Stone in his later book "A Touch of Treason", Lochar 1990, page 55, para 3, line 15:- "The three of us heaved at the Stone, tugging and pulling, getting in each other's way. It came out with a thump on to the floor, and broke into two pieces, . . ." 
last line:- "I betray myself. So often have I been asked about that moment, and how I felt . . . we broke the thing." Hamilton confesses again in "The Taking of the Stone of Destiny", Lochar 1991, page 81, para 5:- "'We've broke it,' I said (to Kay)." So the clean part of the break is where Ian Hamilton and friends broke the already long-time cracked Stone. 

A traffic light stopped her outside Harrods in Knightsbridge. When she started off again there was a loud thump. She pulled in. 'Ian hadn't closed the boot properly, and the Stone (broken off piece weighing 90 lbs. - page 119, "No Stone Unturned", para 3:- "that bit of the Stone weighs ninety pounds.") had landed in the middle of the road. I had to lift it back in again'. She got safely out of London. 

Meanwhile, Hamilton had collected the spare car from Millbank. The other two members of his team had vanished. Hamilton dragged the Stone to the car and end-over-end, he heaved the Stone onto the back seat. Page 90, "No Stone Unturned", para 3:- 'The Stone was still lying where the other two (Gavin Vernon and Alan Stuart) had left it. I caught hold of one end, and dragged it to the car. It came without the slightest difficulty. I raised it up on one end, and gently lowered that end into the car. The car went down on its springs, and I thought it (the car) was going to beetle over on top of me. I seized the other end. It meant that I had to lift the whole weight (368 lbs. - the piece that had broken off weighed 90 lbs. and 90+368=458 lbs., which is the weight of the real Stone of Destiny) until it passed top dead centre and I could lower it into the car. I think it went quite easily. I do not remember straining . . . Let the cynics laugh and Archbishops howl "Sacrilege!" but THE HANDS OF GOD WERE OVER MINE (helping me to lift 368 lbs. weight - almost three times Hamilton's own weight of 9 stones 7 lbs.*) when I (read We - Hamilton and God**) lifted that Stone.' 
* "No Stone Unturned", page 44, para 2, line 3:- "This baby, of course, weighed four hundredweights, and as I weighed only nine and a half stones, . . ." 

"The Taking of the Stone of Destiny", page 35, para 5, line 3:- "This baby weighed four hundredweight, and as I am only five foot six and weigh nine and a half stone, . . ." 

** In "A Touch of Treason", Lochar 1990, Ian Hamilton stated, on Page 55, para 3, line 15:- "The three of us heaved at the Stone, tugging and pulling, getting in each other's way. It came out with a thump on to the floor, and broke into two pieces, . . ." 

page 56, para 2, line 4:- "Then we bumped it down the steps (on his coat) to the nave. It was heavy, and three of us could not have carried it between us." (and that is why Gavin Vernon and Alan Stuart had dropped and broken it, and it was at that exact moment, as it came out free from the Chair, that they found "to their cost" that it weighed more than four hundredweights [458 lbs.] and not three hundredweights [336 lbs.] like the replica stone Bertie Gray had made in the late 1920's, that they had practised on before going to Westminster, and which they ultimately left at Arbroath Abbey on April 11th 1951 for the authorities to find, that is now on display, where it has been since 1996, in Edinburgh Castle Crown Room and weighs 336 lbs. according to Historic Scotland's official "The Stone of Destiny - Symbol of Nationhood" booklet sold at Edinburgh Castle). They had originally planned for only two young men (Hamilton and Vernon) to remove and carry the Stone, believing it weighed only three hundredweights (336 lbs.), like the Bertie Gray replica stone that they had practised on and had found that two of them could carry. Otherwise, if they had known before-hand that the Real Stone of Destiny weighed more than four hundredweights and three of them could not carry it, they would have taken at least two more people with them to help carry it. It would have been extremely stupid of them, for two of them to go all the way to London, to try to remove the Stone, without practising with Gray's replica first and being absolutely sure that the two of them would be able to carry it. So they had to have believed it weighed three hundredweights; like the replica Bertie Gray had made in the 1920's and they had practised with; right up until the moment that "to their cost", they found it weighed more than four hundredweights and they were unable to even hold it, never mind carry it, and they dropped and broke it - symbolising the end of the line for the tribe of Judah's sovereignty and the beginning of the final overturn of the sovereignty from the tribe of Judah to Shiloh - Genesis 49:10. Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility that Ian Hamilton could have lifted the Stone into the car and up onto the back-seat, unless, as he rightly said, God helped him to lift that Stone, in fulfillment of His Prophecy, in Genesis 49:10 and Ezekiel 21:27. No other analysis of the facts makes sense. 

Filled with wild elation, he drove South - the police would block all roads North. A good idea - but how do you know which way is South in an unfamiliar town in the dark? When dawn came he was still being misdirected around London by strangers. Incredibly, he spotted Vernon and Stuart (Divine planning and guidance*). 
* 'No Stone Unturned', page 91, para 5:- "We had never been in this part of the city before. They were walking without design, and I was driving in a maze, completely lost. All London was open to us. It was a plain MIRACLE (emphasis mine), yet it did not even surprise us." 

Vernon was despatched to wait while Hamilton and Stuart sped towards Kent and planted the Stone on a grassy bank. They returned to Westminster, where Hamilton retrieved his coat, and worried about what his father, a Paisley tailor, would say about the dreadful state he had got it into. 
Hamilton who genuinely revered The Stone, blamed himself for putting it at risk. Kay had invited Stuart to spend New Year at Inverasdale, but instead he found himself driving South again with Hamilton to recover the main portion of the Stone that they had hidden in Kent. The worst thing for Hamilton was not knowing how much the police knew - surely they must have some information? 
Hamilton and Stuart set off South in the Stuart family's large Armstrong-Siddeley, down frozen roads on packed snow with the AA warning of blizzards to come. There were two new members of the team: the late Johnny Josselyn, and Bill Craig. 

At half past two that (Sunday 31st December 1950) Hogmanay they drove the Stone of Destiny across the border and into Scotland. Later that evening they drove into Glasgow, the whole adventure had cost a total of 70 pounds. They had no idea of what to do with their cargo. 
Hamilton phoned Bertie Gray, and while they waited for him outside the King's Theatre in Glasgow, he munched into a fish-supper, sitting on the Stone in the car. 'I had never been in a more bizarre situation'. When Gray arrived he said: 'Drive out towards Stirling. I'VE GOT THE VERY MAN.' (That 'very man' was John Rollo of Rollo Lathes at Bonnybridge*.) All those involved now faced arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Others were destined to whisk The Stone into hiding. 
* Bonnybridge is the place that has the most reported sightings of UFO's in Scotland and the world, according to local Councillor Billy Buchanan who is very friendly, sincere and is bravely and determinedly devoted to pursuing and publicising the truth. Billy is also very interested in the history of The Stone and my explanation of why Bonnybridge is the UFO hotspot of the world. He has searched the world over for someone to explain it to him, and all the experts, world-wide, have been unable to do so. He has gladly accepted my explanation, as it is the only one that makes perfect sense; as only the truth invariably does. 

The factory where the Stone was hidden was recently (in 2002) sold and is now owned by Glen McBeath and no longer manufactures lathes, but is an engineering works that offers a complete machining service. The factory is now called Rollo Industries, St. Andrews Works, Bonnybridge.

John Rollo had agreed to hide the Stone on the understanding that he alone would know the whereabouts of the hiding-place. Two weeks after receiving the Stone, Rollo was summoned to Bishopbriggs by David Forrester, secretary of the Covenant committee. There he was handed the smaller fragment of the Stone by Alan Stuart's dad. Returning to Bonnybridge, Rollo hid it under his desk, before passing it to his co-director to hide in his garage. 

