US MK Ultra – CIA’s Mind Control on Children

This post comprises two pieces from John Rappoport. One an article CIA Experiments with Mind Control on Children [1] [5] and the other a transcript of a talk The CIA, Mind Control and Children A Talk by John Rappoport  [3]

They describe some of the despicable experiments that the CIA carries out on children.

Taken with the use of children for drug trafficking, sex, blackmail, hunting, snuff movies, etc this is part of what amounts to the CIA’s War on Children.

c. 1995  CIA Experiments with Mind Control on Children by Jon Rappoport [1]

The CIA mind-control apparatus has been well known since 1975, when 10 large boxes of documents were released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Several good books were then written on the subject of the CIA program known as MK-ULTRA. Officially spanning ten years from 19 52-62, MK-ULTRA involved the use of LSD on unwitting military and civilian subjects in the United States. LSD and more powerful compounds were given under duress as brainwashing and truth serum drugs. The program’s aim was to find drugs which would irresistibly bring out deep confessions or wipe a subject’ s mind clean and program him or her as “a robot agent.”

In experimental test situations, people were given acid without their knowledge, then interrogated under bright lights with doctors sitting in the background taking notes. Threats would be made. The test subjects were told that their LSD “downer trips” would be extended indefinitely if they refused to reveal their closely-guarded military secrets. The people being interrogated in this way were CIA employees, U.S. military personnel and, abroad, agents suspected of working for the other side in the Cold War. Long-term severe debilitation and several documented deaths resulted. Much, much more could be said about MK-ULTRA.

None of this prepared people for the explosive testimony made on March 15, 1995, in Washington, D.C., before the President’s Committee on Radiation, however. In unpublicized sessions, New Orleans therapist Valerie Wolf introduced two of her patients who had uncovered memories of being part of extensive CIA brainwashing programs as young children (in one case, starting at age seven). Their brainwashing included torture, rape, electroshock, powerful drugs, hypnosis and death threats. According to their testimony, the CIA then induced amnesia to prevent their recalling these terrifying sessions.

Both Wolf and her patients stated that they recovered the memories of this CIA program without regression or hypnosis techniques. In other words, these patients spontaneously discovered this information about themselves and their pasts.

Although the committee was mainly concerned with radiation, they permitted Valerie and her patients to testify because, astonishingly, several doctors who had administered the mind- control experiments had also been identified by other Americans secretly exposed to radiation. Apparently there was a crossover.

Prominent names surfaced in the March 15 testimony: Richard Helms, former head of the CIA, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who ran MK- ULTRA and Dr. John Gittinger, Gottlieb’s protege. These men and others were directly accused of participating in grisly mind- control efforts on children.

Predictably, this testimony received no media attention.

I now have it all, including many pages submitted to the committee that will likely never be released as part of their final report. Only a small percentage of the pages were read aloud at the hearing. Included are corroborating statements from other therapists around the country and several of their patients. I have now released all of this testimony as a book, U.S. Government Mind-Control Experiments On Children.

When the sickening shock starts to wear off, deeply disturbing questions flood one’s mind: just what was this CIA program? How extensive was it? What was its purpose?

From what I have been able to discover so far, many American children, as well as children from Mexico and South America, were used over a period of about 40 years, starting around 1948. In fact, the program may still be going on. Doctors and agents who administered it wanted to obtain control over the minds of these children, ostensibly to create superagents who wouldn’t remember even what missions they carried out, because of hypnotically induced amnesia (which could be removed by their controllers and reinstalled at will). (1)

Children were trained as sex agents, for example, with the job of blackmailing prominent Americans — primarily politicians, businessmen and educators. A great deal of filming was done for this purpose. Eventually, people from the inner core of the CIA program filmed each other, and some of the centers where children were used as sex agents got out of control and turned into CIA-operated sex rings.

Some children were considered expendable and simply murdered.

One person who states that he was in this program as a child said, off the record:

“They tried out their brainwashing techniques on the kids from Mexico and South America. They were considered expendable. But on another echelon of the program, they went after the best and the brightest American kids. Making perfect agents to combat the Soviets wasn’t, I don’t think, their ultimate objective. I can’t remember what that was.”

At this point, I made a suggestion:

“Well, if they were choosing the best and brightest, maybe they figured these kids would one day rise to important positions in the society, and they wanted to gain long-term control over them, so they would be under their thumb, so they could tap them at will — a way of controlling the future society.”

“Maybe,” he said. “The Nazis gained control over the intelligentsia in Germany. That was a very key step in their dominance. That was the first thing they did”.

“This smells very much like a Nazi program in the U.S.,” I said. “I don’t mean all the controllers were German, but the style of it, the insanity.”

He said, “They brought over a lot of Nazi doctors after the war and not just to build rockets — for a lot of projects.”

Other people who said that they had been used as children in the program remember that doctors with German accents were definitely present at the sessions. One therapist, who shared this information informally with colleagues around the country, states that, so far, the oldest person she has heard of who was in the program is now 52; the youngest is now nine.

Since a number of people who were brainwashed, tortured and drugged in these experiments try to resolve their experiences in therapy, psychiatrists and other professional therapists are hearing these stories. They are told, for example, that CIA controllers sometimes dressed up in Satanic costumes to further traumatize the children, also providing a cover that wouldn’t be believed if the children ever talked.

It is worth noting that there is a movement to discredit these ” recovered” memories, and the most prominent group, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), has several board members with CIA or military-intelligence connections — including the notorious Dr. Louis “Jolly” West of UCLA, who tried to establish a center for “the study of violence” at the university in the 1970s. This center’s specialty would have been psychosurgery, a horrendous melting of brain connections, supposedly to curb people’s “violent tendencies.”

FMSF maintains that a person always remembers abuse done to him or her, and therefore any new recovery of it in therapy is false and must have been fabricated through misleading suggestions by the therapist. While it is certainly true that such inducement happens in therapy, the blanket statement that all recovered memory is invented is unsubstantiated.

In a written statement to Dr. Wolf that was included in her testimony to the president’s committee, well-known researcher and psychiatrist, Colin Ross said,

“Published articles in my files include descriptions of administration of 150 mcg of LSD to children age 5-10 years on a daily basis for days, weeks, months, and in a few cases even years. Neurosurgeons at Tulane, Yale, and Harvard did extensive research on brain electrode implants with intelligence funding, and combined brain implants with Large numbers of drugs including hallucinogens.”

Ross based his report on his more than 20 years of investigating CIA mind control.

Chris De Nicola, one of Dr. Wolf’s patients who testified before the president’s committee, named her controller as a Dr. Greene, a name reported by several other mind-control subjects. It may well be that this name was a cover used by various CIA and military-contracted experimenter-torturers. Here is a quote from her testimony:

“[Dr. Greene] used me in radiation experiments both for the purpose of determining the effects of radiation on various parts of my body and to terrorize me as an additional trauma in the mind-control experiments. [She was eight years old.]

“The rest of the experiments took place in Tucson, Arizona, out in the desert. I was taught how to pick locks, be secretive, use my photographic memory to remember things and a technique to withhold information by repeating numbers to myself. [She is obviously talking about being trained as an agent.]

“Dr. Greene moved on to wanting me to kill dolls that looked like real children. I stabbed a doll with a spear once after being severely tortured, but the next time I refused. He used many techniques but as I got older I resisted more and more.

He often tied me down in a cage, which was near his office. Between 1972 and 1976 he and his assistants were sometimes careless and left the cage unlocked. Whenever physically possible, I snuck -into his office and found files with reports and memos addressed to CIA and military personnel. Included in these files were project, subproject, subject and experiment names with some code numbers for radiation mind-control experiments which I have submitted in my written documentation. I was caught twice and Dr. Greene tortured me ruthlessly with electric shock, drugs, spinning on a table, putting shots in my stomach, in my back, dislocating my joints and hypnotic techniques to make me feel crazy and suicidal…”

Is there a precedent for this kind of sadistic treatment by CIA and military personnel? Indeed there is. Here is a quote from the introduction to my book, U.S. Government Mind-Control Experiments On Children. It contains information from reliable published sources; such as The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, by John Marks (2), Acid Dreams, by Martin Lee (3) and The Mind Manipulators, by Alan Scheflin (4). In part, these authors derived their information on the CIA and MK-ULTRA from the ten boxes of information released suddenly in 1975 by the agency in response to Freedom of Information Act requests:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients-LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.

“Canadian researcher, Dr. Ewan Cameron, under long-term CIA contract, attempted to depattern, and reprogram his psychiatric patients’ personalities wholesale. He started with 15 to 65 days of ‘sleep therapy,’ during which a patient was kept under nearly 24 hours a day, through the administration of cocktails of Thorazine, Nembutal, Seconal, Veronal, and Phenergam. Throughout this sleep period, the patient would be awakened two or three times a day for electroshock treatments, given at an intensity 20-40 times the ‘normal’ convulsion-producing strength.

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not- unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy…Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.” Claudia Mullin, the other of Dr. Wolf’s patients who testified before the President’s Committee on Radiation, said her experiences with CIA mind-control experiences began when she was seven years old:

“In 1958, 1 was to be tested, they told me, by some important doctors coming from a place called the ‘Society’ [the Human Ecology Society, a CIA front]. I was told to cooperate; answer any of their questions. Then, since the test ‘might hurt,’ I would be given ‘shots, x-rays, and a few jolts of electricity.’ I was instructed not to look at anyone’s face too hard and to ignore names,’ as this was ‘a very secret project’ but to be brave an all those things would help me forget…

“A Dr. John Gittinger tested me and Dr. Cameron gave me the shocks and Dr. Greene the x-rays…By the time I left to go home, just like every time from then on, I would recall nothing of my tests or the different doctors. I would only remember whatever explanations Dr. Robert G. Heath [of Tulane Medical School] gave me for the odd bruises, needle marks, burns on my head and fingers and even the genital soreness. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Already, they had begun to control my mind!

“The next year, I was sent to a place in Maryland called Deep Creek Cabins to learn how to ‘sexually please men.’ Also, I was taught how to coerce them into talking about themselves. It was Richard Helms (Deputy Director of the CIA), Dr. Gottlieb, Captain George White and Morse Allen, who all planned on filming as many high government and agency officials and heads of academic institutions and foundations as possible…I was to become a regular little ‘spy’ for them, after that summer, eventually entrapping many unwitting men, including themselves, all with the use of a hidden camera. I was only nine when this kind of sexual humiliation began.”

Captain George White was a notorious agent for the CIA. He set up a brothel in San Francisco in the 1960s and, using hidden cameras, filmed men having sex with prostitutes. The men’s drinks were “spiked” with LSD. In 1950, Morse Allen, another important CIA, man, was appointed head of Project BLUEBIRD, another CIA mind-control program.

Ms. Mullin states that she was adopted when she was two years old. By the time she reached seven she had already been abused extensively by her mother. Her mother apparently turned her over for “testing” to CIA-connected people and Claudia then entered a 27-year period of what can only be called enslavement. Claudia states that she has been monitored, that she is still monitored and watched by agency related people, including a medical doctor. Now living in New Orleans, she has given information to local police authorities about her situation. In her testimony to the president’s committee, Claudia remarked,

“Although the process of recalling these atrocities is certainly not an easy task, nor is it without some danger to myself and my family…I feel the risk is worth taking.” Claudia’s therapist, Dr. Wolf, has written to the president’s committee,

“To the best of my knowledge, [Claudia] has read nothing about mind-control or CIA covert operations. Since she decided to listen carefully and remember as much as she could about conversations among the researchers, her memories are extraordinarily complete. I have sent written copies of memories to Dr. Alan Scheflin [author of The Mind Manipulators] for validation and he has confirmed that she has knowledge of events and people that are not published anywhere, that some of her memories contain new information and that some are already known and published. Some of her memories have been confirmed by family members. She has also shown me old scrapbooks where she wrote notes to remember what was happening to her and hid the notes under pictures in the scrapbook.”

I spoke with Alan Scheflin in May of this year. He said he had found one piece of information Claudia had mentioned in her recollections that had no precedent in published material. It involved a connection between two government researchers.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the 130 pages of testimony given before the President’s Committee on Radiation, and it is also just the beginning of a history that will undoubtedly widen in the coming months and years. Dr. Wolf told me that when word got around she was going to testify before the president’s committee, she was contacted by about 40 therapists “in just the 10 days leading up to my trip to Washington.” The therapists had heard similar CIA mind-control stories from their own patients. Many of these professionals are afraid to go on the record about their patients’ stories, as censure from their professional societies is a reality. The political mood these days is not conducive to granting an aura of credibility to revelations of CIA brainwashing.

So what else is new?

[Jon Rappoport is a distinguished investigative reporter and the author of AIDS, INC. He can be found inhabiting the late night airwaves of KPFK radio in Los Angeles and lecturing at the Hardware Humanitarian House in Santa Monica, California.]

Notes:

1) See “From the Inside Out,” Perceptions, March/April 1995, p.58
2) Paddington Press, New York, 1978
3) W.W. Norton, New York, 1979
4) Grove Press, New York, 1985

The CIA, Mind Control & Children  [3]

A Talk by John Rappoport

CKLN FM 88.1 Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Ontario, Canada International Connection

Producer: Wayne Morris

 

Today we are going to hear from investigative journalist Jon Rappoport give a talk entitled The CIA, Mind Control, and Children about the CIA’s use of children for creating mind control agents. Author of U.S. Government Mind Control Experiments on Children, he talks about the impact of the mind control testimony submitted to the Presidential hearings on radiation experiments. Jon also speaks about the mindset of those responsible for these horrors and the implications to society.

JOHN RAPPOPORT:

We are going to launch into this subject, but with a few comments before we start. Mind control is one of those things people don’t like to talk about, including yours truly frankly. I got into it, and I saw the evidence, and it was … you know, there it was.

Officially MKULTRA was a CIA mind control project that lasted about 10 years … let’s say from 1952 to 1962-63 … Before it started, there was ARTICHOKE AND BLUEBIRD … those were other CIA mind control projects. After it ended, supposedly in 1963, an ofÞce called ORD OfÞce of Research and Development took it over. Their job we don’t know about … we are not sure of everything they did because that information is not available. It is in 130 boxes of material somewhere … maybe in Langley, Virginia but they won’t release it. Various people have said that they employed more sophisticated measures than MKULTRA to do mind control on people.

I think one of the reasons that this is such an important subject is because we are looking at people here who have a certain attitude about life itself, and these people are in the government and they are in important positions in the government … and in order to understand what they are really about, we get a look at them that is unprecedented by looking at what they did with this kind of experimentation on humans. In other words, they hate life. That’s pretty clear. They have their own version of life, which is like “death” and that’s where their life is … that’s what they feed off of. I would say that most, if not all, secret societies are based on the same concept. Once you cut through all the paraphenalia and symbology of secret societies, you are basically dealing with people who have, for one reason or another, given up on life completely. They are now into the form of life that is involved with death … that’s their territory. And it’s a pretty horrendous thing to say, but I think that would be borne out. My own feeling is that we are talking about a conþuence of different inþuences here on individuals that go back a long way into the past … into the history of families in which they grew up … I am talking about long term history of what those families are … and these people who are entirely functional, but entirely psychotic if you want to use that term. It doesn’t really do it justice but it tells you something about them. I am talking about John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles … I would say they are very good examples. Look at their faces … look at what you see there … you see almost nothing. There is a kind of mask-like quality about these people, an emptiness — very competent people who go about their business, who seem to have no feeling or “juice” for life. And I would say these people are often born into families who go back centuries possibly in that kind of disconnected condition from life. While they are able to function very successfully in society and deal with power, because that is their ticket and their coinage, they Þnd that control and destruction of life is the only thing really that gives them life.

Since I have read this information that I will be sharing with you tonight, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who were involved in the nuclear weapons scenario really wanted to destroy the world. It may seem obvious to say but they see that as “liberation” if you can wrap your mind around that … as a release from, what they consider to be an oppressive situation that just simply can’t be tolerated. They see destruction as liberation and so the only thing that would hold them back, I think, from destroying the world is the feeling that they may not have the playground left in which to enact their scenarios of destruction. There would only be one, and that would be the explosion that would take care of the planet.

I would say that this is what we are dealing with. I would put up as a model against that, on the other side, although this man is not a messiah by any means, but if you know any of the work by Wilhelm Reich, the psychiatrist who broke away from Freud, he developed an entire psychology around the concept of liberation of energy … from within the person … that was locked up. It was really the Þrst time … he was the main Þgure in the history of Western psychology, let’s put it that way … which was a recent effort. To simply say that we are talking about energy here, and that freedom and the release of free energy from a human being against blocked up channels gives you what is called “life” — that’s life. And he was, of course, destroyed by the government. He had a device that was an energy accumulator device. He was arrested because a federal agent posing as a buyer or distributor of that device offered to take off his hands and bring it through state lines and so he was served a su bpoena to appear before the federal government that involved illegal interstate commerce, and his comment was rather native, he said, “how can they possibly serve me … that’s politics … I am talking about science.” He didn’t honour the subpoena, they put him in jail, and he died. He was talking about fantastical things like plumes of blue energy shooting out of the top of a person into the sky and this kind of liberation of energy would occur. He said that energy creates clouds, and storms, and weathers, the same energy that we have inside ourselves is identical and he called the unit of it an “orgone”. He invented these wild machines that were able to, supposedly, manoeuvre this energy around. He is a fascinating person, and I always hold him up as a person who ultimately stands for the other side of things — which is life.

The reason that you Þnd some of these fascist lunatics involved with magic and occult sciences and heavy, heavy, heavy symbology and all of that … is because within these secret societies, they are dealing in death as life.

