TRAPPED IN A MASONIC WORLD

- 48 -
perved-out peep in the process], and a whole range of other perks and privileges, and especially so
considering most prison officers are Freemasons, - as are the governors.
[1] "Prison .
[2] .
11. A Law Unto Themselves
After all, who or what is a criminal? - I would‘ve said the most simple and obvious definition, - is that
of a person caught committing a crime, and when such a person is caught or at least suspected of carrying
out a crime because the evidence is that strong to indicate their guilt, then it goes without saying the
arrested person should be treated the same as everyone else, and not be able to escape justice by simply
quoting some kind of ―etiquette law‖, like perhaps her Majesty the Queen is able to do so if she perhaps
lost her rag one day, and ended up topping one of her butlers simply because they perhaps put too much
sugar in her tea, or instead of using ones saccharin tablets! As believe me, this ‗court‘-―etiquette law‖
exists, and far more superior to ‗Nolle prosequi‘, the Latin meaning ―to be unwilling to pursue‖, that
amounts to ―please do not prosecute‖. But I can guarantee you‘ll never get anyone from the legal
fraternity admitting to it, though I must admit the majority of them aren‘t even aware of it, as it‘s never
quoted or asked for, as only certain people are eligible to quote it, and in any case it wouldn‘t be discussed
in an open courtroom.
Though it‘s there deeply buried, and at exceptionally rare times, can, and by extremely important
people used as a ‗trump card‘, or should I say; ‗get out of jail free‘, if and when anyone powerful enough is
in need of having to be saved from facing ‗certain‘ criminal charges. Do you really think, a member of the
monarchy would be allowed to stand trial in a court, and especially the monarch themselves as in the case
of the UK, the writ would have to have read Regina Vs Regina, in which case I‘m sure they‘d; ‗Nolle
prosequi‘, don‘t you? This is of course never disclosed, and carried out in the most clandestinely way
possible and in secret, like that on my own case which was held ―in camera‖, and no one ever needs to
know about it.
Jim Devine, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield, [real name, just plain old Paul
White], who all face charges under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, and if found guilty they face a
maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. Chaytor and Devine have since been dealt with, and will
get to to them in a minute. On the 14th September 2010 the men were refused permission by Lord Judge,
the Lord Chief Justice to take their cases to the Supreme Court [1] . And hopefully were get to see them go
through a normal trial by jury and court hearing just like the rest of would have to, though they‘re not so
silly, as they know they‘re guilty as hell, so will soon be pleading so. Some Freemasons will perhaps seize
on this opportunity, and say: ―See, - there‘s no secret deals going on behind closed doors between
Freemason Judges and MP‘s‖.
However, I beg to differ and go into more details further on in regards to this sort of claim. Though
meanwhile I would also like to point out, Freemason or no Freemason, once you have crossed a certain
line and its already in the public domain, then that‘s too bad, as was in the case of Jeffery Archer, Conrad
Black and John Atkinson etc., the law has to be seen taking it‘s due course, and they could not be saved
from what they had got themselves into, and it‘s not as if anyone else of greater importance was going to
be dragged into their case‘s anyway, or it was a case of ―national security‖ being put at risk etc. Though in
many day to day cases up and down the land, Freemason criminals, and certain Freemason members of the
judiciary, certainly do work together, perhaps critical files are lost, evidence contaminated, witnesses
bribed, or a technicality in the law arises, such as the defendants were charged incorrectly, or a certain time
period had lapsed before charges could brought forward and lodged for the preliminaries of a trial to
proceed etc., and like what happen with the police officer who is suspected of contributing to the death of
news vendor Ian Tomlinson during the 2009 G-20 summit protests.
My only reason for highlighting these slippery eels, is unlike the rest of us, these alleged criminals were
and still are [bar Chaytor and Devine who are now known as criminals] insisting using their own kind of
―etiquette law - get out of jail free card‖, by claiming that because they‘re MP‘s, their shit didn‘t stink,
sorry I meant, entitled to be protected by their ―Parliamentary privilege‖. And let‘s remind ourselves how
they continuously maintain the lie when Julian Knowles the barrister for the three MP‘s, said; ―My clients
- unequivocally and steadfastly maintain their innocence of the charges against them. They also maintain
that to prosecute them in the criminal courts for Parliamentary activities [Err excuse me Mr Knowles,