By March 1951 arrangements to return the Stone were taking place and John Rollo delivered both pieces to an address in Bearsden, where stone-masons began repairs. The fake had to also be broken and repaired, then substituted for the real Stone to be handed to the authorities. The fake, being only three-quarters of the weight of the real Stone, only needed three bronze tubes to repair it, rather than the four that the real Stone needed - one bronze tube per hundred-weight of stone. 

Bertie Gray was a monumental sculptor as well as a Glasgow Councillor and vice-chairman of the Covenant, he produced his replica of The Stone (that he made in the 1920's) from his Lambhill store and helped Ian Hamilton and Bill Craig to place the fake Stone, wrapped in the Scottish Flag, on the High Altar of Arbroath Abbey at midday on the 11th April, 1951 and notify the authorities that they could find it there, which they did on the 12th. 

The authorities then sent the fake stone (with the three bronze tubes in it), weighing exactly three hundredweight (336 lbs.), which was cut from sandstone that had been quarried near Scone in Perthshire, to London on the 13th and Elizabeth 2 was crowned upon it. Since Elizabeth 2 has never been crowned upon the real Lia Fail/Coronation Stone, she has not been officially crowned queen of Britain, in the eyes of God. 

The fake stone, known as the Stone of Scone and weighing 336 lbs. (with the three bronze tubes in it), was sent back to Scotland in 1996, where it is now on public display in Edinburgh Castle. 

So what happened to The real Lia Fail - Stone of Destiny after the Scottish Nationalists removed it from Westminster Abbey, and what is The Stone's final Destiny, from which it got its name? 
Did the police recover The Stone of Destiny? No! Definitely not! We have God's Word and Promise that they wouldn't. 

In 1986 there was an article in a British (Sun?, Daily Record?, The Scotsman?) Newspaper (that I read personally, whilst in Spain) stating that a "death-bed confession" by one of the people/students (the late Johnny Josselyn, or John Rollo who died in 1985?) who helped to return The "Stone" from Westminster Abbey to Scotland in 1950, confirmed that the stone upon which Elizabeth had been crowned was NOT The Stone of Destiny, but was in fact a fake (made by Baillie Robert Gray). 

In 1986, "The Scotsman" carried photographs 'supplied by Miss Marjorie S. Brock, who was treasurer of the 1320 Club (Scottish Declaration of Independence, at Arbroath, dated April 6th 1320), no longer in existence'. One photograph was captioned 'The Stone of Destiny, which has been on display in St Columba's Parish Church, Dundee, since June 1972.' The second photograph was of a plaque which read:- 
The Stone of Destiny has been set here. An appropriate place* for a symbol so venerable and significant in Scottish history. It has been given into the keeping of the Minister and Kirk Session of St Columba's Parish Church, Dundee, by the 1320 Club in association with Baillie (Municipal Officer and Magistrate) Robert Gray, Glasgow, who helped to place the (fake) Stone in Arbroath Abbey on 12 th April, 1951. 

* It is appropriate that the Stone was kept in Columba's church because he had previously been the guardian of the Stone at Iona. 
The name of the Minister of Columba's Kirk who took custody of the Stone at his church at Lochee West, in Dundee was John Mackay Nimmo (now deceased) of the Knights Templar. The stone had been left in Edinburgh's Parliament Square for the Knights Templar to collect, in 1965. Later, when Columba's Kirk was closed, and sealed up as unsafe, by the Ministry of Health and Safety, because of all kinds of rot (allegedly), six Knights Templar were chosen and helped by God to rescue the Stone for Him and the iron-grid cover with the brass plaque on it and they were chased, in their Range Rover, all over Scotland. 
John Mackay Nimmo went to his grave believing the stone in his custody was the real Stone of Destiny, as has been recently affirmed by his widow, Jean Nimmo (Daily Mail, Thursday July 8th 1999). 
Was the condemning of the Kirk (Church) of Columba in Dundee, by the Ministry, a dirty trick? 
Did the "Ministry of Dirty-tricks" try to get control of the "Stone"; after the 1986 "death-bed confession" newspaper article in (The Sun? Daily Record? The Scotsman?) tipping them off, then followed by The Scotsman article also in 1986 telling them, where it was; by falsely condemning Columba's Church as unsafe and sealing it up with the "Stone" inside it, so that the truth could be sealed-in and covered-up and no-one would find out, or be able to prove, that Elizabeth has never really been crowned? 

I have personally inspected this stone on Monday 5th July 1999; the iron grid cover and the aforementioned brass plaque that have been safely and religiously guarded by the honourable Scottish Knights Templar, for more than forty years. This stone is also a Scottish sandstone fake, made to look like a cess-pit lid, to fit the old Scottish legend about Edward the First having been deceived, and fobbed-off with a cess-pit lid from Scone. It was presumably also made by Baillie Robert Gray, as well as the fake that has been on display since 1996 in Edinburgh Castle, upon which Elizabeth 2 was crowned, that I personally inspected on Monday 12th July 1999. Bertie Gray is known to have made at least two copies, and to have given this one to the Knights Templar in 1965. 

Therefore Ian Hamilton Q.C.; Kay Matheson; Alan Stuart; Gavin Vernon and Bill Craig and/or their associates must still have the real Stone of Destiny hidden somewhere. 

But what of the real Stone of Destiny's final destiny, that it got its name from? 

As the Lia Fail is God's Throne of Israel and He knows all things before they happen, we can look at The Book He gave us (The Bible) to find out what that Destiny is and what will happen to the Lia Fail. The following is an excerpt from God's prophecy out of The Old Testament Book of His Prophet Ezekiel:- 
21:26 Thus saith the Lord "I AM"; Remove the diadem (sovereignty), and take off the crown: this [shall] not [be] the same: exalt [him that is] low (Line of Zarah), and abase [him that is] high (Line of Pharez). 

21:27 I will overturn (1), overturn (2), overturn (3), it: and it shall be no [more], [overturned] UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and (4) I will give it [him - Shiloh / Christ (Genesis 49 v 10)]. 

Verse 26 above tells us that The Throne (Lia Fail) will be (was) taken from the Pharez branch (him that was high) of the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem and given to the Zarah branch (him that was low) of the tribe of Judah, who had settled in Ireland. 

This happened when king Zedekiah of Jerusalem from the Pharez branch of the tribe of Judah, was overthrown by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and princess Teia Tephi, Zedekiah's daughter brought the Lia Fail Stone to Ireland and married Eochaidh Mac Earc/Duach/Dui, the high king of Ireland who was from the Zarah branch of Judah in the sixth century B.C., as shown symbolically on the Ulster Flag. 

The above was the first of the four overturns mentioned in verse 27. The second overturn was when the Lia Fail was taken from Ireland to Scotland in c. 500 A.D., overturning the Throne from the kings of Ireland, and the third overturn was when the Throne was removed from the Scots and taken to England in 1296. 

God then tells us in the second half of verse 27, that the Throne shall be overturned no more, UNTIL He (Shiloh - Christ) comes whose Right it is; and that He (God) will give it to him (Christ). If we go to Genesis 49:9-10; we are told that the sceptre (sovereignty) will not depart from the line of Judah until Shiloh (Christ) comes (and then it will depart from Judah). In Genesis 49:22-24 we are told that from Joseph's seed (not Judah's) will The Shepherd (Christ) come. 

The fourth and final overturn began on Christ-mas Day in 1950 when God inspired and Christ assisted four Scottish Nationalists to remove the real Lia Fail from Westminster Abbey for Him and replace it with the fake (Stone of Scone). 