If you could imagine life as a kind of hourglass and they fall through the top and through the skinny part and out the bottom and they see that as being a form of living, and they take their sensation and their thrills from some sort of upside down version of life. I wanted to paint that little sketch before I started, because we are going to get into some pretty strange territory here. I want to say that I think this is basically what is going on. It’s important to know that these people occupy key positions in our government and still do and they are not accountable. It tells you something about what is called a democracy …

I have brought some testimony together into this book called, US Government Mind Control Experiments on Children. It’s a compilation basically of testimony that was given in Washington and before I read from it while I can still remember … I want to make a few announcements, a little bit about myself and the people who are here tonight. This is Deep River Books. She Who Remembers is taping this talk … the tape is available afterwards. I will probably forget to remind you and Jeannie will stand up and say something. Ralph Cole of Justice Vision is taping. He has also been taping meetings of Heal, an alternative AIDS group which is doing some excellent work about bringing the truth about AIDS to people and he has some of those tapes available too. This book is available upstairs at Deep River, and so is another book of mine, called AIDS Inc. which I wrote in 1988.

I am investigative reporter, for about the last Þfteen years, and I basically have been investigating what I call medical fascism which I believe is the mechanism by which people are going to be dragged into Brave New World if that is the outcome that we unfortunately end up with. That issue is not decided, but because the medical world has such great authority with people, they believe so much in doctors and experts, they are going to try to make that move … they are going to try to bring people to heel under the aegis of medicine … they are going to try to say that they know science, and therefore you have to listen to what they say, and if they say take a drug, or you are suffering from a germ, there is no questioning that. If they say you are detained or quarantined, there is no questioning that … I see that as being something that is coming around here.

This testimony was given before the President’s Committee on Radiation on March 15, 1995. We had three people who went up there from New Orleans … Valerie Wolf, a therapist and two of her clients, Claudia Mullen and Chris Denicola. God only knows how they got in and testiÞed. I have heard the story from Valerie, and I still don’t even believe it, but … basically she told me the screener up there, the person who was screening applicants to speak about cruel and unusual radiation experiments on Americans … she said, well I have clients and they are saying that some of these doctors who administered radiation, administered mind control to them so we want to talk. And they said okay. They testiÞed, from what I can gather, for a very short period of time verbally. They submitted a lot of testimony to the Committee from other therapists and other patients, and they somehow got in … nobody knows how … but they got in and that opens a certain kind of door for us, because it puts it on th e record and it gives it a certain legitimacy and what these patients essentially said was, from the time they were 4 years old, 7 years old, they were tortured by the CIA and the military. You can call it something more sophisticated, but it really isn’t. It involved electroshock, physical torture, lights, spinning tables, hallucinogenic drugs, sleep deprivation, isolation tanks, hypnosis, mind programming with commands, layers of trauma that induced buffer zones of amnesia between the traumas, and essentially thereby created multiple personalities. As one psychological theory has it, if you induce enough trauma, you get a split in the personality because the person can’t face the pain, so they put that part out of it, and they come with a new personality. If you keep doing it, you invoke or create different personalities, and then if you are the CIA you try to program these sub-personalities to do different things like memorize information photographi cally and not remember it, do courier operations, assassinations, sex agents, blackmail operations, all of this.

Now I must say that I think some representations of this kind of operation are a little too neat and clean … that is people assume it is like (clicks Þngers …) … okay we will create 37 personalities now and program each one … do these commands and call it up and da da da da … I really doubt that it works that way. I think that in many cases, it is a total wash-out. In many cases, it is just psychosis time, madness. (In many cases people are killed because they just won’t respond, and they will not stand for it no matter what is induced …) There are two tracks here … and these are the tracks. There is testimony by the people saying this was done to me … and then you decide if you believe that or not. Then over here, there are attempts to verify through obtaining documents from the CIA and the military that such experiments did in fact go on to create a parallel track of research to give credence to what these people are saying over here because there are many good people w ho want to say this is all nut-case territory over here, and we don’t want to know about it, and frankly, I don’t blame them. So the researchers have said, the ones who are really into this, we want to try to document it as well on the other side and efforts have been made in that direction, and continue to be made in that direction.

Let me introduce into the record, and it would be nice if we were all sitting here in front of an Arlen “Single Bullet Theory” Spector and people like that … something called Volume Seven, Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry, the Proceedings of the19th Annual Convention and ScientiÞc Program of the Society of Biological Psychiatry, Los Angeles, May 13, 1964. The OfÞcers of this group include Ewen Cameron, M.D., Psychiatrist from Canada many will recognize as possibly the major monster on the planet as far as mind control … much has been written about him … I am not going to talk much about him tonight. In Part One in the Table of Contents, we have the following paper: “Automatic Nervous System Responses in Hospitalized Children Treated with LSD and UML” and one of the researchers is Loretta Bender. Loretta Bender cannot be nailed down as being a CIA employee. She was in fact, in 1961, a president of the Society of Biological Psychiatry, but she was part of a small group of researchers who were doing early LSD research … most of whom were doing it for the CIA. She attended conferences where those people showed up … like this, and she attended at least one conference by the Josiah Macey Foundation which was a conduit and front for CIA money. The paper is rather lengthy but I am just going to read you a few things from it. This is not part of the book.

“In the children’s unit of Creedmore State Hospital with a resident population of 450 patients, ages 4 to 15, we have investigated the responses of some of these children to lysergic acid and related drugs in the psychiatric, psychological and biochemical areas. Two groups of boys receiving daily LSD, UML (which is a methylated derivative of LSD) or psilocybin … at Þrst the medication was given weekly but was eventually given daily for periods of up to several months. Dosages remain constant throughout, LSD 150 mcg. (which is a standard for an adult trip), psilocybin 20 mg. daily or UML 12 mg. daily, all given in two divided doses. The average duration of treatment was 2 to 3 months.” Daily. Children, 7, 9 , 11 years old …

The psychiatrist who sent me this told me that he has a statement at home which he is going to fax me which shows that in several cases at least with these children, this was carried on for several years daily. Of course, all of the testimony here about what happened to the children is they got nothing but better … these were autistic, retarded (a loose term signiÞying really nothing), but autistic or schizophrenic children … that was the diagnosis. They all “responded, became more straightforward, and here” and whatever. You decide …

That is a very signiÞcant piece of evidence here. That shows that as early as 1964, the CIA was in fact experimenting … or a person with probable CIA connections … was experimenting on young children with LSD and other similar drugs.

Now I have here a staff memorandum given to me by Harlan Girard, a very active researcher in his Þeld, to Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments from the Advisory Committee staff on June 27, 1994, and this is a summary of the CIA, its history and its activities. In other words, members of the Committee on Radiation staff submitted this to the Committee at large to kind of clue them in on what the CIA is prior to the 1995 Hearing of the President’s Committee on Radiation, and they say, “In the 1950’s and 60’s the CIA engaged in an extensive program of human experimentation using drugs, psychological and other means, in search of techniques to control human behaviour for counter intelligence and covert action purposes.” This is quite an admission. In other words, they are training agents, it says here, by using mind control on them. It doesn’t say they are using mind control just to sort of get information from foreign agents. The possibility that the CIA itself engaged in human radiation experiments emanates from references in a 1963 CIA Inspector General’s report on project MKULTRA which was a “program concerned with research and development of chemical, biological and radiological materials capable of deployment in clandestine operations to control human behaviour.” Now in the rest of this report, they indicate that they cannot Þnd any records of speciÞc radiological experiments carried out by the CIA, and obviously they are looking. This doesn’t look like a total whitewash.

But that doesn’t mean that you believe them, it just means that those records have been destroyed or hidden away deep hidden away … because everybody agrees that radiation is a bad thing … and the CIA … the last thing they want is for people to believe that they used radiation on people. But this does indicate that there was a reference about research and development of radiation by the CIA for purposes of deployment in clandestine operations to control human behaviour. How the hell do you use radiation in clandestine operations to control human behaviour? Well, I would suggest that you use it to traumatize people whom you are training as agents so that you can gain control of them and you therefore have them under your thumb, and they do what you want them to do. The testimony here tends to bear that out … that radiation was used on people as a method of inducing trauma, not as a way of testing … you know … does radiation cause harm? Which is sort of the gist of the President ‘s Committee on Radiation … they went half-way. They said “terrible things were done to unwitting Americans … radiation was used by doctors on them in hospitals” but this goes further, we are now talking about a whole other leve, because those those experiments which were supposedly carried on as a misguided effort to see what toxicity levels were like, unfortunate occurrences, things got out of control at times, isolated individuals did commit crimes, da da da da …. you know. But they were attempting to do medical research … and that’s one of those hypnotic phrases, “medical research”. I could probably put everybody to sleep just by saying “medical research, medical research …” (laughter) And people would reach into their pockets and come out with money, man … well hey, cancer and infantile paralysis and m.s. … whatever you want … I’ll give you money … medical research, medical research. Politicians know that’s the key they turn all the time … when they can’t Þgure out what to say, they say we need more money for research … and that means tax money and it means things you don’t want to be subjected to most of the time …

Valerie Wolf is something else … this woman is down in New Orleans … she is seeing clients other people won’t see … therefore they tell strange stories. These are clients who have been Þred by other therapists … they are very unruly, out of control, they do not recover, nothing works, they cut themselves, they go into hospitals, they try to commit suicide … they are people that therapists generally þee from … and she says “let’s go …” That’s her scene … so it stands to reason that she would hear stories that other therapists cannot hear … and in her statement to the Committee on Radiation March 15, 1995, she says, “ … the research programs [that her clients were submitted to] included radiation, drugs, mind control and chemicals … my clients have reported all of these being used on them, although technically they were considered to be part of the mind control experiments. Generally it appears that therapists across the country are Þnding clients who have been subjected to mind control techniques. The consistency of their stories about the purpose of the mind control and the techniques such as electroshock, use of hallucinogens, sensory deprivation, spinning, dislocation of limbs, and sexual abuse is remarkable. There is almost nothing published on this aspect of mind control used on children, and these clients come from all over the country having had no contact with each other. From the small sample of therapists to whom I talked, it appears that about 25% of the clients report memories of being used in radiation experiments. It is possible that more people were exposed to radiation, but that the memories have not yet emerged because our awareness of this experimentation is so new.”

Let me say now, before we get into it further, that the one organization in the United States that has tried to debunk all of this is called the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. They are based in Philadelphia. They say that any recovered memories in therapy, that is any patient who goes into therapy and recovers a memory is a liar or unintentionally lying because their therapist induced it, suggested it, guided it, okay? Now, I talked to these people and at certain levels they are very well meaning of course … that is always the way. I talked to their PR person and I asked when were you born, this organization? She said, “1992”. I said well how extensive is it? And she said, “We have a chapter in every state.” Now for anybody who has ever been an activist or worked in non-proÞt 501C3 … are you kidding me man? You have a chapter in every state in 3 years? You’re cooking, you are cooking … and in foreign countries they have chapters too. But no foundation money and no government funding … this is like, you know, they are like … walking on water … you know? (audience member: “It took McDonald’s longer …) There we go. That’s the False Memory Syndrome Foundation … (audience member: “individual contributions …”) It is true … now that organization was founded by Pamela Freyd … her daughter accused her husband of abuse as a child … and in the resultant uproar they founded this organization … Frontline on PBS did an entire episode on all of this …

… and then received a letter, from I think it was the daughter’s brother who said, that was quite a presentation you put on about the FMSF and my mother … and I just wanted to tell you though that despite your sympathetic treatment of this organization, everything my sister said was absolutely true and they were abusing her from the time she was a little kid.” That’s interesting about the beginning of this organization.

Now on the board of this organization we have such luminaries as Louis Joly West … Louis “I never worked for the CIA” Joly West. This guy has been documented to have done all kinds of stuff for the CIA and military on mind control stuff … gave LSD to an elephant, and killed it. Wanted to start the Centre for the Study of Violence at UCLA in the l970’s. We have letters, and this was going to be located in a used, abandoned missile base somewhere out north of LA, and part of the deal was they were going to do psychosurgery on violent offenders which is the selective melting of brain connections to keep people from being violent. And this was touted as being highly medical, very precise. This is right in the ballpark of what I am talking about here when they say “it’s all medical … we have miniaturized and we can take out certain neurons here and there, and everything’s cool.” Some people throw up their hands and say who am I to … I don’t know … maybe they are right …

Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who investigates toxic drugs and violence projects against citizens using psychiatry as a front … he lays it on psychiatrists. He discovered that the one case where they claimed a cure by psychosurgery was turned into a gibbering lunatic and that’s why he was cured of violence. He wasn’t able to even live unless somebody was taking care of him all the time and this particular patient was heralded as a cure by Frank Irvin and Bernie Sweet and these guys in the 70’s who were the doctors doing psychosurgery. That was their model, showcase cure of violence.

So Louis West, who wanted to start this centre at UCLA, is on the board of FMSF and so is Martin Orne, a Harvard psychiatrist who has done contract work for the CIA in the past. And several other people who have those kinds of connections. They want to debunk this stuff right out of the box … forget it. This is the kind of stuff they want to debunk. Claudia Mullen, client of Valerie Wolf, reports to the Presidential Commission: “Between the years of 1957 and 1984 I became a pawn in a government scheme whose ultimate goal was mind control and to create the perfect spy. All through the use of chemicals, radiation, electroshock, hypnosis, drugs, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, brainwashing, and verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse. I was exploited unwittingly for nearly three decades of my life, and the only explanation given to me was that ‘the end justiÞes the means’ and I was serving my country in their bold effort to Þght communism. I can only summarize my circumstances by saying they took an already abused 7 year old child and compounded my suffering beyond belief. In 1958 I was to be tested, they told me, by some important doctors coming from a place called The Society [… that’s the Human Ecology Society, a known CIA front]. I was told to cooperate, answer any of their questions, then since the tests might hurt, I would be given shots, xrays, and jolts of electricity. I was also instructed not to look in anyone’s face too hard and to ignore names, as this was a very secret project … but to be brave and all those things would help me forget. Naturally as most children do, I did the opposite, and remembered as much as I could. A Dr. John Gittinger [Rapaport: these people in the testimony named names, they did not screw around …] tested me and Dr. Cameron gave me the shocks, and Dr. Green, the xrays. Then I was told by Sid Gottlieb I was right for the Big A … meaning Artichoke.”

“By the time I left to go home, just like every time from then on, I would recall nothing of my tests or the different doctors. I would only remember whatever explanations Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane Medical School gave me for the odd bruises, needle marks, burns on my head and Þngers, and even the genital soreness. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Already they had begun to control my mind. The next year I was sent to a place in Maryland called Deep Creek Cabins to learn how to sexually please men. I was taught how to coerce them into talking about themselves. It was Richard Helms, Deputy Director of the CIA, Dr. Gottlieb, Capt. George White and Morse Allen who all planned on Þlming as many high government and agency ofÞcials, and heads of academic institutions and foundations as possible. So later, when the funding for radiation and mind control started to dwindle, then the project would continue at any cost [in other words, blackmail]. I was to become a regular little spy for them after that summer. Eventually trapping many unwitting men, including themselves, all with the use of a hidden camera. I was only 9 years old when this kind of sexual humiliation began. I overheard conversations about a part of the agency called ORD run by Dr. Green, Dr. Stephen Aldrich, Martin Orne and Morse Allen ….”

Dr. John Gittinger was Sid Gottlieb’s protege … Gittinger tested everybody. He was like a fanatical tester, developing proÞles of humans, different types of humans, all kinds of questionnaire type tests. Sid Gottlieb was the head of MKULTRA projects for the CIA … a very high ranking bureaucrat, probably never treated a patient in his life. These people (testifying) were saying that these people were doing it … they were not supervising it alone, they were doing it. Dr. Green seems to be a name that is a cover name that many different people used. However there was a Dr. L. Wilson Green, Technical Director of US Army Chemical and Radiological Laboratories at the Army Chemical Centre … so we could have both things happening there. Richard Helms became director of the CIA … a real smooth operator. He was the person who destroyed many MKULTRA Þles before they could be revealed. Capt. George White made a statement to the effect of “nowhere else but in the CIA could a young, red-blood ed American rape, pillage and plunder without … accountability” He set up a brothel in San Francisco in the 60’s, paid off prostitutes to bring in johns to a room which he was Þlming, and these johns unwittingly drank LSD in their cocktails, and Þlming was supposedly to determine what the effects of LSD were on unwitting subjects. This is documented up and down. By the way, for those of you who want to get the background here, John Marks’ Search for the Manchurian Candidate, Walter Bowart’s Operation Mind Control now updated, are upstairs … and there is a very difÞcult book to Þnd called The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheþin which goes into a wider arena and is a very valuable reference source. There are many other books, Journey into Madness … but the Marks’ book, Scheþin book, and the Bowart book all took off from the same revelation of the ten or so boxes of information that were Þnally released by the CIA in about 1977 … they were actually Þnancial records of MKULTRA. They didn’t think they were very incriminating, but they Þnally began to look at them and saw they were very incriminating. A mistake …

Then we had Morse Allen who was the head of Project Bluebird, another mind control project. High up people here she is talking about … who planned on Þlming as many high up ofÞcials … She says “I overheard conversations about a part of the agency called ORD run by Dr. Green, Dr. Stephen Aldrich” who became Director of ORD researched remote control of brains by electrodes, he went to the college I went to, Amherst College … hope I run into him some time. Martin Orne, mentioned again … we are not stinting here on names, these people just named them … sitting here in a room in Washington, D.C. before the President’s Committee on Radiation saying that Richard Helms was involved in torture and brainwashing of children. Now, Valerie Wolf makes this comment about Claudia Mullen: “After 9 months of therapy, she came to therapy one day with MKULTRA written with other words on a piece of paper … the Þrst time … she had never mentioned any of this before. From that point on, she began to work on the mind control issues and began to improve. All of her memories have emerged spontaneously, without the use of memory enhancement techniques such as hypnosis or sodium amytal. I had told her nothing about government and CIA research projects. To the best of my knowledge, she has read nothing about mind control or CIA covert operations. Since she decided to listen carefully and remember as much as she could about conversations among the researchers, her memories are extraordinarily complete. I have sent written copies of memories to Dr. Alan Scheþin for validation [the author of The Mind Manipulators who is a professor of law at the University of Santa Clara]. He has conÞrmed that she has knowledge of events and people that are not published anywhere … that some of her memories contain new information and that some are already known and published. Some of her memories have been conÞrmed by family members. She has also shown me old scrapbooks where she wrote notes to remember what was happening to her, and hid the notes under the pictures in the scrapbooks.” Claudia Mullen states that she is still being monitored, that there is a doctor in New Orleans, who was her family doctor. She names him in her longer testimony … and she said to me, “don’t tell him you are going to do something before you do it, just do it.”