King George 6th knew of this prophecy in Ezekiel 21:27 concerning the British Throne - the Stone of Destiny - and the fourth and final overturn and was vexed and afraid that the loss portended the end of his dynasty, as Ian Hamilton states in his book "The Taking of the Stone of Destiny", Lochar 1991, page 139, "Forty years on" line 8:- 
"Privately we learned that he (George 6th) had a superstitious fear that the loss portended the end of his dynasty." 

George 6th must have known, as must his daughter Elizabeth, that the stone that was left at Arbroath Abbey on 11th April 1951 was a Scottish sandstone fake, and she must have known, from that, that she was cursed by God and never really crowned. After George 6th died, Elizabeth Mountbatten delayed her coronation, whilst desperately seeking and hoping to find the genuine Coronation Stone, but, when it was not found and she had to hold a coronation ceremony, she flatly refused to have the ceremony televised, because she was afraid that people would see the fake stone, recognise that it was a fake, and know that she was a pretender to the Throne. Mrs. Mountbatten was unable to enforce her will and had her hand forced, by popular-demand, to allow the ceremony to be televised, so she set a firm condition upon the B.B.C. that there must be absolutely no close-up shots, and nothing shown at a closer distance than thirty feet, so that no-one would be able to see a close-up of the fake stone that she knew she was pretending to be crowned upon. She must also have known the prophecy, as did her great, great grandmother Queen Victoria, who said that if Christ came to take the Throne, she would immediately step down and give it to its rightful owner, and everyone of them knew it down to George 6th. It is unthinkable that George 6th would not also have taught this to his children - that Christ would come one day and rightfully claim the British Throne, in fulfillment of prophecy. Elizabeth must have known that Christ was already here; because the Throne had been removed from her, in fulfillment of prophecy; and that one day during her reign Christ would rightfully claim the Throne. 

Elizabeth 2 who is descended from the royal line of David from the tribe of Judah, was then crowned on that fake stone in 1953, so in actual fact was never officially crowned queen of Britain in the eyes of God; as God Himself prevented her from being, by having the Stone taken from her. 
This fulfills the first half of the prophecy given in Genesis chapter 49 (the sceptre departs from Judah), and all that remains is for Christ to come from Joseph's seed (Ephraim's line - the English) and claim His Rightful place on God's Throne - Bethel - The Lia Fail - Stone of Destiny - which Christ did, officially, by High Court Writ, in Sheffield High Court, on 13th of June in 1988 as prophesied, and then be given it, by God, very soon, according to Nostradamus. 
Quatrain 10,72
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roi d'effrayeur
Rescuciter le grand Roi d'Angoulmois.
Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur.
The year 1999 seven month (July or Sept-ember)

From heaven will come a great King of Alarm/Warning (Prophet - Elijah - see the Old Testament Book of Malachi chapter 4)

He will bring back to life the Great King of Israel (Christ from the Tribe of Joseph/Ephraim - Genesis 49:10; 22-24 k.J.A.V. of Bible).

Before (warning) after war (Armageddon) reigns in good (God's) time - (the Seventh i.e. the Sabbath Millennium - the third millennium A.D.).

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre (sovereignty) shall not depart from Judah [to Joseph], nor a law-giver from between his feet, UNTIL Shiloh comes [from Joseph-Ephraim v 22-24]; and unto him [shall] the gathering (Union) of the people (of Jack-ob/Israel) [be].

49:22 Joseph [is] a fruitful bough, [even] a fruitful bough by a well; [whose] branches run over the wall (colonisation):

49:23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot [at him], and hated him:

49:24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty [God] of Jacob; (from THERE [is] The Shepherd, The [Corner] Stone of Israel:) (Daniel 2:34-5; 45)
Quatrain 9,32
De fin porphire profond collon trouuee
Dessouz la laze escripts capitolin:
Os poil retors Romain force prouuee,
Classe agiter au port de Methelin.

At last the profound porphyry* column is found (Lia Fail/Stone of Destiny),
Inscriptions of the Capitol (about the Scots) under the base;
Bones, twisted hair, the Roman strength tried,
The fleet is stirred at the port of Mitylene (Greece) (Q. 3,47). 

* purplish stone that the real Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny is made from. Porphyry - Kinds of rocks with crystals embedded in . . . [f. Gk. purple] - Oxford Dictionary - 1969. 

Regarding the Stone, "Professor Edward F. Odlum (1850-1935), B.A.; M.A.; B.Sc.; F.R.G.S.; F.A.S.; F.R.C.I., Inst.; F.A.G.S.; a geologist; scientist; educator, and lecturer -- University of Victoria College, Cobourg, (now located in the University of Toronto), Ontario, Canada, was "intrigued with the idea that perhaps its source could be found in Palestine, as suggested by the ancient records of Ireland. Professor Odlum discovered a stratum of sandstone near the Red Sea at Bethel in Palestine geologically the same as the Coronation Stone. British Royal geneology traces its heritage to all the Royal households throughout Europe from the Spanish Monarchy to the last Royals of Russia and the Danes, Swedes and nearly every monarch in between. 

"One of the most significant facts about the Coronation Stone is that no similar rock formation exists in the British Isles. Professor Totten -- Science, Yale University, after making a thorough examination of the Stone made the following statement: "The analysis of The Stone shows that there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona where-from a block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet from Tara." The sandstone in Scotland and Ireland is dissimilar to the Stone. 

"The Stone, weighing over 300 pounds (458 lbs.), is rectangular being about 26" in length; 16" in width; and, 10.5" in depth. Across its surface runs a crack and some chisel-marks are still visible on one or two sides. There are two large iron rings (or some rust resistant alloy), one at each end of the Stone which hang loosely from eyes, made of similar metal let into the Stone." (E. Raymond Capt, "Jacob's Pillar", Artisan Sales, 1977, p. 58-59) 
excerpt from:-
The Story of Ireland - 1905 (before 25/12/1950) 
re-published in "Destiny" magazine in May 1946 
By Professor C. A. L. Totten - Science, Yale University 
from Part III, page 166

The coronation chair is a large, solid old-fashioned chair, at least 600 years of age.  In place of castors it is supported by four carved lions facing outwards.  About nine inches from the floor there is a shelf or bottom board, and between it and the chair's seat, sitting on it as on a shelf, is the coronation stone.  In its present shape it is an oblong block of stone some 26-27 inches long, 16-17 inches broad, and 10-11 inches deep, and is of a bluish-steel color, mixed with veins of red.  At each end there is a large iron ring, much worn and rusted.  They have the appearance of being intended for handles to assist in transporting.  The stone is old and looks ready to crack into pieces.  It has rested in its present place for 610 years. (1296-1906.  Original date of publication.)  In the treaty of Northampton, made subsequent to the conquest of Scotland (1328), it was decided that England should return to the Scots what they had stolen (Edward 1st).  But did they do it?  No.  For while they gave up the records and royal regalia, they utterly refused to yield up the old ragged stone.  At the same time the Scots would have preferred to have lost all else and saved it. 
 Mr. Lowerley, geologist, gives the characteristics of The Stone as follows: 
 "A sandy granular stone; a sort of sienite, chiefly of quartz; with light debris of sienite, chiefly of quartz, with light and reddish brown felspar, and also light and dark mica, with probably some dark green hornblende intermixed; some fragments of a reddish grey clay slate, or shist, are likewise included in its composition." (Please read again the Oxford Dictionary definition of Porphyry above and compare it with this description. - JAH)

 Futile attempts have been made to trace the origin of the stone to Scottish quarries and to those of Ireland. 
The stone on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996; upon which Elizabeth 2 was crowned in 1953; is of a different colour; made not from porphyry/quartz weighing 458 lbs. but from "pinkish-buff" Perthshire sandstone, weighing only 336 lbs. according to Historic Scotland's official "The Stone of Destiny - Symbol of Nationhood" booklet sold at Edinburgh Castle; it has no pole wear-mark between the metal carrying rings like the pre-1950 original has; no Latin distich engraved upon it and therefore is obviously a fake. 

Quatrain 8,29
Au quart pillier l'on sacre Saturne.
Par tremblant terre & deluge fendu
Soubz l'edifice Saturnin trouvee urne,
D'or Capion ravi & puis rendu. 

At the FOURTH dedication of the Pillar (Lia Fail) to Saturn (the Protector of Israel - God*)
split by earthquake and by flood;

Under Saturn's (the Protector of Israel's) building an Urn is found
Gold carried off by Caepio and then restored. 

*Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn (1st - Jerusalem to Tara), overturn (2nd - Tara to Scotland), overturn (3rd - Scotland to England), it (the Throne/Stone of Destiny: and it shall be no [more], [overturned] UNTIL (the FOURTH overturn) he come whose Right it is; and I (God) will give it [him - Shiloh/Christ (Gen. 49 v 10)]. 
Quatrain 5,75
Montera haut sur le bien plus dextre,
Demourera assis sur la pierre quarree,
Vers le midy pos sa senestre,
Baston tortu en main bouche serree.

He (Christ) will rise high over the estate more dextrous,
He will remain seated on the square stone (of Destiny),
Towards the South facing to his left (towards Jerusalem),
The crooked staff (of Aaron) in his hand his mouth sealed. 
To be completed after I find the Stone for Christ . .
.according to Nostradamus Quatrain 10,72 above. 
So if ever ye come on a Stane wi' a ring 
Just sit yersel' doon and proclaim yersel' King. 
For there's nane wid be able tae challenge yer claim 
That ye'd crowned yersel' King on the Destiny Stane. 

Johnny McEvoy 
This poem by Johnny McEvoy states the only way to prove who is the Rightful Sovereign of the British peoples and also which is the real Stone, because the real Stone of Destiny, according to legend, has a very special and unique quality. Whenever there is a dispute about who is the Rightful Sovereign of His people, God makes the Stone scream when the Rightful Sovereign touches the real Stone of Destiny. This scream can be heard from coast to coast, so that everyone hears it and there can no longer be any doubt or dispute. 

Ian Hamilton; Kay Matheson and friends should now bring out the real Stone of Destiny and facilitate a contest between Elizabeth 2 and Christ, the King of kings, the Rightful Sovereign whom Elizabeth swore to kneel and serve when she was crowned in 1953, but then, in an enormous act of treachery and treason against God, refused to do so and had Christ's High Court Writ demanding the Throne rejected, under her illegal laws, in 1988. Ian Hamilton and friends will then; instead of being prosecuted by Elizabeth 2; be given a "Royal Pardon" by Christ and be thanked for physically helping him to remove The Stone from Elizabeth 2 and keeping it safely out of her grasp. 
The returning of the Lia Fail to Ireland by Ian Hamilton would unite the Scots and Irish and bring peace to the province of Ulster, as Hamilton himself desires. It would do this because it would reveal their common heritage and stock: both being from the same Scottish and Pictish (Cruithne) ancestors and descended; like their racial cousins the Irish Danites; from the Ten "lost" Tribes of Israel, having been wrongfully divided by the influence of outside forces, both English and Roman for their own political gain. 
"One final note: In the Scottish National Library there is a Gaelic manuscript (by Dugald the Scot, son of McPhail, in A.D. 1467) containing the complete genealogies of the Scottish kings, showing their descent through the Irish kings by way of Judah, Jacob-Israel and Isaac back to Abraham. 
In Windsor Castle there is also a genealogical table showing the descent of the British kings from David through the Irish and Scottish lines. Thus the Monarchy existed long before there was a British Nation." Capt (p. 55)  

Columba of Kells and Iona by JAH
Columba or CrimthannColumba (real name Crimthann) was born a prince; on December 7, 521 A.D., at Gartan in County Donegal; a nephew of Fergus Mor Mac Erca (the then king of Scotland) and Fergus' brother, the then reigning High-king of Ireland, Muircheartach Mac Erca. His father Feidlimid, descended from the Ui Neill, was chieftain of the territory of Tir-Conaill, in which he was born. And his mother, Eithne, from royal ancestry in Leinster, was daughter of a Munster chief, of the line of Cathair Mor. It was only in a time when, as then, the fires of Christianity glowed at white heat for some, that a man of such, and so many royal entanglements could turn his back upon wealth, rank and power like Moses had done, and give himself to God. 

Columba came to Kells and built his house into the grave-mound of the great Ith Cian king of Spain. He did this because he greatly revered Ith Cian; from whose name Cian aneas Mor, or Kells as it is known today, takes its name; and he wanted to be near to his grave, so he could try to communicate with him; absorb his energy and seek knowledge from him. If the original grave of Ith Cian was a stone cairn, then it is probable that the stones of Ith Cian's Cairn were used to build the present Columba's House. 

Diarmuid Mac Caroll ( Cerbaill), High king of Tara from 539 until 558, is said to have granted the dun of Cenannus to Columba in the sixth century for the purpose of establishing a monastery but it appears that the grant took place after the death of Diarmait.  

Columba's House, Kells

 This revering of Ith Cian by Columba is confirmed by his prophecy titled Senanus (Cian aneas - "Cian from the South") in which the physical Second-Coming of Christ, to be King of Ireland, is foretold: an event that will finally defeat the English Davidic monarchy, unite Ireland under Christ's Sovereignty and bring peace and prosperity to all of its people.
SENANUS (ra chan - riot). 
Impart to me (Columba), O Senanus (Cian aneas Mor),
Information concerning the latter ages of the world;
What shall be the condition of the race of people,
Who will not observe rectitude in their judgments. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
The King (Christ) son of Saxon will come
To join them across the sea;
He will part with the sovereignty
Of the Gall in the country whence he will come. 
The Galls and the Gaels of Ireland,
Will unite in one confederation;
Against the forces of the Saxons,
Their confederacy cannot be dissolved. 
The King (Christ) son of Saxon (Isaac's sons) will come
At the head of his forces;
In consequence of the protection he will extend to them,
Ireland shall be freed from her fears. 
One monarch (Christ) will rule in Ireland,
Over the Galls and the pure Gaels;
From the reign of that Man,
The people shall suffer no destitution.
  Columba's House at KellsColumba and his niece the , who made Kells world-famous and without whom no-one outside of it would ever have heard of Kells, followed, as closely as he was able, from the information he had, the true teaching of Christ, as it had been brought to the British Isles by Jesus' own Disciples (the Culdees), who came with "the rich man" Joseph of ArimathaeaVirgin Mary and continued Jesus' work of founding and establishing the first christian community in the world, at Glastonbury, in Britain, as has been confirmed by numerous Vatican Councils. 

They came to the British Isles, where Jesus had grown up; for safety, because it was the only place not under Roman domination, when they fled the Holy Land during the Roman persecution of "The Followers of The Way (Christ)" and Mary returned home to her native England. The Blessed Virgin Mary; like Columba was in Ireland, in his day; was a member of the English royal family of her day. Jesus had commanded his twelve disciples (including Peter) not to go into the way or cities of the Gentiles (including Rome which Peter never even visited) but to go to the lost sheep of the "House of Israel" - the Ten "Lost" Tribes, which is another good reason why they came to the British Isles. Brit means The Covenant in Hebrew and in Welsh and British Isles means the Islands of The Covenant People - the Israelite People.
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the "House of Israel".
Columba was tall and striking, powerfully built and with a dominating personality. He was a man of obvious ability with the skills of a poet and scholar as well as a natural leader. He was perhaps the greatest of all the Irish monks and certainly the most famous. 