Apparently as recently as a month or two ago, she feels that … it’s a strange situation … apparently she is not positive that this doctor was monitoring her, but now she is. She went to his ofÞce … she doesn’t remember what happened to her … there were marks on her when she left the ofÞce … and she feels he is still monitoring her. So there is an element of danger involved in this, for these people. Some of these statements in here are anonymous. Some therapists made statements anonymously because there was public censure by their peers for getting into this stuff. I am told that a therapist named Corey Hammond spoke at a recent convention on methods of deprogramming this kind of mind control that he has developed … Valerie Wolf says she is using these, and they are terriÞc, they work. He has been subject to a lot of censure by other psychologists, societies, whatever it is and that he doesn’t want to talk to people any more, just for making a verbal presentation at this conference.

Chris Denicola, another client of Valerie Wolf. Tucson, Arizona. “I was taught how to pick locks, be secretive, use my photographic memory. Dr. Green taught me a technique to withhold information by repeating numbers to myself. He would show me information, then shock me [electroshock]. I would repeat the numbers in my head. I refused to disclose the information that he just gave me, and he found me to be very successful in that part of his mind control experiment. I was four years old. He moved on to wanting me to kill dolls that looked like real children. I stabbed a doll with a spear once, after being severely tortured. The next time I refused. Dr. Green used many torture techniques, but as a I got older, I resisted more and more. He often tied me down in a cage near his ofÞce. Between 1972 and 76, he and his assistants were sometimes careless and left the cage unlocked. At these times I snuck into his ofÞce and found Þles with reports and memos addressed to CIA and military personnel. Included in these Þles were program projects, sub-projects, subject and experiment names, with some code numbers for radiation and mind control experiments. I was caught twice and Dr. Green tortured me ruthlessly with electric shock, drugs, spinning me on a table, putting shots in my stomach and my back, dislocating my joints and hypnotic techniques to make me feel crazy and suicidal. Because of my rebellion and growing lack of cooperation, they gave up on me as a spy assassin. Consequently the last two years, 1974-76, Dr. Green had access to me. He used various mind control techniques to reverse the spy-assassin messages through self destruct and death messages if I ever remembered anything. His purpose? He wanted me dead and I have struggled to stay alive all of my adult life. I believe that it is truly by the grace of God that I am still alive.”

That’s just a piece of her testimony. A statement from Alan Scheþin, lawyer, professor of law, Santa Clara: “Claudia’s therapist [Valerie Wolf] has been kind enough to send me, with her client’s informed consent, some of the pertinent records reþecting Claudia’s memories of her experiences as an unwitting subject in these experiments. I have been able to conÞrm that some of the information Claudia has provided is absolutely true and could not have been derived from any published source.” I spoke with Scheþin and he said to me, I thought he was playing it a little close to the vest with this, I understand he is writing a book on this, so I don’t know … he said, “there is one piece of information that I was able to conÞrm, and I don’t know how she could possibly have known this. It involves the connection between two government researchers that is not published anywhere” and he said “I just happened to know that they are connected and she mentioned that they knew each other.”

Let me just comment on some of this here. All throughout this testimony you have other clients and patients saying similar things. Dr. Green, Dr. Green, Dr. Green, Dr. Green. Electroshock. Torture, sex abuse and all of that. About three weeks ago I met a woman who is a therapist. She works north of Los Angeles. If you met this woman and talked to her, you would say ‘she’s very on top of things, she is very smart, she seems like a real human being.’ So she looks at me and she says, “I was part of this when I was a kid, as a child.” She doesn’t want to talk about it yet, but she said, “… this business about creating perfect spies, I don’t think that’s it. I don’t think that’s why they were really doing it.” Part of the explanation about what they were supposedly trying to do was to create blank slates … that was their thinking. You can take a human being and erase their mind, then we can program it to be whatever we want it to be. Well adults just go psychotic, so let’s try children … they are more þexible and they have less in their mind to take out … how mechanistic can you get, and that would be the rationale supposedly. From that it has been assumed that the whole point of this was to create a perfect spy, with with nice neat categories of sub-personalities, and program and trigger words, manchurian candidate type stuff. You know, “we will now call up sub-personality 134. Are you there?” “Yes I am here.” “What have you learned on your recent trip to Vienna?” Start. Bing. And then sub-personality 134 says, “I boarded the train, and went to Vienna, and read the following documents that were given to me …” — like a computer? That this was the intention. But this woman said to me, “Yeah, but I think there is something beyond this. It is somewhere in the back of my mind, but I can’t get to it.” I didn’t question her about how she knows this, but she said “First of all this was a very wide-ranging project … there were echelons of the project, not just simply one level. There were children brought up from South America and Mexico. They were considered expendable. They were used with the crudest techniques of brainwashing and so forth. The idea was to learn from this techniques in a more reÞned way techniques that would be used on another echelon of children. The best and brightest in America.” I said, “Do you mean children from well-to-do families?” She said, “Not necessarily. The smartest.”

They could be thinking that what they want to do is program these kids who would later, supposedly, emerge in prominent positions in society, so that they would then have long term control of society by controlling people in power positions. She said (she didn’t say “yes”) but she said, “Well, yeah, that makes sense. The Nazis got a hold of the intelligentsia. They turned the intelligentsia — they were able to either silence or bring the intelligentsia into their fold — so it was a major project. She said to me, “They brought a lot of doctors over here after the War and not just the rocket scientists … they brought a lot of doctors over here.” And all throughout this testimony you will read, sprinkled here, “a doctor with a German accent … was it Green … was it Greenburg … a German Jew? … did it look like he was a Jew? … he had blonde hair …” That kind of stuff.

I would say this is a Nazi project, but a lot of the Nazis are American-born. It shouldn’t be excused or explained away on that basis because as we know, if we look at Nazi psychiatry for example, they learned a lot from the Americans, especially about eugenics. This is not something where we should say, “ … well, the Nazis took over …” This is home-grown stuff. This is Americana at its worst, at its lowest form. This is also the sub-sub-basement that you walk into when you are a materialist, when that is your philosophy. And I don’t mean you are a materialist in the sense that you want money, possessions … I mean, philosophically. The materialist position is that we are meat, and tissue, and cells, and electrical impulses, and that’s it. When that system collapses, we are gone, never to return. My own feeling is that when you espouse and embrace that philosophy, the ultimate, ultimate sub-basement that you end up in is that sub-basement … that’s where you end up. Finally, that’s where it all comes out.

I must say, even though I admire many of the researchers on psychedelics, and feel that they are basically liberating types of people, I think some of them make a mistake when they start talking about, “ … well, it’s all chemicals anyway … what difference does it make? … we are only dealing with chemical reactions anyway, so what’s this nonsense about consciousness separate from chemicals?” They are using that of course to say, “why is the government trying to outlaw the use of psychedelics, if in fact all consciousness is chemical anyway, they are just being selective in their choices of chemical … they are saying ‘alcohol – yes, lsd – no’.” But I think these people have something to think about in this one area. I am not trying to put them down at all, in fact I admire them. But I think when they start talking about “well, consciousness is just chemicals anyway…” I am afraid I have to disagree. I think it is a lot more than chemicals. You can certainly make people do very bizar re things with chemicals, and you can make them suffer a great deal because we are in these bodies … it’s a lot more than that. That’s where I think you wind up. You wind up with this crazy idea about programming people … that’s where I think you wind up with this stuff.

On the plus side, if we know this, if we understand what is happening here, and therapists can be brought into this whole dialogue, then we are talking about bridging something that is very un-middle-class into the middle-class and into people who normally don’t consider these kinds of things because we are talking therapists here, private practice therapists whose patients come into their ofÞce and say “I was part of CIA mind control.” I am not saying that the middle class is not some fabulous entity that we have to somehow court, but I am saying that this is an issue which can get some people involved who normally do not get involved and if they are so willing, they can create some havoc with the government and that’s my next point here.

One of the reasons that I am going into this, and getting involved in it, is because I want people to begin to see the government for what it actually is and I think this is a way of doing that. Unequivocally coming to it. People say, “the government, yeah … if we just get more of the right people in … a little more funding for research … more this … more that … everything is going to work out and we will get the nice guys, elect Bill and don’t elect George, and elect Jim and don’t elect Phil …” You know … it’s all this kind of whipsawing stuff I see every time an election comes around. “We gotta vote for Bill because if we don’t we’ll get George …” and this and that … boppada bop …. It’s like a vice that people are in, and everybody knows it.

I have a statement here from Colin Ross. A very interesting man. Never heard of him before. He’s a psychiatrist from Richardson, Texas. He has been researching the CIA for 20 years. Every time an MKULTRA type researcher dies, he sends away FOIA requests, because he Þgures, well the guy is dead, they will be more likely to release the documents now, and he just … he’s very cute with this, see? He accumulates a little of this, a little of that. MKULTRA had about 139 to 150 sub-projects … nobody knows what they all were, or even if that is the subtotal. It’s the basic mind control project of the CIA after WWII. He has Þles on as many of these as he can possibly get. “I have in my possession about 80 of the 149 sub-project Þles which I obtained through FOIA, Þling requests with the CIA on each deceased investigator of interest.” (I like that.) He says, “Neurosurgeons at Tulane, Yale and Harvard did extensive research on brain electrode implants with intelligence funding and combined bra in implants with large numbers of drugs including hallucinogens.” So while they were telling Tim Leary and Richard Alpert to get out of Harvard … because a few people were taking acid and enjoying it … there were other people there who were inserting electrodes in people’s brains and then giving them acid. “MKULTRA alone included four sub-projects on children, one was conducted at the International Children’s Summer Camp in Maine by an unwitting investigator. The MKULTRA sub-project Þle in my possession for this project states that “the CIA’s interest in this research was in establishing contact with foreign nationals of potential future operational use by the CIA. The children who served as subjects in the project were as young as eleven years old.”

“Multiple personality disorder patients in treatment throughout the United States and Canada are describing involvement in mind control research that is much more sophisticated than MKULTRA. Deliberate sexual abuse of children to make them more dissociative … “ and then he ends up simply by saying, “I would be pleased to testify at length at any hearings on CIA and military mind control.” Colin Ross, M.D. Psychiatrist Richardson Texas

Here is a statement from a therapist submitted anonymously. “One client told me that they were made to believe they had been abducted by UFO’s so that if memories were retrieved, they would be discredited by the community.” I found that kind of interesting. Hmmm. Other people mentioned satanic costumes … CIA people putting on satanic costumes while they were doing their crazy stuff here …

Here’s John Boyd, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, practiced clinical psychology for 25 years, Ohio State, University of Virginia. “I have treated three patients whose memories of childhood abuse include detailed recall of sophisticated mind control technology being inþicted upon them by “experts” in collusion with the patients’ mentally disturbed parents. The independent reports of these individuals contain similar information of an esoteric and intricate nature concerning mind control technology which in my opinion could be gained only through personal experience.” The press says nothing. The press says zero about this.

Here’s a woman operating under the pseudonym I believe of Chandra Walker-Michaels. “I learned how to handle weapons, particularly how an ice-pick left a neat hole, a hole that allowed so little blood to escape that the victim could remain in public view for hours before they would be discovered not to be napping.” “I was taken on planes to Germany and Egypt to assist Joe with arson … to Israel, along with messages … to Mexico for terrorist activities. I remember a small laboratory in a partially exposed basement of a large building I visited many times starting at age four south of Washington, D.C. At the age of fourteen I was drugged and woke up on a stretcher, and I heard men outside my door discussing how they had gotten me past the guards at Langley that night. At the age of Þfteen Joe introduced me to an elderly man who he referred to as “the Senator”. At the Mayþower Hotel in Washington, D.C. the portly gentleman was brought to the room adjoining ours. Our closet space was Þlled with photographic equipment viewing the Senator’s scene … I refused to participate. I was severely punished.”

Just a word about the media, and then we will take a break. One of the best payoffs of being a reporter for Þfteen years is that I have come to see this machine called “the media” and how it operates in a way that I never thought was possible because I have talked to a lot of reporters, and they become the eyes, the mouth and the ears for everybody else. Since I am now researching the Oklahoma City bombing, and I have done a lot of research on AIDS, and now this and other topics, there is a pattern that always seems to emerge. The pattern is that there is a cover story that emerges very quickly after something is either revealed or happens. Very quickly a cover story comes to the fore and then anything that does not Þt the cover story is discarded. In the case of Oklahoma City, it happens to be basically that McVeigh and a few of his friends are rednecks … the rednecks are connected to other rednecks who belong to militias and the militias blew up the building and that’s it … we don’t w ant to know anything else … they are all kind of crazy and stupid … that’s the end of the story … they rented a Ryder truck knowing it could be traced … they bought 5000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate knowing it could be traced …(hey business is suddenly picking up … did you see that guy who suddenly came in and bought 5000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate??? Wow. I thought business was kind of slow and then all of a sudden they came in like 15 or 20 cars and they like, loaded it up in the backs of the station wagons and they kept coming back for more and they took it away … I guess April is a really good planting month you know?? They have a lot of crops in mind …) That’s the cover, right? They were that stupid, and that’s all we have to know. And McVeigh, three hours after the explosion, happens to be driving in a car with no licence, and a cop stops him and says “I will have to cite you for driving without a licence and you will have to appear …” McVeigh says “No problem”, t hen the cop looks at him and he is writing out the citation, he’s going to give it to him, and let him drive away. No problem, Driving without a licence. So what? Then the cop says, “Sir, do you have something under your windbreaker there?” And McVeigh says, “I have a weapon under my windbreaker.” Pulls down the zipper, there’s a 9mm Glock, and a Þve inch knife hanging off his belt. He has just killed 100 people … he’s on a lonely road some place … a cop stops him … he’s going to let him go … he then shows the cop his weapon … the cop then puts his service revolver to his head, disarms him, takes him to jail, puts him on ice for a few days until the Feds … they work fast these guys … three days and they know who did it, they know what happened, they come to the jail where he is, and they take him … Right? By the way, I was told that initial reports placed McVeigh at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. People who anonymously testiÞed in here, and it has been mentioned by other people, that some of the mind control that was done on them was done at Tinker Air Force Base. Tinkerbell, right?

So this is the scenario that is painted by the press, see? Talk about mind control here … now the reporters that I talked to … how they slip and slide with this … once the cover story is established … how they manage to keep from discovering anything, or thinking about anything … or just considering the insanity of the cover story itself, is really something to behold. And I have been talking to a bunch of reporters down in Oklahoma City now … I just listen and we talk and it is all very chatty and everything … and for example one guy who was with the only daily in Oklahoma (The Daily Oklahoman) … all he could talk about was the federal boys … the federal boys combing through the wreckage of the building … the federal boys were there and they did this and they told me and they said this … and it was kind of like, when a sportswriter covers the Yankees … the Slugger told me this, and he told me he threw the curve ball and he holds it this way … had a beer with Mickey … you know, that kind of stuff … “the federal boys told me” that they couldn’t Þnd any other kind of bomb in the building at all … that’s it … what else is there to know … the federal boys day after day were going through the wreckage and they told him they couldn’t Þnd anything … this guy would have talked for three hours like this if I had let him … and that’s how he keeps himself from Þguring out what’s going on and each reporter has his own little scene.

In the case of this one here, of course, now Valerie Wolf and one of her clients, they say “look we are not sure we really want to get this exposed all the way out because we know that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation right now has a stranglehold on the press.” That’s the cover story. Nobody cares that the FMSF board is composed of these guys with CIA, mind control connections … That’s the cover story that’s laid down, and so everything else is irrelevant. That’s what we have to bust — is that cover story — with enough people coming forward and saying, “it’s not true”.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2003 Aug 27 Moving On CIA Experiments with Mind Control on Children
by Jon Rappoport http://web.archive.org/web/20070429043451/http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=10&ID=1518

[2] 1997 Probe Magazine A.B.H. Alexander Sex, Drugs, the CIA, MIND CONTROL and Your Children http://www.whale.to/b/alexander.html

[3] The CIA, Mind Control and Children A Talk by John Rappoport http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cia_mind_control_children.htm

[4] 1995 John Rappoport US government mind control experiments on children: With an essay, They want to know Paperback – 1995 https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/government-mind-control-experiments-children-essay-want/B0006QII2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490017102&sr=8-1&keywords=US+Government+Mind+Control+Experiments+on+Children

[5] Totse.com CIA Experiments with Mind Control on Children
by Jon Rappoport http://web.archive.org/web/20070608225401/http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/mind_control/161916.html

[6] 2002 Sept 8 Taboodada MK Ultra the CIA Mind Control Programme  https://taboodada.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/mkultra-the-c-i-a-mind-control-programme/

[7] 2006 Oct 30 You Tube False Memory Syndrome Foundation and CIA Cults (#17) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zozCUgqcwsk

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, CIA, Controlling Prostitution, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, pizzagate, Sex trafficking, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 by Sue Arrigo MD

Cry, my beloved country, for what has been done to you in the name of national security.