He was regarded by his contemporaries as a visionary, capable of astonishing predictions; prophecies and insights, reputedly a worker of miracles, a spiritual father-figure of awesome authority and undoubtedly very charismatic. He was known to be warm-hearted; generous and talented, with a hatred of injustice and oppression.

Columba ("Dove") faithfully kept the true Sabbath (Saturday) and The Passover, as Jesus taught his true followers to do, before Christ's teachings became corrupted by Simon Pater, the sorcerer in the Book of Acts, and by others. It was Simon Pater; not Simon Peter who condemned him; that went to Rome. Simon Pater incorporated the teachings of Babylon into the Gospel and corrupted the teaching, by forming an organised-religion with priests worshipping on the Babylonian sun-worship religion's day of worship - SUNday; and celebrating the Sun Festival of Yuletide and the worship of Ishtar / Easter, a Babylonian goddess of fertility; hence "Ishtar Eggs", a fertility symbol, instead of celebrating the Passover with the sacrificial lamb, as Jesus did. The "Last Supper" was at Passover, not Ishtar, as explained in my Booklet "Passover Lamb not Easter Bunny." Easter/Ishtar is held at a different time of year and has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. 
This adherance to the true teaching of Jesus put the Prophet Columcille ("Dove") into conflict with the Roman church and they held a synod in 563 A.D., at nearby Teltown, to censure him, as a direct result of which he left Kells and his native Ireland and went to live on Iona (Jonah - "Dove"), where his uncle king Fergus Mor Mac Erc had built a church, wherein had been placed the Lia Fail Stone, that Fergus had taken from Tara to Scotland, for himself to be crowned upon. Columcille named a hill on Iona: "Cairn of the Back to Ireland", to leave a permanent reminder, that would forever show his disgust, at his treatment by the Irish clergy.

Iona and the Cairn of the Back to Ireland.
Cairn on Iona
The first thing that Columba did on arriving at the Port of the Coracle in Columba's Bay on Iona was to go to his uncle Fergus's church and pay homage to the Lia Fail Stone, which he knew was destined one day, in the far distant future, to be the Throne of Christ's Glory on Earth, at Tara, in Ireland. This was also confirmed by the French Prophet Nostradamus in the sixteenth century, as can be seen in JH’s Booklet "The Prophecies of Nostradamus affecting Meath."
Once established on Iona, where he became custodian of the Lia Fail Stone, Columba set about making his famous Book of Kells in order to give people what he considered to be the true Gospel and so did not include in it things that he knew had already been corrupted by the church, in order to justify the church's own existence, in direct contradiction of Christ's commands to the faithful. He therefore limited the Book of Kells to the Four Gospels.
Detail from the Book of KellsThe Book of Kells. 
Columba is believed to have slept on a flagstone in Iona with a rock as his pillow. Being himself custodian of the Bethel - Lia Fail Stone, it is probable, as Columba too had visions from God, that the rock he used as his pillow was the Lia Fail - Jacob's pillow - the Stone of Destiny upon which Jacob saw his visions from God. There is a stone, in the museum at the abbey on Iona, that is wrongly thought to have possibly been Columba's stone pillow.

 It must always have been his (and God's) intention for his Book or a copy of it to return to Kells, to try to enlighten the people of Kells, whom he loved and never forgot, and to haunt the clergy who had driven him out, which is exactly what happened around 800 A.D. 

There is a possibility that from Iona along with his Book came his flagstone bed, because a relic known as Columba's Bed which was a stone slab six feet long and one foot thick, was kept in the roof space of Columba's House in Kells, until it was stolen in the 20th century. 

His final counsel to his monks in Iona before he died, was: "Be at peace with one another and cherish sincere charity. If you follow the example of The Holy Father, God, the comforter of the good, will assist you and he (the Comforter) will intercede for you. He will not only minister to your needs in this life but will bestow upon you the eternal rewards that are prepared for those who obey His Commandments."

The booklet, that they represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel to whom Jesus commanded that the Gospels were to be preached; the Eagle being the emblem of In the Book of Kells he placed the Four Symbols that no-one except me (JAH) has ever been able to correctly interpret; the Man, the Lion; the Calf and the Eagle. Every historian world-wide has said that they represent the four disciples; as confirmed by historian William Battersby of Navan in his book on this subject; but the historians are all wrong. It is explained in my "Kells and Teltown"Dan, the fifth tribe of Israel - the Irish and Dan-ish people. So Columba was obeying Christ by placing the four symbols in his Book.
The wilderness Tabernacle Encampment showing the Four Symbols.
Drawing of Wilderness Tabernacle Encampment
The Four Symbols - Brigade Standards of the Twelve Tribes of Israel 

The Book known as "The Chief Relic of the Western World" was kept in Columba's church porticus, in Kells, from where it was stolen in 1007 A.D., and, along with the gold cover of the Book, the last few pages of the Gospel of John; that include Peter's denial of Jesus, talk specifically about Christ's thorough interrogation of Peter, about whether Peter loved Christ or not; were removed. 

These pages, written under the direction of the Prophet Columcille, were more accurate than in the church's authorised version and so posed a threat to the clergy, who Columba prophesied would only be interested in wealth and power and not in following Christ, without hesitation.
Senanus (Cian aneas - Kells):- 
The clergy of the holy church,
Will be addicted to pride and injustice;
The advantages they will aim at,
Shall be the possession of worldly substance.
Between the sixth and eighth centuries a reform movement occurred, that of the Culdees (from Celi De or Culdich), and Columba was a leading reformer. The term Celi De has been translated as spouse or companion of God and Culdich as the "Servants of God" and "Certain Strangers", particularly strangers from a distance (the fleeing Disciples and Joseph of Arimathaea). The later Culdees wished to return to the stricter standards of the sixth century that had been set by Columba, whom they regarded as a model. But they were a minority group and did not succeed in influencing the wealthy churches. Between the seventh and twelfth centuries the church grew rich, just as Columba had prophesied and Kells became known as the "Splendour of Ireland." 

At the time of Columba, in Ireland as elsewhere, only a small number of monks were priests. Learning in the monastic schools was based on the Scriptures and not on church doctrine; rituals and dogma. Columba, the most famous of the founders of monasteries, was himself not a priest of the Roman church, but had been ordained as a minister of the Celtic christian church, whilst he was in Ireland. On Iona he became a Culdee (Servant of the Lord) rather than be a priest, as Jesus had commanded his disciples not to be priests (Matthew 23:8). 

Monks loved the Book (Bible) as a messenger of the Word of God and regarded their ascetic life as a sacrifice of the "Self", through prayer; study and manual work, in stark contrast to the rich priests and churches. Columba, even during his lifetime, enjoyed great respect, having renounced his high birth and wealth, preferring to serve God, than to be served by others, as Jesus had taught his disciples who came to Britain as the Culdees. 

It was for holding these same principles that; as prophesied by Nostradamus in his Quatrain 3,65; pope John Paul the First was murdered on September the 28th in 1978, after only 33 days in office, in order to protect the church's obscene wealth, that John Paul the First had sworn to give back to the poor that it had been taken from. 

It is also reputed that the Culdees (Servants of the Lord) in the British Isles, including Iona where Columba preached; who were considered by the Roman Church to be a threat to them; had a secret book written  by the Apostle John (probably the correct version of his Gospel which Columba included in the Book of Kells and his 3rd Book of Revelation). 