Cry, for the innocent children who were tortured and forced into crimes against their will and their sanity.

Cry for the children stolen off the street and sold as sex slaves and human sacrifices.

Have men no souls anymore that they rape, torture and corrupt the children that instead they are sworn to protect?”

Sue Arrigo

 

CIA, it is you that rapes, tortures and corrupts the children that you are sworn to protect, in the false name of national security.

The CIA are sick.  The people that control the CIA are sick.

People are waking up.  It is time to heal.

  • the CIA does not serve you
  • the CIA does not serve the people
  • the CIA does not serve America
  • the CIA serve themselves
  • the CIA serve the criminal cabal
  • the CIA serve the Bush / Clinton Crime Families
  • the CIA serve the Rockefellers
  • the CIA serve the bankers
  • the CIA serve the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bildebergers
  • the CIA serve the powerful forces that we do not know
  • the CIA serve the forces of evil

It is now time, as Jack Kennedy said to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds”…[5]

Those individuals inside the CIA that are able to, must step aside and leave the CIA and tell what went on

Those in a position to break up this evil, must start to splinter and those in a position to  be the wind must blow.

People – Do we want to live with our rulers and deep state raping and killing our children supposedly in the name of our own security?

We must educate ourselves and find out what we can do to stop it.

We outnumber them greatly.

Their time is coming to an end

Time for decent people to make a stand.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information.

Enough from me, Sue Arrigo has written many articles, but here is the third and last of Sue Arrigo’s Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry. It is also available on this link Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

See also

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo [3]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD [4]

In this article

  • CIA kills children after being used for sex and transporting drugs
  • Sue’s role in CIA
  • Czech Resistance Fighters
  • Ritual Killing of Children
  • Efficiency of CIA sex slave brothels New Orleans and Guatemala

[Abbreviation – DCI is Director of Central Intelligence ie Head of CIA]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry (3)
    by SUE ARRIGO, M.D.

The assignment was handed to me by the DCI Gates, the DCI for Bush, Sr. as President. He wanted me to go to Bakersfield, California, about a 3 hour drive from where I lived and train a gang of kids how to kill.

To be specific, Gates at a meeting told a group of us, senior CIA people, about the new initiative—the plan to phase out the “down-line” kids after 2 years instead of cutting them loose. He explained that this was necessary because the kids were too unruly and uppity after two years to obey the CIA officer.

However, cutting them loose meant that a good 20% of them ended up working for the opposition or for themselves. They thus became competition and cut into the Cabal’s profits. I pointed out that the 2-year limit was arbitrary and it was unfair to waste the kids. In fact, about 40% continued to be good producers and obedient. So even if one ascribed to the idea that the unruly should be killed, which I did not, this 2-year policy was blatantly unjust. And the 60% were unruly criminals only because the CIA had made them that way starting from kids they had selected as well-behaved and intelligent.

But Gates refused to change the policy, which was set by the Cabal on the recommendation of an independent think tank on how to maximize Cabal profits. So even though 3 times in this meeting of about 15 people, I object to this program for various moral reasons I got nowhere.

I recommended that the CIA at least study how to assess these kids as to which were worth retaining with an eye to their moving up into the CIA later. It was a stalling maneuver on my part to try to delay the execution order. Gates would not consider it. He was going to obey this execution order without delay. The kids were to do the executions of each other.

It reminded me of the purge when I was 9, when only 3 of over a thousand of us survived the purge. I wanted to cry. I stared out the window of the 7th floor at the tops of the trees in the distance while Gates kept on talking. He complained that I was ignoring him. I wasn’t ignoring him. I was thinking about what it would take for me to throw him through the glass pane to his death.

After I figured out how I could do it, I thought about whether it would actually stop the kids from being executed by the Cabal. When, sadly, I saw by looking at the future that it would not, I gave up the plan.

At that moment, Gates turned to me and told me that I was to be one of his bodyguards that night. That was not an unusual assignment—I often did some bodyguard work for DCIs at night—usually while in their beds. Fortunately, Gates was not requiring me to do it from his bed. He just wanted me with him that night so he could get me to play a Russian Chess master. I mention that because as I was in the middle of playing Gufeld (sp) and winning, it occurred to me that if I could beat a competent chess master using my remote viewing skills I should be able to figure out how to outwit Gates and prevent the execution order from going forward the next week.

The next day, instead of throwing Gates out of a window of the 7th floor, I threw his chess set out the window. I was accused of littering. I used the opportunity to get out of the rest of the meeting, the second part on implementing the execution order.

As I picked up the chess pieces, I was crying and imaging them to be those children. I put them in the box and then feeling rather irrationally that I had just accidentally put them in prison, I took them out and lined them up on the sidewalk as if to start a chess game. A high-ranking analyst, the equivalent of the number 2 man in the dept. happened by and we started playing a game of chess on the sidewalk.

Part way through as he was losing he said, “You seem upset. This isn’t like you. Is there anything I can do to help?”

I burst into tears and then explained the execution order. He listened patiently and then he said, “Oh, I think that I could hold that up for at least a good 6 months.” He was as good as his word. He managed to initiate “crucial” studies of the cost-benefit ratio of the plan.

Unfortunately, even his own analysts concluded that it was more cost effective to kill them all after 2 years than to have the case officers assess them as to which should not be terminated. The logic of that went something like, “If the officers have to decide which to save, they will want to save their favorites. And having decided to save the kids that they personally are screwing in their beds, they will be tempted to save some others as well.

Since any one of them talking could destroy the revenue stream of the Agency, they none should be excluded from this necessary measure.” That appalled me.

The only reason that the CIA could think of for saving a person was to go on screwing them in bed. I thought about that relative to my own position in the CIA. As useful as my remote viewing skills were, it was true that I, as a slave, probably would not have survived had I not regularly been in the beds of the DCIs.

I did go to Bakersfield and meet with the gang of largely 13 year olds. I did not teach them how to kill well. I taught them how to die well. I was quite honest with them. I explained to them that the CIA wanted them dead after two years on the job and intended to get them to kill their buddies.

There was only one gang in Bakersfield to speak of and I had been sent to that city because the CIA was not sure how to get a single gang to kill itself. They assumed that I would figure out how to split it in two in a divide and conquer strategy.

When I finished explaining this to these normally loud and restless youths, the recreation hall was dead silent. One of them asked me what I recommended they do.

They could see for themselves that it was easy to split them into warring fractions and get them to fight other. I told them that I recommended that they learn to die protecting each other.

“Against the whole CIA?” one girl asked anxiously.

“Why not?” I asked. “It doesn’t matter how many people you have gunning for you if you can have the satisfaction of dying to protect a friend.”

They understood that. These teenagers that had been running drugs and pimping for the CIA, understood that they could get personal satisfaction from helping a friend.

So I taught them how to die for each other. How to put their bodies in front of another while others aimed a gun at them or swung two by fours at them.

We practiced it a couple of hours together. That was all the time I had with them.

The execution order came down about 8 months later. The CIA sent in another person into Bakersfield to divide and conquer them. He tried and then wrote a report saying that he didn’t know what I had done, but the kids had such solidarity with each other that nothing he did to divide them worked.

None of those kids died. The CIA could not get them to kill each other and by the grace of God, the police refused to arrest them. I heard later that as a group they voted to go straight and stop pimping for the CIA.

No doubt the CIA recruited other kids through mind control measures. It was only a small victory against evil but it was a victory none-the-less.

I managed to report this intervention on my part as an important research study on non-violent resistance and since the CIA had some interest in learning about the methods that could be used against them, they accepted that explanation. It was because of good skills that I managed to survive.

Not long after the execution order went into effect, there was backlash against it from the case officers in the field. Some quit.

Some refused to carry it out and some simply carried it out so ineffectively that is was like not carrying it out at all. In some cases warring gangs figured out what was going on and created truces to stop it.

But mostly, the gangs fought each other and children in the US died like they did in third world countries of the US policies of men who care for Profits, Not People (see Chomsky’s book of that title.) Children died alone of gunshot wounds in back alleys afraid to go to the hospital for fear of arrest, or worse—the torture they had suffered at the hands of the mind controllers.

Children got pregnant and had babies while they themselves were 11, 12, and 13 because the CIA had in effect forced their brothers to prostitute them to stay alive. And a whole safety of culture, of believing that a child could walk to the corner store safely, died under the CIA’s villainy.

Corrupt politicians and agencies led to violence on the street and disruption of family life. American went from a society where one could leave one’s house unlock to one in which it was not safe to let your children out of one’s sight. And it happened in a single generation from the start of the CIA in 1947 until now.

Cry, my beloved country, for what has been done to you in the name of national security.

Cry, for the innocent children who were tortured and forced into crimes against their will and their sanity.

Cry for the children stolen off the street and sold as sex slaves and human sacrifices.

Have men no souls anymore that they rape, torture and corrupt the children that instead they are sworn to protect?

A PARTIAL HISTORY OF MY EDUCATION IN THE SEX-SLAVE BUSINESS AT THE CIA

I haven’t yet explained how I know all this about how the CIA handles its sex slave trade except to say that I was a sex slave myself at high level within the CIA.

But my specific knowledge of it came about because of assignments I was given at the CIA.

The first assignment that I had relative to this area was when I was still a teenager myself. Shortly after my sixteenth birthday I ran away from home and went to live with a neighbor. Helms was furious at me – mainly because I hadn’t told him that I was going to do it and for two days the CIA went wild looking for me. They were afraid that I had been picked up by the KGB.

Helms gave me the assignment to investigate what happened to children that ran away from home and have in on his desk in one week. It didn’t give me much time.

I investigated the issue in a variety of ways, from using the CIA’s library to remote viewing as that was my specialty inside the CIA and my reason d’etre in that location.

First off, I found that it was not running away that was the problem, it was the sharks in the water that tried to take advantage of one later. Since the major shark in the water was the CIA and I had already been mauled by that one, running away did little to increase my risk.

I said so in my report to Helms, saying, perhaps somewhat inadvisably given my enslaved condition that “since the CIA is the major reason why runaways end up in sexual slavery, my primary fault is that I did not run away from the CIA instead of running away merely from my abusive step-father.”

In point of fact, I called the CIA on Monday after running away on Sunday, but my supervisor was out sick and my phone message did not get to Helms.

My report was four pages long and Helms, not being satisfied that I was sufficiently repentent, assigned me to write 100 pages on the subject in a month, over the Christmas holidays.

Meanwhile I went into Czechoslavia to find resistance fighters freezing in the forests as partisans after the fall of the Plague Spring and lead them into Hungaria. There were not many remote viewers at the time who could find people and breaks in the East-West border. So here I was trying to lead East Blockers to safety while viewing the enslavement of US children by the CIA in every spare moment of my time.

Talk about why I was a multiple! It was really hard to square the reality of what happened to run-away children in the US with the rhetoric that the US was a free and democratic country.

It was particularly poignant for me because I was leading these Czech resistance fighters to supposed freedom while taking them straight to the CIA which had sexually and brutally regularly tortured me since I was three. If they had known that, they never would have come with me.

When I got back to the CIA with the over 200 East Bloc Resistance Fighters that I had rescued, Helms was overjoyed with my performance. I asked to be excused from writing the report but he refused.

So I spent the next two days, typing furiously onto paper whatever came into my mind, pretty much like now. Out poured a history of American runaway children and their abuse at the hands of scoundrels and the CIA as soon as it was formed.

Helms read it and cried, so his wife told me. But he didn’t change the CIA’s policies. Once near his death, I visited him and asked him why. He said to me, about two weeks before he died in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty, “I was afraid of what the perverts would do to me if I got in the way of their orgastic celebrations”.

They were killing children in rituals. They still are. And the heads of the CIA are all cowards that prefer to allow American children be raped and tortured under them then be honorable men and protect them. They do not even lift a pen to abolish the CIA’s own torture of American children.

Gates, the DCI under Bush, Sr. once said to me, “Someone will torture children so why shouldn’t we make a profit at it?”

One could equally well say, someone will murder so we should sell weapons to make a profit from it. We already know that that is precisely what the CIA does. It doesn’t make it moral.

The next time I was assigned to investigate the CIA’s sex slave business was when I was about 24 in about 1977. The war in Nam was over. Helms was gone. Colby was gone. But Bush Sr. was not. He was DCI. He asked me to plug up a leak in the sex slave revenues in the South.

There was a CIA run brothel in New Orleans. It was losing money. No one could figue out how it could be doing that–it was doing a rip roaring business. Bush asked me to view it and figure out what was wrong.

He handed me a report on the number of prostitutes and their wages per hour and also on the auctioning of sex slaves and how much they sold for on the block. It included the cost of wherehousing them and transporting them. It was all laid out in black and white. There was only one problem – the figures did not make sense. The housing and food costs were much too high for the number of slaves, etc.

It turned out that the CIA official running that “safe house” was grossly under reporting the number of sex slaves sold on the block in order to pocket the money. He was on the average reporting only about one in four sex slaves that came through his hands. It turned out to be a chronic problem at the CIA.

Men acting illegally for the CIA, often acted illegally for themselves as well. The CIA would set a goal of “laundering” a certain number of run-aways and “surplus” children into cash, and end up enslaving four times that number in order to accomplish that goal.

The goal was sometimes stated by Gates and Bush, Sr. as a population control measure in which as long as the population of Hispanics or blacks was increasing meant that the goal was not being acheived. It was not clear to me that having sex with slaves was a realistic population control measure.

I guess if one intended to kill the person as part of having sex with them then it could be seen as a population control measure.

That is the standard Reverse Christian ritual.

As a result of the report I wrote up for the CIA on that Safe House brothel, the director of it was replaced. I had hoped that the whole operation would be shut down.

The next year I received a very embarassing award as the person at the CIA who had most improved efficiency at a CIA station. I had never even been to that New Orleans station, and it was in the US which officially made it illegal. I fought back tears as I accepted the award.

It was a cruel joke, since I myself was a sex slave of Bush, Sr. People said that I had increased the number of CIA sex slaves in New Orleans by fourfold. That was not true. I instituted a administrative bookkeeping control mechanism by which all the sex slaves were put on the books.

After that I had a reputation as someone who could make CIA stations shape up. It was a dubious distinction at best. Still under the Bush CIA Directorateship, I was asked, this time by the Dep. Director of Ops, to look at another CIA station that was losing money unreasonably. This one was in Guatemala.

Much money was flowing into it from the CIA, and in spite of a boom Central American drug trade in which the CIA was the major overseer, this station was piling up debts. The cause of that quickly became apparent to me as I viewed the situation from the office of the DDO.

The Head of the Guatamalean station’s right hand man was stealing cash by the bushel fulls. He was a Guatemalan general who was as cruel as he was crafty and the station head was too afraid of him to call him on his misdeed. Firing him did not work–he stayed without pay and continued stealing.

In frustration, the DCI, Bush ordered him “neutralized”. The Guatemalan General learned of the hit order and shot the head of station instead. He was not killed but badly injured and had to be hospitalized. It was at this point that I was called into this mess to try to make the station work again – to try to make it financially successful.

I decided that the way to do that was to harness the energy of the general for good. People at the CIA thought I was crazy. But since my plan was easy to implement and cost almost nothing by intelligence world standards it was put in place.

The plan called for replacing the general’s mistress with another woman to be a good influence on him. It was almost an oxymoron to find a prostitute who would be a good influence on him, except that I had seen that he had already had one mistress that had been a good influence on him. I had the CIA pay her to get back together with him. It was a goodly sum of money, in the range of $100,000, whereas before she had been sleeping with him for about 200 a night as a high class call girl.

Everyone was happy and the wounded head of station resumed his post and the situation worked and the station went back to making money.

The next awards ceremony I received a similarly embarassing award. This time the award was for paying the most for a call girl. I had never met the woman. I merely had the ability to see what was wrong at a distance and recommend how to fix it.

People said what I did bordered on the miraculous. It more clearly bordered on the immoral.

I only mention this episode because as I viewed the problems of the station I saw how many sex workers they used and a great deal about the sex slave trade in an individual overseas CIA station.

from Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

See also

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo [3]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD [4] 

 

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] c.<2007 Jul 31 Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 Page 1 http://web.archive.org/web/20070731045627/http://conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4454

[2] c.<2007 Jul 31 Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 Page 2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070731051132/http://conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4454&page=2

[3] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-by-dr-sue-arrigo-june-15-2007/

[4] 2017 Mar 17 Cathy fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-2-by-sue-arrigo-md/

[5] “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”

JFK was realizing that the CIA posed a monumental threat to American democracy. As the brigade faltered, he told Arthur Schlesinger that he wanted to “.”http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120

Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, page 1189.

The New York Times article in question is: “C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?“, New York Times (April 25, 1966). It is on the second page of the article, under the heading of “Kennedy’s bitterness,” and the specific quote there is “splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4tjcz7/did_jfk_actually_say_he_wanted_to_shatter_the_cia/

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, CIA, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, Government, Other bloggers, pedophile, Sex trafficking | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

George Webb Summary of Video Links and Notes c.18 March 2017 / Day 134

George Webb is one of the most significant figures today in child sex abuse research and publication.