The 3rd Book of Revelation is available as part of the "King of kings' Bible", currently available exclusively from - http://i.am/jah/kofkad.htm 

So, the question has to be asked. Was the theft of the Book of Kells an "inside job", done by members of the clergy to protect their wealth and power? If so, then the gold cover would have to go missing, to make it look like a robbery. How would a thief obtain access to such a priceless Book that had taken so many years to complete? 

The "stolen" (?) Book of Kells was found three months later in the Abbey-field reputedly behind the Christian Brothers house in Kells and was pretty much undamaged, with just the few last pages of John's Gospel missing*. Why only those few pages? Why would the thief not keep the whole Book or destroy it all? Why just these few pages? Were there also notes and warnings from Columba taken from the Culdees' secret Book of John, to and about the church at the back of the Book of Kells, that were also removed? Did it also contain John's Third Book of the Apocalypse Revelation in which Christ condemns all the Priests of the Earth and teaches about re-incarnation and the time of the Second Coming, as being around the year 2000? To quote Shakespeare - Something smells fishy in the state of Dan's mark - the Tuatha de Danaan - the Irish ancestors). 
* Some sources say that possibly up to 60 pages are missing from the Gospel of John. The last verse in the Book of Kells is reputed to be John 17:13, which is as follows:- And now come I to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my Joy fulfilled in themselves. 
The missing pages start with verse 14 onwards; verses 14-17 are as follows:-
John 17:14 I have given them Thy Word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17:15 I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil (one - Lucifer), [in the world].

17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17:17 Sanctify them through Thy Truth: Thy Word is Truth. 

The known section of the Gospel of John that was removed is the section where Jesus, the Lord, contradicts the church's teaching and shows its entire foundation to be only made of, and built on, sand. 

It contains the following ten major points:- 
1. Disciples would be sanctified through the Truth; the word of God in the Bible; not through a priesthood, exactly as Columba taught. 

2. The Twelve Disciples were to remain on Earth, being re-incarnated (John 9:1-2; 5:14) until Christ comes again. This would have destroyed the Church's lucrative business, which says that anyone who gives money to them automatically goes straight to heaven, where Peter has the keys to the Pearly Gates. Peter has never gone to heaven, as he knew he wouldn't, because he had been told so by Jesus and so he asked about John, "If we are all to stay here on Earth; what [shall] this man do?"
John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he (also) tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.
3. Jesus told Peter that the Holy Grail was not a physical object but the "bitter cup" he had been given by Father and must drink: the Self-sacrifice of the Crucifixion, that they and everyone must take up their cross daily and drink, before they could go to heaven.
John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the "Cup" which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (the "Holy Grail")
4. Peter, even after already having been severely reprimanded, in front of everyone, and told, "Get thee behind me Satan" (in Matthew 16), still draws his sword and yet again tries, for Satan, to prevent God's Will from being carried out.
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
5. It contains also Peter denying three times that he even knew Jesus. 

6. The truth about Bar Abbas - the Son of Abbas (Father), which would indicate that Jesus was married because he could not have a son unless he was married. That son could be either his own flesh and blood or his step-son, but, either way, he would have had to have been married for that to be the case. 

7. The Truth that Jesus was not poor because he had a coat that was finely woven without seams and was so desirable that the Romans drew lots for it. 

8. The truth also about Mary not being a perpetual virgin; having married Alphaeus Cleophas after Joseph's death and having had at least seven children:
- Jesus; James; Jude; Simon; Joses and at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55-56) one of whom was called Salome (Mark 15:40).
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Jude?

13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
9. That the rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea, was his close blood-relative, or he could not legally have approached Pilate to claim the body. 

10. That Peter did not love Jesus. 

The correct version of the last few pages of John's Gospel that prove Peter did not love Jesus are as follows:-
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Lord; thou knowest that I like thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonah ("Dove"), lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Lord; thou knowest how much I like thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonah, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

In the correct translation quoted above, which is what it said in the Book of Kells, Peter admitted that he did not love Christ; he only liked him a lot and the Roman church claims to have built itself upon Peter; instead of on Christ. 

Christ knew the Romans would do this and so left his command that Peter must not visit Rome, in Matthew 10:5-6, and also his interrogation of Peter, in John 21:15-17, as an eternal witness that this was the wrong thing to do. Why else would Jesus interrogate Peter, to show he didn't love Jesus, and thereby grieve Peter by asking him three times if Peter loved him? If Peter had answered yes, Jesus would not have asked him twice more and grieved Peter, by, at the same time, in so doing, reminding Peter that he had denied even knowing Jesus, three times, after having arrogantly boasted, that if everyone deserted Jesus he would not, and swearing, before the Crucifixion, that he would die for Jesus. 

Doesn't it strike anyone else as being strange and illogical; that if Peter was the most important Disciple, as the church claims, and on whom the Roman church claims it has been built; that there is no Gospel of Peter in the Bible? 

I will leave you to ponder and draw your own conclusions about why only the last few pages of the Book written by the Disciple that Jesus is reputed to have loved more than Peter and to whom He uniquely later gave His Apocalypse Revelation were removed and now move on to a much more important matter to us today - Christ's Throne - the Lia Fail. 

What is the Lia Fail and why is Ireland called Inis Fail? 

The Lia Fail Stone set off towards its destiny, after it was found and used by Jacob as his pillow and then became the Pillar that he anointed; set up at, and named, Bethel, which means the "House of God". Bethel is where Jacob had his name changed from Jacob, which means the "Supplanter" (because he supplanted his brother Esau, with a bowl of potage/soup, for the Birthright of his father Isaac), to Israel, which means the "Champion of God", because he championed God's Cause, the cause of God or good, in the world.
Photograph of Lia Fail Stone
The Lia Fail Stone / Jacob's Pillar. 
The Stone, from that moment, was predestined to become Christ's Throne on Earth and it was taken by Jacob and his children into Egypt, when there was a famine in the land. The famine caused them to go to live in Egypt with their brother Joseph, whom they had previously sold into slavery and who had, through God's intervention, become the Egyptian pharaoh's right hand man. 
Four hundred years later during the Exodus from Egypt under Moses and the Wilderness forty-year punishment wandering, the Lia Fail was carried on a pole, until the Israelites conquered Canaan and built Jerusalem. The Lia Fail or "Stone of Destiny" then became the Throne of king David, who slew Goliath the giant, with a stone from his sling. 

Every one of the succeeding kings from David's line were crowned upon the Lia Fail - Jacob's Pillar*; which was kept in God's House, the Holy Temple, built by David's son, king Solomon, on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem; until king Zedekiah was overthrown by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, for breaking The Covenant. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon's soldiers destroyed Solomon's Holy Temple on Mount Moriah, which is the Holiest Place on Earth because it is where Abraham, centuries before, had offered to sacrifice his miracle son Isaac for God.
* 2 kings 11:14 And when she looked, behold, the king stood by The Pillar, as the manner [was], and the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets:
Jeremiah the Prophet rescued the Bethel/Lia Fail and The Ark of The Covenant and Zedekiah's daughter Teia Tephi and brought them to Tara in Royal Meath in Ireland, where on the 21st of June in 583 B.C. Teia Tephi married Eochaidh "Ollothair" Mac Duach/Dui, the Daighda, the Heremon - Ard ri or High king of Ireland, in fulfillment of God's prophecy to His Prophet Ezekiel, in the Old Covenant / Old Testament.
21:24 Therefore thus saith the Lord "I AM"; Because ye have made your inequity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; because, [I say], that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand.

21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when inequity [shall have] an end,

21:26 Thus saith the Lord "I AM"; Remove the diadem (sovereignty), and take off the crown: this [shall] not [be] the same: exalt [him that is] low (Line of Zarah at Tara - Eochaidh), and abase [him that is] high (Line of Pharez in Jerusalem - Zedekiah).

21:27 I will overturn (1), overturn (2), overturn (3), it: and it shall be no [more], [overturned] UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and (4) I will give it [him - Shiloh/Christ (Genesis 49 v 10)]. 

That final destiny as Christ's Throne is here clearly stated in verse 27 as being the fourth and final overturn of the Throne, very soon. 

Jeremiah, who was buried in Cairn T at Loughcrew, not far from Kells, was the Prophet commissioned by God to fulfill His prophecy to Ezekiel, just quoted.
* Jeremiah 1:10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. 

Cairn T.
Photograph of Cairn T

The Lia Fail stayed in Ireland on The Forrad (The Inauguration Mound) at the Hill of Tara for over a thousand years, after Teia Tephi brought it with her from Jerusalem in 583 B.C. All of the kings of Ireland descended from her and Eochaidh were crowned on the Stone, right up to Muircheartach (Murdoch) son of Earc, who was Columba's uncle. 

In around 500 A.D. Fergus Mor Mac Earc, Muircheartach's brother and therefore also an uncle of Columba, invaded and settled Western Scotland which was previously occupied by the Picts. Fergus wanted to be crowned, king of the (Scots) Irish who had migrated to Scotland, on The Lia Fail Stone and Muircheartach loaned the Stone to him, for that occasion. 

The Lia Fail Stone was never returned to Ireland, but, as God prophesied, stayed in Scotland, where all of the Scottish kings were crowned on it, up to 1296 A.D. 

Edward the First of England (Edward "Longshanks" in the film Braveheart) then invaded Scotland and removed the Stone to England. Edward took The Lia Fail to London, where it was placed in Westminster Abbey and all of the kings of England, right up to and including George the 6th., were crowned on the Stone. 

To demonstrate the importance of the Stone of Destiny to you I will explain that during the bombing of London in the Second World War the Stone of Destiny was removed to Winchester Cathedral for safety. No similar action was taken with the Crown Jewels.

The Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, London. 
In the early hours of Christmas morning in 1950, the Lia Fail (Stone of Destiny) was removed from Westminster Abbey by four Scottish Nationalists: Kay Matheson; Ian Hamilton; Gavin Vernon and Alan Stuart, who took it back to Scotland. They then sent a fake stone, which was cut from sand-stone that had been quarried near Scone in Perthshire, back to England and Elizabeth 2 was crowned upon it. Because Elizabeth 2 has never been crowned upon the real Lia Fail, she has not been officially crowned queen of Britain in the eyes of God. 

The fake stone, known as the Stone of Scone, was sent back to Scotland in 1996, where it is now on public display in Edinburgh Castle. If you compare the two pictures, it should be blatantly obvious to you that they are two different stones. 

The following pictures are from official photographs. The real Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny is supplied by Westminster Abbey; taken before the theft of The Stone on 25/12/1950 and The Stone of Scone is supplied by Edinburgh Castle.
Picture of the Stone of Scone  
The Stone of Scone (above - weighing 336 lbs.) 
and Lia Fail (below - weighing 458 lbs.). 

Picture of the Lia Fail stone which weighs 458 lbs
So what happened to The real Lia Fail - Stone of Destiny after the Scottish Nationalists removed it from Westminster Abbey, and where is The Stone's next place of Destiny? 

As the Lia Fail is God's Throne of Israel and He knows all things before they happen, we can look at The Book He gave us (The Bible) to see what will happen to the Stone of Destiny. The following is a short excerpt from God's prophecy out of The Old Testament Book of His Prophet Ezekiel, previously quoted:-
21:26 Thus saith the Lord "I AM"; Remove the diadem (sovereignty), and take off the crown: this [shall] not [be] the same: exalt [him that is] low (Line of Zarah), and abase [him that is] high (Line of Pharez).

21:27 I will overturn (1), overturn (2), overturn (3), it: and it shall be no [more], [overturned] UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and (4) I will give it [him - Shiloh / Christ (Gen. 49 v 10)].
Verse 26 tells us that The Throne (Lia Fail) will be (and it was) taken from the Pharez branch (him that was high) of the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem and given to the Zarah branch (him that was low) of the tribe of Judah, who had settled in Ireland. 

This happened, as already stated, when king Zedekiah of Jerusalem from the Pharez branch of the tribe of Judah, was overthrown by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and princess Teia Tephi, Zedekiah's daughter brought the Lia Fail Stone to Ireland and married Eochaidh Mac Erc/Duach, the high king of Ireland who was from the Zarah (Red Hand - Genesis 38:28-30) branch of Judah, in the sixth century B.C. 

The above was the first of the four overturns mentioned in verse 27. The second overturn was when the Lia Fail was taken from Ireland to Scotland in c. 500 A.D., overturning the Throne from the kings of Ireland, and the third overturn was when the Throne was removed from the Scots and taken to England in 1296. 

God then tells us in the second half of verse 27, that the Throne shall be overturned no more, UNTIL He (Shiloh - Christ) comes whose Right it is; and that He (God) will give it to him (Christ). If we go to Genesis 49:9-10; we are told that the sceptre (sovereignty) will not depart from the line of Judah UNTIL Shiloh (Christ) comes (and then it WILL depart from Judah). In Genesis 49:22-24 we are told that from Joseph's seed (not Judah's) will The Shepherd (Christ) come. 

The fourth and final overturn began in 1950 when the four Scottish Nationalists removed the real Lia Fail from Westminster Abbey and replaced it with the fake (Stone of Scone). Elizabeth 2 who is descended from the royal line of David from the tribe of Judah, was then crowned on that fake stone in 1953, so in actual fact was never officially crowned and she is not the sovereign of Britain in the eyes of God. 

This fulfills the first half of the prophecy given in Genesis chapter 49 (the sceptre departs from Judah), and all that remains is for Christ, from Joseph's seed (Ephraim's line), to claim His Rightful place on God's Throne - Bethel - The Lia Fail - Stone of Destiny. 

Did the police recover the Stone of Destiny? 
Definitely not! 

In 1986, The Scotsman carried photographs 'supplied by Miss Marjorie S. Brock, who was treasurer of the 1320 Club, no longer in existence'. One photograph was captioned 'The Stone of Destiny, which has been on display in St Columba's Parish Church, Dundee, since June 1972.' The second photograph was of a plaque which read:-
The Stone of Destiny has been set here. An appropriate place for a symbol so venerable and significant in Scottish history. It has been given into the keeping of the Minister and Kirk Session of St (Columcille) Columba's Parish Church, Dundee, by the 1320 Club in association with Baillie (Municipal Officer and Magistrate) Robert Gray, of Glasgow, who helped to place the (fake) Stone in Arbroath Abbey on 12 th April, 1951.
   A fake stone?This stone is also obviously not the genuine Stone of Destiny but is another fake, presumably made by Baillie Bertie Gray. Again we have the connection with Columba of Kells and Iona being guardian of the Stone, because the Lia Fail was allegedly kept in Columba's church in Dundee, until the authorities found-out, by reading the above newspaper article and sealed-up the building with the alleged real Lia Fail still inside it. It was then rescued by the Knights Templar who have it at present, secreted away in Adamnan's Church at Dull in Perthshire. Yet again we have the link with Columba because Adamnan's Church is built into the grave-mound of Adamnan who wrote the "Life of Columba" around 685 A.D., shortly after Columba's death.
Adamnan's Grave-Mound and Church at Dull, Perthshire. 
So why is Ireland called Inis Fail - the Island of Destiny? What IS Ireland's Destiny? 