He puts the organised child sexual abuse into context and shows why and how it is happening.

Child sexual abuse is just one of the components in a scheme of horrific crimes perpetrated by the criminal cabal who are in power. These crimes include human trafficking, sex trafficking, rape, causing unrest and war, weapons sales, organ harvesting, drug running, oil sales, money laundering and spying.

Child sexual abuse is one means of blackmailing whoever the criminal cabal want, to do whatever they want. The children are used as objects to achieve an end.

A good place to start as a beginner is this video from a month ago, which  gives a good summary.

[unsure why this video’s links are not embedding, as they are on draft. Press on number link to open video in a new tab]

https://youtu.be/zzPhA5vBRuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPhA5vBRuw&feature=youtu.be

You Tube George Webb Day 125 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe Has Been Spying For Hillary A Long Time [2] 

Having identified the players and the “game”, George’s more recent videos now are attempting to influence how those criminal players can be made to stop within the complex and divided contaminated social structures – government and deep state that we have at present.

An important goal is to release at least the metadata on the 650,000 emails that are on Wieners computer of Hillarys. Then the connections can be made to all the people doing the trafficking in each enterprise. The FBI (Comey and McCabe gang) are sham investigating. Hopefully the NYPD will do something.

The Awan brothers are featuring heavily at the minute, #Awangate, a scandal far bigger than Watergate, which is being covered up by the American corporate media, who are all compromised.

This is a good summary of #Awangate issues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlN6asFC2lc

[7] 2017 Mar 18 George Webb Day 146 – Hillary’s Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 1

These Pakistani brothers, though to be linked to the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood, were allowed to infiltrate the highest echelons of the Democratic Party’s computers. They  used that information to subvert democratic government processes, with the connivance of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Podesta etc to create the US Government (good) v ISIS Terrorist (evil) public position poles.

Those orchestrated, pretend public polar positions form the basis of which the reality of the geopolitical landscape unfolds ie the position of perpetual war which the criminal cabal uses for their benefit of human trafficking , sex trafficking, child trafficking, organ harvesting, drug trafficking etc etc

The major countries involved in this manipulation are the US, UK, Saudi Arabia and Israel, being puppeteered by the criminal cabal, the bankers, the “elite”etc

Much manipulation and dirty work is carried out by the secret services, of which wikileaks @Wikileaks have exposed some of what the CIA do and will expose over more over the coming weeks.

See also posts by ex CIA Sue Arrigo eg Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD [4]

See also my other articles on George Webb

  • 2017 Jan 3 Cathy Fox Blog George Webb Videos “Follow the Children” [5] 
  • 2017 Feb 10 Cathy Fox blog Organised Child Rape, Blackmail, War and much much more [6] 

By revealing this, telling the truth publically, George bravely places himself in great danger.

Thank you George for the service you do for us all.

  • His twitter is @GeorgWebb
  • George Webbs You Tube channel [8]

Their achilles heel is paedophilia.

They cannot kill us all and we outnumber them massively.

 

George Webbs Video Links

Here is the list of links up to a couple of days ago. Thank you to whoever compiled this, I have forgotten who and where I found this list.

It is followed by summary notes on some videos, again thanks to the person who compiled those.

Day 134 – How to Catch a Spy, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 3 https://youtu.be/_01f7PnwgKw
Day 134 – How to Catch a Spy, Putting a Demon in Trump Tower, Part 2 https://youtu.be/jT0wkouUczY
Day 134 – How to Catch a Spy, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 1 https://youtu.be/t0nWEopuDpo
Day 133 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 3 https://youtu.be/Xy8WsrFRHis
Day 133 – Hillary’s Hackers, FISA Court of Review, Part 2 https://youtu.be/En5s0cDCS2k
Day 133 – Hillary’s Hackers, FISA Court of Review, Part 1 https://youtu.be/-dJtcbRYor8
Day 132 – Hillary’s Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens Part 4 https://youtu.be/Yb8PIvDR3Fs
Day 132 – Hillary’s Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 3 https://youtu.be/YqowVDjipY8
Day 132 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 2 https://youtu.be/WoyYA8KFTfc
Day 132 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 1 https://youtu.be/pnPZszoRQUI
Day 131 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 2 https://youtu.be/XHvvke8-p8o
Day 131 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 1 https://youtu.be/5WU77bpB6Cc
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 6 https://youtu.be/O8Itp6XpFso
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 5 https://youtu.be/0JydWU92eSk
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 4 https://youtu.be/CPmvtdEOcUw
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Continues, Part 3 https://youtu.be/xa9J6n_4jiI
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens https://youtu.be/HpddY-005aU
Day 130 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Access to Key Subcommittee https://youtu.be/1Xd2YsW-nOs
Day 129 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Firing, Part 5 https://youtu.be/I85ZItyyoGM
Day 129 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Related to BCCI Awan? Part 4 https://youtu.be/ANtHw2rRYoo
Day 129 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Did the Awan Brothers Leaks Kills Chief Ow… https://youtu.be/Oh8Tam6lHOw
Day 129 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Emails to Huma? Part 2 https://youtu.be/5GElfOUVct0
Day 129 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Investigation https://youtu.be/HsO_jxuO25o
Day 128 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Muslim Brotherhood Donors, Part 3 https://youtu.be/XqYVxGjm1_k
Day 128 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 2 https://youtu.be/KYzvNKFry2w
Day 128 – Hillary’s Henchmen, The Awan Brothers Saga Continues, Part 1 https://youtu.be/GWdb-VsmezA
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Adam Schiff Reopens Hillary Investigation … https://youtu.be/Igdwp4lx-Aw
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Mike Flynn Strikes Back, Part 5 https://youtu.be/Jr1KRLVBXA0
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, How To Motivate Operatives, Part 4 https://youtu.be/5JgiB9K6lF4
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe Illegal Flynn Wiretap, Part 3 https://youtu.be/FzsxBi91otA
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Petraeus Child Brides For Arab Sheiks Part 2 https://youtu.be/mVKP0xVHKhk
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Petraeus Child Brides For Arab Sheiks https://youtu.be/mVKP0xVHKhk
Day 127 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe Ignoring Awan Brothers Leakers https://youtu.be/oXQuywE8sK4
Day 126 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Morell Murder Count Grows https://youtu.be/kNTuMvUwfUk
Day 126 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Morell Murders Another Journo https://youtu.be/aY94prtutXw
Day 126 – Hillary’s Henchmen, DynCorp Targeting, Part 2 https://youtu.be/gWDctT8KAYc
Day 126 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe’s Extortions and Entrapments, Part 1 https://youtu.be/n7ZDz94-MHk
Day 125 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Tracking Your Assets, Part 2 https://youtu.be/V14kIw5qOpg
Day 125 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe Has Been Spying For Hillary A Long … https://youtu.be/zzPhA5vBRuw
Day 124 – Hillary’s Henchmen, Part 5 https://youtu.be/CHeaVV5hngw
Day 124 – McCabe Priebus Saga Continues, Part 3 https://youtu.be/HMveI0tSQJk
Day 124 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/MY1eYW5rdws
Day 124 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/LaV3MamepRE
Day 123 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/zdgn2sQ-YSg
Day 123 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/ILtjVcBUGys
Day 123 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/fsqTHFw3fJ4
Day 122 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/floE0FUtor4
Day 122 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/4VHerQ0xGeQ
Day 122 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/ospId1mvKLU
Day 121 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/3LgMtyKFAFg
Day 121 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/3R5l4YEG5uU
Day 121 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/BzMiEFcXbEo
Day 120 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/00hZBJabgLk
Day 120 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business Part 1 https://youtu.be/uV50XDflfso
Day 119 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/gP2Lqp91KXg
Day 119 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/IlGAHsmpVME
Day 119 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/-7l9jlYnZYY
Day 118 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/H1v0CCeJxIM
Day 118 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/zPybGoUb0Ug
Day 117 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/KRNw75kdEEw
Day 117 – DynCorp Dyncorp , Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/p82ptHjRugc
Day 116 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/WO6BCru9X_M
Day 116 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/riMzcpdqj3w
Day 115 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/oFD60iFQB1c
Day 115 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business,Part 1 https://youtu.be/l60ImgdX8bM
Day 114 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/slWhoUdTAOc
Day 114 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 3 https://youtu.be/slWhoUdTAOc
Day 114 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/Fo_sdeoKfw8
Day 114 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/7wSeAxzxkf4
Day 113 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/QqvRQUwuckI
Day 113 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/Kvd0KOsHegI
Day 112 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business , Part 1 https://youtu.be/-ghl0QRot1M
Day 111 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/_vM0T5pWcMI
Day 111 – DynCorp’s Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/qR4UxY2VMnE
Day 110 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/5tcMvPej8Rc
Day 110 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/e_Cr1DpsumA
Day 106 DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 6 https://youtu.be/fm8yt8KGI0M
Day 109 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 5 https://youtu.be/W9K3w0b5seM
Day 109 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 4 https://youtu.be/NQmJs1ERzas
Day 109 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/qiL5I3rso9E
Day 109 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/WkQrCYWHugY
Day 107 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business Part 4 https://youtu.be/j7cuF5Je5r0
Day 108 – DynCorp Dyncorp , Killing Is Good Business Part 3 https://youtu.be/sAFupPVsCus
Day 108 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/FQbqLXqx8YM
Day 108 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Great Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/HqcLQNpdM30
Day 107 – DynCorp Harvesting, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/XTn9JtZXEtg
Day 107 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/RkhyvipT6JQ
Day 106 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/4m9PlaF4PKE
Day 106 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/4m9PlaF4PKE
Day 106 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/-sbkrSOrcos
Day 105 – The DynCorp Organ Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/e7YJWLXxO5Q
Day 104 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/v6tixRpdTjA
Day 103 – DynCorp Harvest, Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/J-EPMIPnW-w
Day 102 – DynCorp Harvest, Why Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/OLu-u5dvlZo
Day 102 – DynCorp Harvest, Why Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/wQSv_kZH0fo
Day 101 – DynCorp Harvest, Why Killing Is Good Business, Part 2 https://youtu.be/a4oiC9FgrsA
Day 101 – DynCorp Harvest, Why Killing Is Good Business, Part 1 https://youtu.be/oMZ4mZ4KA7w
Day 100 – DynCorp Harvest, Why Killing Is Good Business Part 2 https://youtu.be/CZNnGXzkCm8
Day 100 – The DynCorp Harvest – Why Killing Is Good Biz, Part 1 https://youtu.be/pPdPI3KSqbA
Day 99 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 4 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/ie4gpMIKmjg
Day 99 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 3. Where is Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/y0joWMWFHoI
Day 99 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/yX-OPlXA5Yw
Day 99 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/RTGG54HeSe8
Day 98 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 4 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/oamxECpffpk
Day 98 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/0RAQq2VM3c8
Day 98 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/fPlXJWz2MKQ
Day 98 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/UpNAE_NY6Qo
Day 97 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 3, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/4eVrCmrAf8A
Day 97 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 2 Who Killed Monoca Petersen? https://youtu.be/MK73IOZqv_Y
Day 97 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/-zxVuUwJuio
Day 96 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/HuPEl1GRaq4
Day 96 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/VAGvRsIZkw4
Day 95 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/QiB7nF7O4uk
Day 95 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/Jvsb8f6mL4E
Day 95 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/xCC2XKDU-hY
Day 94 – DynCorp, Haiti, and Me, Part 1 https://youtu.be/d7bWAChD_AI
Day 94 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/Wwd5h0JF3TA
Day 94 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/XZhi529cIVM
Day 93 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 3, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/pNJzDb3ILeM
Day 93 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/PfuwsvdcLcw
Day 93 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/r216OO6wSI8
Day 92 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 4. https://youtu.be/89Cj0c0mG1g
Day 92 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/_l7-55C_bK4
Day 92 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me Part 2, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/8unV4_BBBhg
Day 92 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me Part 1 https://youtu.be/E9B8rRbqbE8
Day 91 https://youtu.be/dBq1VGyizdc
Day 91 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/c0jYyLU7WAw
Day 91 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who is Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/ZeNy5s1Z00c
Day 91 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/uFymAeyaiiM
Day 90 – Braverman , Haiti, and Me, Part 1. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/pzkM_nnJYo4
Day 89 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/dn0F-gjeBr8
Day 89 – Braverman Haiti and Me, Part 1, Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/AVUvk9I7ux4
Day 88 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, Part 2. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/FIPxed3IHA0
Day 88 – Braverman, Haiti, and Me, WH Killed Monica Pertersen https://youtu.be/RQ3j1EKA2fU
Day 87 – Will Braverman Go To Haiti? Part 3. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/XIjo28ocnqo
Day 87 – Braverman Found? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/Cbxe-5xa3OM
Day 87 – Braverman Found? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/dsuOC7W-Z-0
Day 86 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/BXSxF1FE3Og
Day 86 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/_PuIT804kYk
Day 85 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/hxFZzXDDiWw
Day 85 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/_cPuMhV9d-k
Day 85 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/fcX8Rvm_2vE
Day 85 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/b8XCsrjpjnM
Day 84 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/TgAo_6EwqZU
Day 84 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/GQEZ1VcScDA
Day 84 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Pertersen? https://youtu.be/ioFGJmrvai0
Day 83 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/jG4-qwEko1g
Day 83 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/TsqhBMaNly8
Day 83 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen https://youtu.be/A_E4tW1fq-k
Day 82 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 5 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/AHKQhngltNc
Day 82 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/GVCjejkeL-k
Day 82 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/MJNpf5GIvZg
Day 82 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/Q0tAhMlBCEc
Day 82 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/_-JeR-J8bTE
Day 81 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/g-km5K9uOQw
Day 81 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 https://youtu.be/_RiPfG1miG8
Day 81 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/YVOM0mdWnc8
Day 81 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1
Day 81 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/1955PlW3Nbs
Day 80 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/iCcSrCng8Rg
Day 80 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/JyOXw2dtb-o
Day 80 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/_RuZKVxt6fg
Day 80 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1. Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/qfinFUWIH6s
Day 79 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/JscBxQCcRwU
Day 79 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/ADVVhtwumIE
Day 78 – Where is Eric Braverman? Where is Monica Petersen? Part 3 https://youtu.be/u-zlUhrGyvo
Day 78 – Where is Eric Braverman? Where is Monoca Petersen? https://youtu.be/u-zlUhrGyvo
Day 78 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? Part 2 https://youtu.be/mMJutrdWxsE
Day 78 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monoca Petersen? Part 1 https://youtu.be/vVZawBBK-L4
Day 77 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 https://youtu.be/Qp144GSAANI
Day 77 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/M5DvITArYl0
Day 77 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/TMdaCwEpCYk
Day 77 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/TMdaCwEpCYk
Day 76 – Where is Eric Braverman? A Primer, Part 6 https://youtu.be/StN7y3SPsAU
Day 76 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 5 https://youtu.be/fu8zYltSvKE
Day 76 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4 https://youtu.be/REgyxQrzwk4
Day 76 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 https://youtu.be/oaU72gYydjk
Day 76 -Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? Part Two https://youtu.be/KzvGNmpM1to
Day 76 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/jLe3m6q-c38
DAY 75 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? Part 2 https://youtu.be/R3vL1csT3yI
Day 75 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/yisqDe7lmoA
Day 74 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? Part 2 https://youtu.be/ZDJB26FJOlk
Day 74 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/73OqOGZCriU
Day 74 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/73OqOGZCriU
Day 73 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/kk0tcW6DWUA
Day 73 – Where is Eric Bravermnan? Who Killed Monoca Petersen? https://youtu.be/7T7o5BhARTY
Day 71 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/MpwXb__QNps
Day 72 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/w9zyaHDfrB0
DAY 70 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? https://youtu.be/vam6qxfQrgA
Day 66 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 Arms and Oil https://youtu.be/L-huk9-kIU0
Day 66 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1, Erdogan Bolts https://youtu.be/44zXm1EdVmw
Day 65 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 4 https://youtu.be/JiXyk7G6GRE
Day 65 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3, Researcher Version https://youtu.be/JvW4k3hDfLQ
DAY 65 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2, Coverup https://youtu.be/jjhfXhTVjJ4
DAY 65 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1, The Crime https://youtu.be/9UVkkLCrj3w
Day 64 – Where Is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/G_4nQdCMic0
Day 64 – Where Is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/G_4nQdCMic0
DAY 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 https://youtu.be/GgzFdmldoFs
Day 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/6bV_vAn9hys
Day 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/-q3i_fH4RXk
DAY 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/GgzFdmldoFs
Day 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/6bV_vAn9hys
Day 63 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/-q3i_fH4RXk
Day 62 – Where is Eric Braverman? Lat edition https://youtu.be/Wfxdl-Rw4p0
Day 62 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/BlUBZ89Zvj0
Day 61 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/OWl_6SOX4i4
Day 60 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/BO4zw_dJScM
Day 59 -Where is Eric Braverman https://t.co/mQm1GUf6u5
Day 59 -Where is Eric Braverman https://youtu.be/LrhV1POBGus
Day 50 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/U4N5o4VsWqs
Day 49 – Where Is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/oplCH2qiAhk
Day 48 – Where Is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/UgD2ThJI4iY
Day 47 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/n6Zvh_JZp_I
Day 46 – Where is Eric Braverman https://youtu.be/FcEnkbF1rhA
Day 45 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/Y1ONo-6xs8M
Day 44 – Where Is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? https://youtu.be/Y4csVJaT-G4
Day 44 – Where Is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? https://youtu.be/Y4csVJaT-G4
Day 43 – Where is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? https://youtu.be/_NMUTuVJ1zU via @YouTube
Day 43 – Where is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi?
Day 43 – Where is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? https://youtu.be/_NMUTuVJ1zU
Day 42 -Where is Eric Braverman? Turi? https://youtu.be/GuNLRZIJ8RI
Day 41 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/rhbv3InAPE4
Day 36 – Where Is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? Julian Assange?
Day 32 – Where is Eric Braverman? Marc Turi? https://youtu.be/KVNS3H6f3pg
Day 69 – Where is Eric Braverman? Who Killed Monica Petersen? – Part 1 https://youtu.be/h6gvBEutuRM
Day 68 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/UTNPN0snwEU
Day 68 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/UTNPN0snwEU
Day 68 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1 https://youtu.be/yUvoOVYjNuE
Day 67 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3 https://youtu.be/OWItaf3JlAM
Day 67 – Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2 https://youtu.be/mSjcaCbOpZQ
Day 66 – Where is Braverman? Part 4 https://youtu.be/aNZVLs5rL5E
Day 56 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/8NQqHuQgSYw
Day 56 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/8NQqHuQgSYw via @YouTube
Day 55 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://t.co/LgGa8TkzMw
Day 54 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/lc45mbeAMNI
Day 53 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/rCTzFNrsKns
Day 52 – Where is Eric Braverman? https://youtu.be/vPxJaWYDKuM