The real Lia Fail must now continue on its return journey; the next leg of which is to The Hill of Tara to be replaced on The Inauguration Mound, in place of the obscene phallic Baal pillar that presently stands there; in preparation for the fulfilment of the second half of God's Prophecy about Christ's Second-Coming, in Ezekiel 21:27 and Genesis 49:24. 

This has to happen immediately, if not sooner for two very good reasons. The first reason is to release Ireland from the Curse it has been under for the last 150 years; as a punishment for naming a stone phallus God's Throne. The second reason; according to the Prophecies that Christ Himself left in the Gospel of Matthew, and in the Third Book of the Apocalypse Revelation to John; is that the climax of His Second Coming is very close indeed. The following is the parable Christ gave His disciples in reply to them asking when His Second Coming will be:-
24:32 Now learn a parable of the Fig tree (Jews); When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves (1948), ye know that Summer [is] nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it (the end) is near, [even] at the doors.
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.
The Fig tree has always been the emblem of the Jews (the religion, not the tribe of Judah). The 'when his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves' occurred in 1948, when David Ben-Gurion announced, on 14/May /48, in Tel-Aviv, to the world, that the Jews had established a JEWISH STATE in the Land of Israel on 22/4/48. The 'Summer' referred to is Christ's forthcoming thousand year reign and 'this generation' is probably around fifty to sixty years from 1948, when 'all these things (will) be fulfilled.' 

John's Apocalypse Revelation Book Three 
30:12 And behold, the Christ cometh quickly, for a millennium will pass and near another and there will be made a sign in the heavens. And you will know this "Star" that called the wise and all-knowing to Bethlehem. Seek there the "Star" (Matt. 24:30-31) at the appointed time, and all spirit will rejoice in the reward, even unto those who come out of the body (2 Cor. 5:8, 10), that every man according to his WORK shall be".
Nostradamus, the famous French Prophet who studied Columba's prophecies, also sheds some light on the subject and states that the Lia Fail will return to Tara and what will happen when it does; also that the great King of Warning will tell the world in the seven month of 1999 about the return of Christ; in the following two quatrains:-
Avant qu'advienne le changement d'Empire
Il adviendra un cas bien merveilleux:
Un champ mu, le pillier de paphire
Mis translat sur le rocher noilleux.

Before the empire changes
A very wonderful event will take place:
The field (2m.x 2m.of turf) removed; the Pillar of Prophecy
(Lia Fail) put in place (on the Inauguration Mound at Tara); (the empire) changed on the gnarled stone (the Lia Fail - Stone of Destiny)-(as Christ is inaugurated King of Ireland)

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roi d'effrayeur
Rescuciter le grand Roi d'Angoulmois.
Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur. 

The year 1999 seven (sept) month (July or Sept-ember)

From heaven will come a great King of Warning (Prophet - Elijah - see the Old Testament Book of Malachi chapter 4)(Q. 4,29; Q. 6,100)

 He will bring back to life the Great King of Israel (Christ from the Tribe of Joseph/Ephraim - Genesis 49:10; 22-24 k.J.A.V. of Bible).

Before: after war, reigns in good (God's) time (the Seventh - Sabbath Millennium - 3rd millennium A.D)

Columba himself says in his prophecy called "The Force":- 
This (Roman) wind, which will blow over us for a time,
And which will force us to deviate from our true course;
It is through the influence of this same wind from the East,
All the Gaels shall be ruined! 

I think it long until the King son of Saxon (Isaac's-sons),
Will come over the sea*, and not for love of him;
But in consequence of his coming, CHRIST,
The strangers shall be expelled by my kindred from Eire. 

* The King son of Saxon, who is here foretold should visit Ireland, is Christ in person, as Columba states clearly in line three. Senanus, treating about the same individual says:- 
The King son of Saxon will come,
To them across the sea;
He will part with the sovereignty,
Of the Galls of the country whence he came.
For a more particular account of this King, see the Prophecy of Senanus.  Columba is talking plainly about Christ coming in a body from Joseph/Ephraim - of I-Saac's-sons - Saxons (Genesis 49:10; 22-24) to rule as King of Ireland, as also is Senanus.
Impart to me (Columba), O Senanus (Cian aneas Mor),
Information concerning the latter ages of the world;
What shall be the condition of the race of people,
Who will not observe rectitude in their judgments. 
The King (Christ) son of Saxon will come
To join them across the sea;
He will part with the sovereignty
Of the Gall in the country whence he will come. 
The Galls and the Gaels of Ireland,
Will unite in one confederation;
Against the forces of the Saxons,
Their confederacy cannot be dissolved. 
The King (Christ) son of Saxon will come
At the head of his forces;
In consequence of the protection he will extend to them,
Ireland shall be freed from her fears. 
One monarch (Christ) will rule in Ireland,
Over the Galls and the pure Gaels;
From the reign of that Man,
The people shall suffer no destitution.
Columba's "Eire This Night":- 
This new Eire shall be Eire the prosperous,
Great shall be her renown and her power;
There shall not be on the surface of the wide earth,
A country found to equal this fine country!
So now you know why Ireland is called Inis Fail (the Island of Destiny). It is because the Stone of Destiny is going to return to the Island of Destiny for its final destiny to be fulfilled, when Christ is inaugurated King of Ireland, on the Stone of Destiny on the Inauguration Mound at Rath na Ri (the Fort of the King) at Tara in Royal Meath. 

To help God to fulfill His prophecies about Ireland with the least amount of difficulty, I ask all of the people of Scotland and Ireland to help us to help you. The sooner the obscene phallic stone is removed from Tara and replaced by the real Lia Fail, the sooner the Curse of Tara will be lifted from the Irish people, and the sooner Ireland can live in peace; unity and prosperity with Scotland under Christ's Sovereignty.
One of Columba's Prayers 

My dearest Lord,
Be thou a bright flame before me,
Be thou a guiding star above me,
Be thou a smooth path beneath me,
Be thou a kindly shepherd behind me,
Today and for ever more.
Jah is the by-line given as the author of the above two articles. He, she, they profess not to be Rastafarians. Jah does appear to have a connection with Gibraltar – more can be said as to Jah’s pedigree but such currently is not appropriate. 
From Wikipedia 

Jah (IPA: dʒɑ) is the name commonly used for God in the religious Rastafari movement. 

Rastafari consider Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia to have been the religious symbol for Jah incarnate. Referring to him by the title of Jah Rastafari, some consider him to have been the personification of Jah, but this is only one interpretation or metaphor for Rasta belief. Each and every Rasta is encouraged to seek truth for themselves, and no central dogma is imposed. 

Another way some Rastafarians use to express the idea of Jah is the phrase "I and I" (such as "I and I survive" used in a song by the Bad Brains, usually written "I&I") to represent each and every person who recognizes themselves to be part of a trinitarian unity "Haile Selassie I / Jah / I". 

Jah is often thought to be a shortened form of the name Yahweh or Jehovah. Thus, the term Hallelujah would mean "Praise Jah." In the West Indies, the recent popularity of Christian Reggae has led to the use of the name Jah in Christian circles, especially among younger believers. 
In the original text of the Hebrew Bible, "Jah" occurs 26 times alone and 24 times in the term "Hallelujah". 

It is transliterated "Jah" in a single instance (Psalm 68:4) in the King James Version of the Bible, and An American Translation has "Yah" at the same place. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures preserves for the reader all occurrences, while Rotherham's Emphasised Bible includes 49 of them. 

Jah is also an alternative spelling of the name of the Egyptian deity Iah. Some believe there could be a connection between this name and the Semitic name Jah.