The following notes from [1]

 Notes

  • [Day 138 Part 1
    • Series name changed to “Awan Brotherhood”
    • It’s 20 watergates, every spy thriller rolled into one now
    • It’s about HRC giving the most powerful weapons in the world (stinger and sarin) to Muslim Bro to topple Gaddafi and Assad
    • It’s about the Pakistani IT hackers in the most important house intelligence committees with access to the most powerful cyber weapons in the world
    • White house VISAs, Brotherhoods, Wiretaps
    • We’ve got american spies in this too. Mccabe from the FBI whose done a lot of {{illegal}} wiretaps
    • Today’s tweetstorm dedication is Brigitte Gabriel @ACTBrigitte — she made famous this Muslim Brotherhood plan for N. America in 1991. After the fall of the SU they had this Muslim Brotherhood–they called it the mujahadeen then–they needed to move it around to different parts of Europe to break off different pieces of Russia. They also had a plan for doing the same in America through this Gulen Movement. So I thought she would be interested in this series.
    • Yesterday stepmom recap; She called Jan 2 which caused the whole Awan spy ring to come apart. They fled to Pakistan. If you look at Imrad’s website you see all this radical Pakistani rhetoric and radicalism. His father, I believe is Pir Mohammed Shah
    • There is a picture of a ticket that looks like Imrad was taking for a train that he put on his facebook
    • Meeks is who installed them in 2004
    • The VISAs are going to be from the white house
    • This finally hit big time news yesterday–CNN was all over this story–all the major outlets. They almost seem to be following {{LOL}}.
    • CENDYN is in a joint-venture with KKR — they are the ones who control this Trump email domain.
    • KKR had a footprint right inside the Trump tower. THey didn’t need to hack, with a CIA van parked outside {{with dipshts-in-black holding mini satellite dish guns aimed at at an office…lol}}.
    • The CIA hacking tools, 100B dollars of them are ‘out there’
    • Awan brothers already HAVE the tools, but wikileaks doesn’t know where they are getting their leaks from. They don’t knwo if CIA is leaking or Assad or Russians… But the CIA needed to get a cover to say, “hey, tools like UMBRAGE are out there”.
    • UMBRAGE creates Russian footprints. It’s a russian hacking tool that was modified by the CIA to leave on a system–Like Trump Tower–what looks like Russian Footprints [on the hosts it hacks]
    • I don’t know who is running the information ops, but You’re basically giving the answer to the whole Trump tower hack by the Awans, basically giving the recipe out.
    • We’ve got spies coming into these safe houses. Lorton VA home. They are bringing in different experts. Lightbridge and the defense contractor people coming in, who are trained on espionage technologies.
    • Again if you have [inside actors embedded in the house (ie: SPIES), behind security firewalls] then you don’t need a FISA court/warrant
    • There might ever be a FISA warrant ever produced. {{in other words, FISA is for legal domestic espionage. 5th columners, double agents are for illegal domestic spying. HRCRatliners are the 5th columners, they’ve committed treason}}
    • Famous Spymaster Graham Fuller set up Gulen in this spy ratline network. At the end of the cold war and the CIA brought down the Russian government, Fuller said, ‘we might as well use these guys all over the world’. Fuller used them for counterintelligence insurgencies in many countries to undermine the pillars of every society, so that when the revolution does happen it’s a rapid collapse like a building collapsing. {{9/11}}
    • Amjad Awan BCCI — Iran Contra recap
    • The Congressional folks are just pulling the house down on themselves. These house dems going on camera to accuse Trump of this false russian narrative is just going to cause them to self destruct.
    • Schumer recap and his relationship to Attar, Awan, McCaskill
    • Awan Financials recap
    • “An Orgy of Evidence” — Dem Congressional staffers are going to be available to be called as witnesses
    • I saw that when the gang of 8 intelligence group came out yesterday, all the D staffers were running from the cameras because they didn’t want to be recognized because they can be called and subpoena’ed.
    • The problem with the Russia hoax is there is no evidence because it didn’t happen.
    • {{ Dems are running a whisper campaign }}
    • Andrew McCabe should not be in charge of any of these investigations. He doesn’t even have the FBI involved in the Awan investigation he has the Capitol police looking at it, for an international spy ring. {{Pathetic}}

  • [Day 138 Part 2
    • Preet Bhara has been asked to resign. Maybe the new DA will actually look into the HRC
    • Dedicate to @NYPDDetectives are the folks that did the work. Not the counterterrorism division that tried to destroy Justice and crush the NYPD
    • @truepundit a lot of them come from the intelligence community
    • They just a recent “rao”? with buzzfeed. Buzzfeed did a big hit piece on them
    • Truepundit hit back with a rejoinder ‘buzzfeed took four years 20-30M to get to the same numbers truepundit got to organically’
    • Because if you do good journalism, people beat a path to your door.
    • HRC needs to answer for the ties to the MB but also giving the Awans/Gulen Movement the most deadly cyberweapons that could literally take down our country–this is the deep state.
    • Here are the Awans’s webpage–contains the caption, “We are Awans we Break Bones Not Hearts”
    • {{ George fails to point out this is on the “Stay Calm” meme with the Crown at the top — I think this is significant because I’ve long thought that the “Stay Calm” meme is State Propaganda–put out by the CIA/NSA, same with Pepe/Kek the frog; any meme that gets sold on merch in Target is likely an operation, imho }}
    • The “Awans” are a loose association of terrorists and policing/politics, PSP–SSP, in the same description of the father Mohammed Shah.
    • How Awan has a father Shah proves my point {{If you are correct about Imran being the same as the one in Pakistan}}, that Awans are a spy cover name much like “Bravermans” are for Jewish spies
    • Awans imprisoned their stepmother and hacked her phone. They are obviously ISI. When their cover was blown, they grabbed their technology and fled to Pakistan. If you are not guilty [for the 20 burglaries], why would you flee?
    • Not only did they get information for the 12 yrs from the three most sensitive Intelligence Committees in the House, they kept their own server. This is the same Huma/Hillary story of having their own private server.
    • Instead of having the Barney Fife Capitol Police investigating this INTERNATIONAL SPY RING, have the FBI investigate this.
    • Let’s get the cameras of the data center, the phone records of these guys, the GPS movement data. This is law-enforcement 101.
    • Trump tower recap — Carl Bilt you are going to find is going to be the one who orchestrated this. I could say the university where he did it but I’m not going to say that now.
    • Brett Baer? Reported this story. It’s going to mainstream–that is encouraging. When you forward these stories, they are picked up by the main [[[news.
    • Graham Fuller designed the program for the Mujahadeen to bring down the SU, and it worked great. But then he turned around and said we should use the Mujahadeen to go after the edge countries of the SU the Five ‘Stans’ and the One ‘Jan’ surrounding Soviet Union; but then he made the fatal decision to use the Gulen plan to infiltrate North America–that’s where things went south. {{ They didn’t expect a bunch of free-thinking refusenikkers to refuse to go along with CIA’s nonsense BS after dealing with it for decades }}
    • CIA teachers that they used to use in Central Asia–operatives that had diplomatic passports–your first clue that they are agents.
    • Beginning about 2006 they start flooding into the US: TExas and other states in the Midwest. Texas Bryce University, Univerity of Houston was their first entry. These are the orchestrator of Ratlines. These are the IT supply chain. Ratlines of kids, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, of organ harvesting. This is the Gulen movement
    • Mike Flynn told Erdrogan that Gulen was going to do a coup in Turkey. That’s why he was paid the half million dollars
    • Compare this half million to the 675k dollars that Andrew McCabe was paid to sit on the Huma Server investigation, to sit on the Awan server investigation and HRC server investigation. {{ Well, no that’s not why McCabe got it, but it’s certainly why he’s not recused himself. It’s protection money to ensure he’ll keep playing for team HRC the Fifth Column }}
    • Long history of Amjad Awan, BCCI, funnelling drugs through Pakistan through Turkey thru Europe and then through Mexico and the South/Central America funnelling it through NAFTA into the US.
    • Amjad Awan was convicted for all this Iran Contra activity, with Marc Rich, Bert Lance, Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, Noreiga, MOssak Fonseca.
    • He was the architect of Iran-Contra, along with Ollie North, George H W Bush, and Graham Fuller.
    • Dems are pursuing the [Russian narrative] and hitting a brick wall: I do not know why Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz want to investigate Trump on this Russian Hoax, because it’s going to bring this Awan thing to a head.
    • Awan’s criminal connections to Hezbollah–double agents. There are going to be connections to the Russian Ambassador for the Iran nuclear deal negotiatons and the Uranium deal in Russia
    • We still don’t have pictures for Ibid or Jamal. In any investigation you want to publish these pictures publicly so the public can help catch them. {{ But if you DON’T want to catch them then you DON’T publish the pictures }}
    • They are all in Pakistan now so maybe it’s a moot point
    • Omar Awan is involved and he’s married to Nataliia Sova–paid 4x the median–and no one is talking about Omar
    • The best thing McCabe can do is recuse himself, the next best thing is to publish the 650k metadata
    • Please forward NYPD Detectives
    • True Pundit is a great news outlet on the scene

  • [Day 139 Part 1
    • @SaraCarterDC She’s with a news outlet called Circa
    • Feta Gulen has accumulated 40B in Malaysia
    • There are cases against Gulen in Preet Bharara’s Southern District in NY
    • There are also cases in Erdrogan
    • Erdrogan has a drug runner Reza Zarrab is a bag man for Pakistan to Turkey Drugrunning
    • Zarrab was arrested last April and has a pending case with Preet Bharara,
    • So the surprise firing of Preet Bharara [will cause GulenGang — HRCRatline to attempt to spirit Zarrab back to Turkey] because if he talks, he will expose the whole drug trade and the 40B dollars in Malaysia.
    • Preet Bhahara has a signature of taking out low-level “pizza delivery guys” of the drug biz. He never goes after the Gulens or Clinton’s gang.
    • {{ Never mistake incompetence for Malice, George. After all, these guys work for the same Gov that brought you Obamacare’s website rollout, the DMV, and who misplaced billions of dollars of cybertools–they are a joke, and now everyone knows it. But they are also decidedly dishonest. It’s hard to know if they are incompetent, dishonest or maybe even both. }}
    • NYPD Chief Robert Boyce says there are remarkable crimes in the 650k emails, and yet Preet Bharara looked the other way (at his time magazine story) instead of going after the Hillary crimes.
    • HRC connection to Amjad Awan via Mena Airport during Iran-Contra
    • Hillary’s server is perhaps a staging server to sell information to other countries
    • But it looks like Huma Abedin’s server is the treasure trove

  • [Day 139 Part 2
    • In any kind of war situation you need not only people on the ground, as in the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Syria; but you also need people running the Network Operations Center–sometimes they call it command and control or eye of god. Or if you’re trying to tip-off the Muslim Brotherhood in countries where we’re trying to destroy ISIS, you also need information technology folks like the Awan bros to feed information to the guys on the ground so they ‘just miss them’. Like Osama Bin Laden–we always ‘just missed him’.
    • HRC recap, Hacking recap — ‘management of the battlefield from an operations / IT perspective’.
    • Now that Preet has been fired, hopefully a new NY DA and will look at the files.
    • I imagine the “shredders” are going crazy now on the Trump file, the FISA file for the Trump tower and all the other cases Bharara was working on regarding Gulen’s gang.
    • The key thing Trump has to do now that Preet is gone is to go after Gulen, because he had cases in front of Bharara that were being slow-footed at SDNY, as well as Reza Zarrab Turkey Drug deliver boy–who knows the Ratline. Zarrab can lead to the Kingpin if you get him to talk.
    • Dyncorp does have a contract for teaching the Pakistani Police PSP
    • SSP do the ratline in Pakistan
    • The policing is going to be based out of Lahore, Pakistan; the ratline is going to be by the ‘Stan’ border
    • Defense Information Systems Agency DISA — runs the global information grid GIG and who is the biggest user of GIG
    • Hillary Clinton was the biggest consumer of this system when she was Sec of State. She had 4 projects running simultaneously: the Haiti earthquake, Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan, Libya {{ zero footprint? }}
    • This GIG is the ‘Eye of God” —
    • “These folks are managing Hillary’s assets”

  • [Day 139 Part 3
    • Key point is that these servers in the GIG are not only targetting soldiers in the battlefield, it’s also targetting citizens of the US through the homeland security information.
    • So you don’t have to just worry about Andre Carson being in the Muslim Brotherhood and getting funding from the Muslim Brotherhood–that’s just one risk, his membership in the House Perm Select Committee on Intelligence, and his Membership in the Subcommittee of “Emerging Threats”
    • You (HRC) also have to worry about the targetting of individuals; specifically those poeple on Hillary’s Political Enemies list.
    • The Awan server is not just stealing [US intel] information to protect ratlines overseas, they are also tracking individuals in the US and retaining that info {{ From Palanatir/PROMIS type software and this GIG }}
    • All Sessions has to do is go and look at the VISAs that Kzir Khan and Hogan lawfirm are cycling through these experts to do this kind of hacking.
    • Hacking of cellphones especiallly.
    • You’re going to see that Hillary is very interested in the location of DISA, which is called the Joint Spectrum Center in Columbus Ohio. {{ SOURCE? }}
    • That is where DOD picks up the signal intelligence when you get a new cellphone–they say ‘oh we got a new person we need to track’, and that’s where it’s going to go to Homeland Security, and that will be in Columbus. And that’s how they can coordinate with local and state law enforcement as well as other federal agencies in these fusion centers to track you 7×24
    • They can do it via triangulation of the cell radio stations, satellite, GPS.
    • The AWAN server is also going to also have foreign affairs information on oil and deals [economic espionage data]
    • “Awans Own Car Dealership that Launders Money”
    • Fall Church, VA where Awans had their false front car dealership is also the center for DISA, for the GIG.
    • The Dept of Homeland Security where they treat the US like a battlefield {{ against US Citizens }} is going to be in Columbus, Ohio
    • Sessions has a chance to put in a DC DA to take on this issue with the 20 House Burglaries
    • All Sessions has to do is Subpoena the Palantir records. You can start in the joint operations center–there’s going to be one in Utah, Silicon Valley, in Columbus OH
    • You can’t have someone in the FBI working against you!!! Get them to recuse himself. Do NOT have people in counterterrorism people in the FBI work on this. THey call it “the wall”: counterterrorism on one side, field office on the other. Every one of the counterterrorist side is going to be on the McCabe side and will work against you. You’ve got to get people from the field-office side to work on this

  • [Day 140 Part 1
    • 140 days ago Hillary was about to be president, Awan Pakistani IT spies were going to be in the House Intel files for another 8 yrs and the Muslim Brotherhood was going to have more support for topples around the world. So a lot has changed
    • McCabe is still running Huma and Hillary’s server investigation but he just lost his right-hand-man Bhahara.
    • McCabe went around the world with the counterterrorism division of the FBI basically the CIA infiltration into the FBI and PReet was his right hand mand for issuing / approving wiretaps and so forth around the world, as Wall St.’s district attorney
    • {{ just to explain Bharara was the “Wall St” DA and so was able to get FBI to try to bust up white collar crime, which is worldwide–so now you understand how a Southern District of NY prosecutor can be in such a powerful position, when it sounds on the surface like Preet is some small potatoes NYC attorney busting kids with small amounts of plant material on their person }}
    • Karen Hudes talks about the 147 companies that are interlocked on Wall St. that own 40% of the wealth of stock exchange, 60% of the earnings. THere is no way you’re going to unlock those Wall St. interlocking companies if Preet Bhahara is in charge. SO there’s good hope in the long run when the World Bank starts getting audits, as well as the Clinton Foundation in NYC.
    • The next shoe to drop is to honor the request of Erdrogan to extradite Gulen to Turkey and the whole network falls apart*, because this is where the money is coming from 40B in Malaysia, 2B that HIllary has stashed in Malaysia in drug profits.
    • How do I know that the Awans were involved in cellphone hacking? Their own stepmom said so
    • How do I know they are radicalized? Their own Facebook says so.
    • How do I know they are doing hacking other than their stepmother? Dennis Kucinich is wondering “how did i get hacked in my congressional office?”
    • DISA GIG infographic — we are bringing in people in Pakistan and training them in IT, and then they are hacking people like Dennis Kucinich
    • How do we know they are hacking servers? We have police reports and stories about the 20 office breakins
    • Where is the server now? That server went along with them to Pakistan {{ Did it? I thought the Capitol Police seized it. Is that ‘server’ the “laptop and other equipment” they skidaddled to Pakistan with from Mohammed (father)’s house in stepmother’s story? SOURCE NEEDED }}
    • Who got them VISAs? Omar went with an immigration lawyer to the White House to get them VISAs. And they got DIPLOMATIC VISAs
    • No investigation information on the burglaries from Capitol Police or FBI has emerged since our last update.

  • [Day 140 Part 2
    • About the Preet and McCabe Partnership: they know a lot about the Awan brothers and they decided not to investigate–that was McCabe’s counterterrorism job at the FBI
    • Let’s not worry about Karen Hudes–I shouldn’t have mentioned her she’s a “conspiracy theorist” {{ so what do you think you are, to others? }} — but she did reference a World Bank study in Zurich —
    • It talked about modelling Wall St and did a cluster analysis and picked out the firms that were driving the use of counterterrorism for competitive advantage
    • If there is going to be crime, then you look at those concentrations of power, that’s all I was saying [with Karen Hudes]
    • Both McCabe and Preet have looked the other way on the 650k emails on HRC/Huma/Awan servers and the Police Chief said there was wrongdoing. They have been colluding with ratline for a long time.
    • If they found Mike Flynns’ 533k for being under surveillance, then they know all about how the 40B dollars got into Malaysian Banks for Gulen
    • Comey is slowfooting in the FBI–he used to be DA Southern District of NY, Preet’s old job–he was slowfooting with Zarrab, but he’s gone. {{ Don’t let Hillary’s emails hit your ass on the way out }}
    • We know about transfers through Al Kadi between Turkish banks. Zarrab has three different citizenships. He’s the obvious go-between with the Gulen groups and Muslim Brotherhood groups.
    • We know the Awans cleared out their “dad’s” bank acccount on their quick escape to Pakistan, according to stepmom’s story.
    • Preet knows about all this, so does McCabe. {{ They know at least what George Webb knows, because Webb only works with published media stories }}
    • When we have foreign nationals doing wiretaps {{ points to Kucinich }}, Preet and McCabe may or may not know about it–but let me tell you that’s what counterintelligence is all about. You’re supposed to know when people come into the country that have an intelligence backgrounds and hacking backgrounds, so that you can track them. That’s what our taxpayer money is for.
    • They what computers the Awans took, they know how many thumbdrives, hard drives, etc. They chose not to investigate. They chose not to publish the Awan brother’s pictures. They know exactly how much money went through the Awan dealership, and they could have turned this all over if they wanted to.
    • Nobody is going after the burglaries, that’s something Preet could have used his resources to look into.
    • I realize that the study I quoted didn’t model illegal organizations transferring money through cutouts
    • The system [Palantir] that the Awans had access to is very sophisticated. It had information on every person in the US.
    • McCabe needs to be recused from this investigation and then field-office FBI (4 different offices with Miami office out of the picture) need to have a special taskforce; the original offices that were investigating HRC originally

  • [Day 141 Part 1
    • @RepLouieGohmert — only Rep in the house that has talked about the Awan brothers
    • We want to look into their access to top secret information being foreign nationals, 4 brothers actually and 2 wives
    • We want to look into the role that Omar played in getting VISAs at the White House
    • We want to look at their past activities in terms of wiretaps and intercepting cell calls and hacking activities
    • Rep Gohmert was talking about their unusual overcompensation, which is a red flag indicating that these were sham postings.
    • Awan Car Dealership Front company recap; they worked at this dealership at the same time they were working fulltime as IT House Staff.
    • Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was managing these Awans personally, Speier asked to get them top secret clearance
    • What I’m asking for is a letter today on Congressional Letterhead from Rep Gohmert asking the question: “Did the Awans have Top Secret Access?”
    • I’d also like to follow up on the fact that the Awans seemed to have the password to DWS’ ipad
    • The Awans seemed to have a separate server (according to the news)
    • My [next] question is: “There are several news reports about staffers being fired in a criminal investigation by the Capitol Police, Did the AWANS have root-level access to the 3 most sensitive Intelligence Committees in the House of Representatives?”
    • Andre Carson received funding from the Muslim Brotherhood and yet he sits on the Emergent THreats subcommittee of the House Foreign Intelligence Committee which is a serious conflict of interest that deserves to be investigated as the highest priority.
    • We want the Awan server to be included in the investigation of HRC and Abedin
    • We want McCabe to recuse himself because of obvious quid-pro-quo and obstructing these investigations

  • [Day 141 Part 2
    • Made a mistake, it’s @repLouieGohmert
    • Mental Exercise: What if the Awan brothers were Russian?
    • Or for that matter we don’t know — they might be working for the Russians!!
    • Suppose we had 3 different Awans and here’s the proof they worked for 31 different Democratic reps, suppose were Republican reps
    • Suppose they were making 2.5x what the median income was for the other reps
    • Suppose their wives were making 3-4x what the media income was
    • Suppose they had a Car Dealership with known ties to Hezbollah, no. Let’s say some Ukranian Rebel group
    • Let’s say the 4 Russian brothers got top secret access; instead of from the DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), they got it from Reince Preibus
    • Let’s say that that came out in the New York Times {{ Carlos Slim Times }} that they had Top-Secret Clearance for the Four Russian Brothers
    • Let’s say that the Russian Brothers had access to Reps and Committees of Foreign Intelligence, Dept of Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs AND they had a separate server.
    • What if the Russians did 20 burglaries, and then they high-tailed it for Russia, after they did the burglaries?
    • Let’s say there were 31 different Republicans and 20 burglaries where hard drives, thumbdrives, laptops were stolen that the RNC had paid these Russians 5 Million.
    • WOULD CNN COVER THE STORY? {{ Shoulder Palin: You betcha! }}
    • What if the stepmother said they had hacked cellphones for a living and they fled to Russia?
    • In fact these people COULD be working for the Russians so they should be included in any investigation of Trump no matter what.
    • If they had paramilitary propaganda on their facebook site, violence rhetoric ‘we are the awans, we break bones not hearts’
    • We have train tickets [they posted on their facebook] where we see that they are going back to Moscow, to meet with Putin
    • We have a server with 650k emails on it and Preet Bhahara and Andrew McCabe saying “hey there is classified info on these servers…of hillaries with lots of crimes….let’s say Weiner is meeting with the Russian ambassador instead of the Israeli foreign minister”…WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
    • We’ve showered a huge amount of attention on the one server that wasn’t even in Trump tower talking to one Russian bank.
    • But here we have 650k on humas server and who knows how many emails on the Awan server and the obvious interconnections
    • If we found Russian email on any of these servers I guarantee you the House committee would be wanting to bring in the Awan server if it were Russian Hackers in the investigation
    • The Awans Could actually be working for the Russians
    • Intelligence services have been buying intelligence {{ outsourcing }} from other intelligence services since the beginning of time.

  • [Day 141 Part 3
    • @RogerJStoneJr — He’s going to be called in front of House Intelligence Committee.
    • One defense is to present a more plausible set of circumstances
    • I was being sarcastic in my last video when I said if the Awans were Russians would CNN have covered the story: Obviously they would
    • If Roger Stone sees this story and the evidence here, he’ll be convinced.
    • Awan recap
    • “Paid more like spies than Congressional House Staffers”
    • Most House Staffers don’t have an exotic car dealership or their wives have one as well while working as House IT
    • Most House Staffers don’t have Top Secret access, especially not Pakistani Nationals and their wives
    • Awans had the password to Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s ipad[].
    • Daily Caller for the most part has covered this; Fox and NYPost has covered this
    • Robert Boyce NY Chief of Detectives has said there is child exploitation on Huma’s server AND money laundering
    • Easiest way to draw connections between the three servers WITHOUT revealing any damaging state secrets would be to release the Metadata of the 650k emails on Huma Abedin’s server.

  • [Day 141 Part 4
    • @PaulManafort
    • This Awan House Staff compensation information has been read into the Congressional Record by Rep Gohmert
    • In your defense, you’re always allowed to bring in sources from the Congressional Record.
    • So the House Perm Select Committee on Intelligence can limit TRUMP today and limit the Dept of Justice to what’s entered, but what’s already been read into the Congressional record is fair game for future investigations. You can’t limit the scope of the investigation once it’s entered into the Congressional record {{ Sadface Ratlners }}
    • The two Awan car businesses kept very poor records, there was a lot of money going through them, and we don’t know where that money went.
    • Father of the Awans is ISI; they have lots of islamic extremist rhetoric on their facebook pages
    • Stepmother said there was money that was moved from the US to Pakistan
    • Since there is a Debbie Wasserman Schultz ipad that was compromised, there is now [an HRCRatline] link between the Huma Server and the HRC server
    • Smoking gun is witness testimony of NYPD Police Detective Chief Boyce saying there were felonies on 650k huma mails
    • Paul good luck in your hearing

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2007 Mar 13  Reddit  PART 20 — George Webb Series Cliff Notes: “Gulen’s Gang / Awan Brotherhood”  https://archive.is/vSAkQ

[2] You Tube George Webb Day 125 – Hillary’s Henchmen, McCabe Has Been Spying For Hillary A Long Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPhA5vBRuw&feature=youtu.be

[3] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-by-dr-sue-arrigo-june-15-2007/

[4] 2017 Mar 17 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-2-by-sue-arrigo-md/

[5] 2017 Jan 3 Cathy fox Blog George Webb Videos “Follow the Children” https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/george-webb-videos-follow-the-children/

[6] 2017 Feb 10 Cathy Fox blog Organised Child Rape, Blackmail, War and much much more https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/organised-child-rape-blackmail-war-and-much-much-more/

[7] 2017 Mar 18 George Webb Day 146 – Hillary’s Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens, Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlN6asFC2lc

[8] George Webbs you tube channel  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQ-wHKVi0JDWjQGcuoYnew

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Paedophile in other languages
pedophile, pedofiel, педафіл, pedofil, ፔዶፋይል, մանկապիղծների, педафіл, যৌন নিপীড়নকারী, pedofil, педофил, pedòfil, wogona ana, 恋童癖, 戀童癖, pædofil, pedofiel, Pédofile, pedofilo, pedofiil, pedofiili, Pédophile, pedofyl, pedófilo, Pädophile, παιδεραστής, પીડોફિલ, פדופיל, पीडोफाइल, barnaníðingur, pedofilo, 小児性愛者, scary, ಶಿಶುಕಾಮಿ, педофил, ជនរំលោភកុមារ, 소아 성애, pedofîlê, болгон зөөкүр, pedofils, pedofilas, pornographeschem, педофил, പീടിയാട്രീഷ്യനെ, मनोविकारग्रस्त महिलेने अपहृत, پدوفیلیا, pedofilem, Pedófilo, ਬਦਫ਼ੈਲੀ, Педофил, педофил, faroxumeeyaha, pedófilo, abanukubeza, పెడోఫిలె, เฒ่าหัวงู, Sübyancı, педофіл کیpedophile, Sübyancı, Ấu dâm, bedoffilydd, ulala,   פּעדאָפילע , pedophile ,  الاستغلال الجنسي للأطفال

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, MI5 MI6 Security Services, Sex trafficking, US of America Child Abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD

The first article in this series of three by Sue Arrigo has been widely distributed, including on this blog a couple of years ago, Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo [3] . The second and third are less well known.

The second is copied in this post and is also available at Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

The article covers, amongst other topics

  • David Rockefeller and Supreme Court Justice Corruption
  • Finders
  • George Bush Senior’s paedophilia and child “snuff” murders
  • MK Ultra Sex Slaves
  • CIA Child enslavement and Trafficking

[Abbreviation – DCI is Director of Central Intelligence ie Head of CIA]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry(2)
    by SUE ARRIGO, M.D.

Secrets of the CIA's Global Sex Slave Industry(2) How can we shine the light on this problem of sexual slavery so brightly that it vanishes under the exposure?

Suppose I told you that a particular Supreme Court Justice was getting kick backs on the sex slave business from the White House and told you how I knew that was true?

Let us go back to the 2000 election. I believe that Bush got into office because the Supreme Court was paid in favors and in money.

What I am alleging is a conflict of interest on the part of at least one Supreme Court Justice. Others of them might be involved as well. It is against the standards of legal practice for a justice not to recuse himself if he has financial ties to the members of a case.

When Bush got into office, all of the cabal that backed him and whose fortunes rose with him are members of the case.

Now my having been a sex slave to the Bushs and the Rockefellers is how I know this information. Since I was tortured periodically by Bush, Sr., Rockefellers and their henchmen I was under considerable duress to do as they said.

I was not a free agent.

Rockefeller had me reviewing financial transactions he made as I am a mathematician with some usual and valuable skills. About a year before the 2000 election I flagged a particular transaction, or rather set of transactions as likely to prove highly problematic in the future. I recommended that they promptly be reversed. David Rockefeller declined saying that it would lead to too much trouble.

The transactions were a series of 6 payments to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The payment amounts were large and curious. They were formed only of 6’s and were progressive. It was like a person with a mathematical obsession was trying to inform the Justice of their problem in a creative way. The first check was for 66 dollars. The second was for 666. The next was for 6,666. The fourth was for 66,666. The fifth for 666,666 and the final one was for 6,666,666.

So we are speaking of a total payment of over 7.5 million dollars which is not a trivial amount to show up in a Justice’s bank account in a period of one week. Now I said these were checks and that is not entirely accurate. It was a bank transfer that was listed as if it was a check on the statement. But there was no paper trail of checks to back it up.

The transfers came from a David Rockefeller account at his bank to the Justice’s account at that same bank. That bank is one whose records I have monitored for years for unusual transactions per Rockfeller’s orders. Substantial assets of it are the direct result of the sex slave business, mostly from the US side of it.

For instance, when Rockefeller charged a man a million for my services, a million was received from that man by the bank the next day or two . That was a recurrent and predictable result of my spreading my legs and my mind as Rockefeller’s slave.

I had been in and out of Rockefeller estates and beds as their slave since I was 16 and DCI Helms ordered it. I said to David Rockerfeller who was hard of hearing;

“DAVID, WHAT IN THE WORLD WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU SENT THOSE SUMS OF MONEY OVER TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?” He appeared not to have heard me because he replied “I was thinking of you, my dear.”

Undeterred, I repeated my question louder and closer to his ear;
“DAVID, WHAT IN THE WORLD WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU SENT THOSE SUMS OF MONEY OVER TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?”

This time he looked at me quizzically and said, “Did I forget to put my hearing aid in?”

He never put it in in the morning before he got out of bed. I moved the cream colored satin sheet off my naked body and got up and got him his hearing aid and after he put it in I repeated my question for the third time.

“DAVID, WHAT IN THE WORLD WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU SENT THOSE SUMS OF MONEY OVER TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?”

He said to me “You don’t have to yell at me. I can hear perfectly well.” Meanwhile both the butler and the maid had come to see what the ruckus was about and became witnesses to the answer he gave me. He said, “I wanted him to know who his boss at the Supreme Court was so I sent him the message in a way that I knew he would get it. And don’t forget it. I am your boss too.”

Being a good slave, I kissed his naked thigh playfully and told him that I would never forget the he was my boss if he would explain to me, a simpleton, why he sent 6 transactions when the last one would have conveyed the same message.

He looked off at the distance for a moment and then asked me “Don’t you get it?”

The maid and the butler were both still posed at the edge of the bed awaiting his orders, if there were to be any.

“No,” I said as innocently as possible. “Why?”

“You know why.” He said somewhat angrily. “The devil can not refuse a request when asked 6 times.”

“Asking him what?” I asked.

“Asking him to do whatever I want.” he said somewhat nastily. And then in case I was too simple to have understood. He said. “I want him to serve my interests. I have paid him to serve my interests and that is that. He will do as I say from now on.”

Months passed and the elections votes were counted and left uncounted both. The case went to the Supreme Court. No more than a month after that I was in that man’s David’s bed again in order to avoid his guards torturing me yet once again. He had his hearing aid in. We were in DC at a White House dinner under Clinton earlier in the evening.

He had mentioned the Chief Justice’s name once in the conversation. He had gloated to Clinton, “That Justice is a good man. I believe that he would do anything I asked him, to as a personal favor, mind you.” David had paid for my white silk sequinced gown and he was removing it at that moment to expose a breast.

I asked him in that opportune moment “David, do you think that I should sleep with the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court?” He asked in a little spasm of jeolous, as he liked to sell me but only if I objected to the man, “Why do you ask?”

“Because you don’t love me anymore.” I lamented.

“Yes, I do.” he lied not so convincingly. “I never loved anyone better than you.” Now that part I did believe. He never loved anyone. He did not know what love was. Love is taking on yourself torture to protect others. I let the gown fall to the floor and he hurried to pick it up. I kissed the back of his neck and asked him. “Why did you want to give my services to that Chief Justice?”

His neck flushed red and he turned to me and said “I didn’t think that the money would cover the full amount for his election services. I was wrong. It was enough.”

“But 6 transactions!” I fussed. “Surely someone will notice.”
“I will pay them not to.” he said. No one at the bank will tell.

I am not at the Chase Manhattan bank as I tell you.

How does one gets those records to prove the buying of a Presidency? I wonder how one proves that the Chief Justices’s opinion was swayed by that 7 million dollars?

Or is it just enough that he received the bribe? Since I am a sex slave and men deposited money into Rockefellers private account at that bank, the same exact account that the Chief Justice received the money from, I wonder if I can get the records of the money David Rockefeller made from my services and how he distributed my money?

Since my worth to him as a slave was dependent partially on whether the man he wanted got into the White House, and that was wages that he stole from me, don’t I have a right to the records that show he paid the Justice to keep me enslaved to his man at the White House?

Really, I do not understand the law so well. I think that the Chief Justice owes us all a big apology–he put a sex slave boss’s son in the White House. He accepted a bribe that kept me enslaved and tortured to boot.

Now you could say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did not know that the money he was given came from the sex slave business. And that is possible. But I think it would be hard for him to say that he didn’t know that David Rockefeller was in that business, because he asked Rockefeller for my sexual services. And that was before he received the 7 plus million dollars.

Now, bear with me as I slow down and try to go through this carefully. It was about in Clinton’s first term. I was at a dinner of State at the White House. David was there and so was that man who became or was chief Justice at the time. He was a rather handsome man for his age, though frankly, I would not have slept with him if I had a free choice without duress.

Part way through the evening he came over to where I was standing next to David holding his drink. He asked David confidentially-like “Why don’t you send her over to see me sometime?” as if I wasn’t there. David and he discussed the price for my services. The justice raised his left eyebrow at the figure and set his drink down saying “That is too steep for me”.

David made him some kind of deal as I wandered off to get another drink for the judge so as to not have to listen to myself discussed as an innate object to be bought and sold at the whim of others. When I returned, a date was discussed. But the justice was impatient and led me into a bedroom in the White House. Not knowing his way around well, we will give him the benefit of the doubt, he put me on Clinton’s bed. Clinton thus came in later in the middle of the evening to find us in his bed. He chuckled and said “Expensive date, huh?” and left. I guess that everyone knew Rockefeller was a tightwad. I did see the justice put money or a check in the hand of David.

I am happy to answer questions. The sex slave trade and the drug trade are directly related in a number of ways. They have the same bosses, the same agencies and the same money laundering practices in almost any intelligence setting.

However, the CIA and the KGB are not as separate as one would think. That has been the case since before WW I. One of the Rockefellers funded the Bolshevik Revolution for Lenin in order to acquire more of the Southern oil fields of Russia for his Shell Oil.

That meant that in WW I and WW II the Rockefellers had heavy influence on the KBG and the CIA. This is getting closer to answering your question when you realize since the Rockefeller’s money was originally made in the opium trade in the 1800’s. That family has also been one of the major movers in the sex slave business, accounting for about 40 percent of it world wide. They currently have about 28 percent of the drug trade, having slipped in it for a number of reasons.

Having said how intertwined the two are I now want to say that they usually have different men handling their operations once you get below the level of the chief managers.

For example, Nelson Rockefeller, was head of both his sex slave and his drug business and the heads of the CIA were his public side “employees” in that he had the power to get them fired or executed.

Casey died as a result of a hit by the Rockefeller family because he didn’t do what they wanted enough to please them. The brain cancer he had was bogus. It was someone else’s X-rays with his name on them. And he was DCI at the time. He did not fully understand the power structure that he was in. He was fooled by the organizational charts that show the CIA as a public institution headed by the President. I tried to explain to him how things really work. He didn’t want to believe me.

The US is not a democracy nor a republic and hasn’t been, certainly not since Carter, but I doubt it was functionally one doing the whole of the 1900s. Howard Zinn in the “People’s History of the US” would probably agree with me. It is easy to see because the populist movement in the 1930’s did not move the govt. The corporations called in the pinkertons and put down the strikes.

The CIA itself is divided into departments so that while the Dept of Ops handles moving both drugs and sex slave, different people handle those. It is like at a University, there are professors of Literature and of History and though they both read books and sometimes the same books they are responsible for different aspects of “culture”.

Let me get more specific. There was a Deputy Executive Director of the CIA, #2 man in the agency at one point, who secretly agreed with me that the sex slave business was wrong. In his office was a filing cabinet that had all the contracts between suppliers and distributors in it. It was not kept on computers — too insecure. The drug trade contacts were in a separate filing cabinet. He let me destroy the sex slave files in his office one day.

It set the sex slave trade in the Western World into slow motion. It took it almost two years to regain its momentum. I got tortured for it. I didn’t regret doing it. What I did did not much affect the CIA officers running the delivery of sex slaves in the field much. They still knew where to get the slaves and who to deliver them to.

What happened was that the contracts between the bosses were destroyed and they bickered, each claiming more of a share of the market then they were entailed to. In the face of that disharmony they were unable to collaborate well and the trade slowed down about 30 percent, then more as they fought and they eventually recovered.

Surprisingly, it had very little effect on the drug trade even though the ships carry both sometimes. It didn’t slow it because they still had the drug agreements and still honored those. The US Navy was coerced into running both sex slaves and drugs at various times.

Most admirals are strait laced and do not approve and will work very very hard to stop that sort of thing. But unless one is a remote viewer it is not possible to inspect every container coming onto a Navy ship for drugs. People are not as easy to hide.

Let me see if I can go deeper into your question because I think that it is an important one. The real issue for me is whether it is possible to get these immoral soul-destroying trades under control on the planet so that people can have sane lives. I believe that the answer is Yes, it is completely possible. That is after watching this business for 40 years from the inside.

Yes, it is completely corrupt and pervasive. Yes, it has corrupted banking, governments, and our every understanding of what intelligence agencies and national security is about and how to do them. Even so, even though this planet has these problems like a terminal cancer patient with several different types of invasive cancers, I still know that it is possible for the patient to recover.

I am going to see if I can explain how I know that to you in a way that you can accept. The simpliest answer is that Nelson Mandela knew he was going to be president of S. Africa and end aparteid. He said that before he went into prison the fist time. He said it at a rally. Winston Churchill as a child knew that England was going to be in trouble later and he would save her.

Gandhi knew he could force the British to walk out of India if he persisted. General Billy Mitchell knew in 1923 that he had to get the US to make airplanes because air power would determine who won WW II. I know that I will reform intelligence and governments world wide to prevent nuclear holocaust. I often know things with certainty which is why I was useful to DCIs. I intend to do this and I will, by the grace of God, because it is the job God has given me and He will not fail me. He never has.

Even though I have been a thorn in the side of Rockefeller, the Bushs, and the CIA and even the KGB for decades, they have tolerated me and used me, because my skills are very useful. I really only have one skill, faith. No matter what problem was brought to me, I could figure out how to reduce it to the ethical part of it to do and accomplish it – because I relied on all-knowing all-accomplishing wisdom. Christ walked on water and raised the dead. He healed the sick. People like Padre Pio have also been associated with miracles.

Yes, it will take a miracle for the world to change and become sane and stop worshipping death and destruction. But in my experience, miracles are not only possible but can be reliably invoked.

Maybe that is more of an answer than you wanted. I used to take an auditorum full of Naval officers and get them to be psychically very accurate in one evening. (Then it took they a week to get used to it.) That, like the 4 minute mile, used to be impossible. It isn’t any more. The corruptions on the planet will disappear because of an advance in technology. That advance is this transmission of being able to directly read the Akashic records.

Then there is no way to hide corruption. The sex slave trade, the drug trade, the theft of elections, wars etc. all have secrecy as a necessary ingredient, and lies about the consequences of one’s actions. They look like a lot of separate problems, all very overwhelming. But there is realy only one problem, a very simple accounting problem – people are not adding up the real costs to themselves correctly. They don’t have the skill needed to do so. That can be corrected soon.

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES CHANGE SOCIETIES – RADICALLY AND PERMANENTLY

For forty years I have been a remote viewing trainer for the US govt. The bosses have liked the results that came out of it but wanted to hide the technology from the public. They are resisting it going public. But they will not be able to contain it. It is rather like the hundredth monkey experiments. The innovation has already become part of the collective unconscious and will manifest. I trained over 15,000 people. That is a lot of people who actually know the truth about how the world can shift out of annihilation. They may still have a little hesitation to use their skills to expose the corruption to release it into forgiveness and repentance, just like the early pilots had some hesitation to fly across oceans. But the inevitability was there.

The Akashic records will become the basis of people’s decision making because so many people have tapped into it. Those records are without bias or flaw. The decisions that come out of union with them have certainty of result. Most people have never experienced knowing something with certainty. It seems like a contradiction.

When I taught at the Pentagon in 1981, I asked everyone who brought my class a problem to write it down and then later write down if they were satisfied with the solution that we provided them in a week’s time. I had hundreds of difficult problems brought in and at the end I had only one man not sign that he was satisfied. He had died in the meantime.

There is a good and workable solution to every single problem that is ethical to solve. It is just that it can require a lot of faith, courage and dedication to get to it.

From my perspective Finders was a CIA run mind control sex slave experiment

1) I will first tell you how I knew about the experiment.
2) Then what the goal of the experiment was.
3) Then how the experiment was run.
4) Then what the lives of the children were like under it.
5) Then what went wrong with the experiment.
6) Then what the results of the experiment were.
7) Then what the CIA analysts said what the results were.

This really should be a full-length book on the enslavement of children.

I have 40 years inside the CIA and it was my intention to someday be able to expose all this abuse of children by the US govt. But I don’t have the time to write out all the details today. I just want to cover the overview of these topics.

My specific knowledge of the Finders experiment came from reading 3 books in the CIA and talking to two of the in-house researchers who were responsible for administering the Project in the Dept. of Plans, in the Division that should be called Mind Control but due the sensitive nature of the topic was instead called “Future Assets”.

Its main office was on the third floor of the main CIA building, until it moved to the 5th floor under Goss. By then I was gone. The importance of the move was that the higher up in the building the closer to the DCI, the higher the priority. That is the way the CIA works.

The main facility for that Division is not surprisingly in a separate building because the CIA has grown over time. It occupies 2 floors of a large building and has over 40 full time researchers in it. These are only devoted to mind control.

The CIA has a separate Division for Assets and their recruiting. The largest “Future Assets” facility is in Maryland, across the Potomac by about 40 miles; a fact one of its researchers we will call Ted Hallsted bemoaned to me as it caused him to be on the road a lot.

That facility has over 200 researchers in it and has a clinic and psychiatric hospital for children associated with it. Nominally it is a University Research center devoted to the study of childhood mental illness. However, the clients come for minor problems like learning disabilities, and attention deficit and leave as multiples without their parents knowing. The clinic only takes “high functioning” children—not schizophrenics, or cerebral palsy kids. Unsurprisingly, the Rockefellers, and the Carnegies are major funders of it.

To work there requires a special security clearance that only the CIA can give. I went over to look at the place once to size it up. That was in the 1980’s. Everyone was wearing the same badges that the CIA uses with the same magnetic strips on the back of a picture ID.

To get into the main research building one inserts the badge into the same type of entry stile as we were using at the CIA at that time. I inserted my badge from the CIA and got in no questions asked. Now I was on a bit of a mission at the time. I wanted to leave a particular book on the desk of a particular researcher—by hand and then leave before it was known who had done that. That action of my related to an unsolved murder of a child.

The researcher was supposed to follow up on all of his experimental subjects. I wanted him to know what had happened to that particular child as the result of the experiment that he had designed and run. The book was an internal CIA production FOR EYES ONLY and he was not on the list of EYES to see it. I felt that that was a deliberate oversight that needed to be corrected, so I did so.

The book had come to my attention at a meeting between the DCI and a CIA risk assessment lawyer on a possible lawsuit for a wrongful death. The DCI wanted me there to ask me if what was in the book was true. I asked for a copy of it to read it, naturally enough.

I was not on the list of EYES either but I had a NEED TO KNOW and so did that researcher. I told the DCI that the contents of the book, produced by a CIA analyst and an FBI homicide officer, were indeed true. The DCI frowned at that. The murderer was one George Bush, Sr. who was Vice President of the United States at the time. The book had been commissioned by the CIA to find all the loose ends and suppress them. To do that it had to have the truth.

It is not possible to do a competent cover-up job if you don’t have accurate intelligence to start with. The DCI wanted me to write a report on what else the CIA needed to know that was not in that book. Most of what I supplied was a list of over 20 other similar victims of the same Vice President; each one of which needed as thorough an investigation. They did not get it.

Part of how I later ended up as a “pathologist” part-time at the White House when Bush, Sr. was President, was due to this particular case almost coming to trial.

The boy was 6 when Bush ritually killed him in a Skull and Bones ceremony to curry the favor of the dark lord. The murder was committed within 5 miles of that “University Research” facility. Most of the 20 odd victims were killed at the same spot. It was a quick and easy drive from the White House.

This is hard on my regular personality to write down. She didn’t ever hear about this before. So bear with us as we try to go through this material in as straight a line as possible on a thorough fare without taking any turn offs, until you get to the exit and go about 2 miles east through a locked gate onto a military base that is quite small.

That base was put there just for Bush, Sr. as Vice President. The only function of it and it is still there is to skim off some of those research kids for rituals. The base is tiny by most standards. It houses only the guards that work the security of it—about 3. There are no Army offices, no PX, no parade grounds, etc.

It is still there today as I type this. It may be razed tomorrow, like the McMartin tunnels as a result of what I am saying. But today, as a remote viewer, I can see that it has one main square building on the center of a square lot with the entrance on its West side and a guard standing at it though the gate is locked. Only one person has the key. That is Bush, Sr. It is his private reserve still. The guards are his prisoners inside of it. They are Army recruits in theory and on paper.

No guard assigned to work there has ever made it out alive. That is to make sure that they don’t talk about what they have seen. What have they seen? Bush, Sr. come in and out. A boy child driven up in a van and unloaded when Bush, Sr. comes. A “pathologist” and the guards Bush brings with him carries out a coffin as Bush, Sr. leaves. Access to the road to the gate is restricted. So no neighbors or passing traffic sees this strange recurrence of events. While Bush, Sr. was President he didn’t have time to go out there and the White House morgue and incinerator were used.

That base has no morgue or incinerator in it. Bush, Sr. arrives usually with 3 men – two of his own guards and the pathologist. They wait outside of the building while Bush Sr. sodomizes and tortures the kid to death. His counterpart the late Beria would be proud of him.

Why am I telling you this? The fact is that the way I have described this makes it possible for any intelligence service with a satellite to document that Bush, Sr. has done this. All they have to do it look back at their land sat images and watch the boy go in and the coffin come out. Time after time. I kid you not. They have the proof already in their files if they look closely. What pegs it as that base is the fact that the guards do not go in and out of the gate. That is easy to verify on sat images—that lack of regular traffic. The base has a “secure” phone line, a special type of receiver on the roof.

That also pegs it. The particular type of receiver is a “Presidential” Model. That is a little harder to see on the sat images but as the sun first rises on a sunny day it would show up due to the distinctive shadow of that model in low angle light.

I bet that that base will be razed tomorrow—gone, wiped off the face of the earth. But the sat data will still be there in Russia, China, and many other places.

Because my emails are of interest to many intelligence services, they will get this information. What they do with it will depend on future political situations that are hard for the average intelligence person to predict.

By the way, the guards that work there are mind control subjects, “graduates” of that University Research facility. The research there has been going on a long time. It was one of the early MKULTRA facilities.

Georgetown University should be called CIA U. The mental research facility is not on the main campus near the regular college students. It is on a separate piece of land that makes it harder to run away from. The name of it is not Georgetown, but it is part of Georgetown University.

Some people at the CIA have complained that attention deficit disorder is associated with the fluoridation of water and that the CIA refused to release the data on it in order to keep getting so many almost normal kids delivered to the door of their mind control clinics around North America.

They also complain that the CIA knows the treatment for attention deficit disorder, a drug to chelate the fluoride and expel it from the body and refuses to publish that data as well.

It is true that there are a number of books on the subject for internal consumption at the CIA. An ordinary epidemiologist could look at the issue and find out if those rumors within the CIA are true.

When this University facility’s history in mind control comes to the public’s attention, it will be a little hairy. Hundreds, no thousands, of parents will suddenly want to know if their child, grown or otherwise, was a mind control subject or in the control group. I will mention in passing three fairly reliable methods of knowing that.

That information comes from CIA reports about what to do to confuse parents if they get to another therapist later, ie what disinformation to give them to prevent them from uncovering that the kid was mind controlled.

That first piece of disinformation is — “No one can tell if a person is a mind control victim—certainly not regular family and neighbors, only a qualified therapist could know and since they can’t tell no one can.”

That is given because the CIA found out that 56% of the children were discovered to have been uncovered by relatives and family members as “robotic” or “messed up in their minds” or “with inexplicable behaviors that came from outside of themselves.”

Teachers were particularly good at distinguishing control kids from experimental kids, and a number of teachers near that facility were killed by the CIA—on the order of a dozen in a decade.

The second piece of disinformation that the CIA primed therapists around the world have dispended is that it is “normal” for kids to act out in their teenage years by cross-dressing. It turned out that just the opposite is true of normal teenagers. They want to define their sexual identity and not cross dress.

Teenagers are the most intolerant to cross dressing per CIA research. Unless of course, they are mind control subjects and have been trained to sexually please chicken hawks by boys dressing as girls. There is no market for girls dressed as boys so the cross dressing only goes in one direction.

Surprisingly, the CIA research showed that homosexual boys rarely cross dressed on their own at that age – unless they had been used by porn filmmakers, chicken hawks and mind controllers. So the presence of cross-dressing in a teenage boy is highly predictive that he is a mind control or abuse victim.

The third piece of disinformation that the CIA fed therapists in journals to fool them and the parents is a bit subtler. The disinformation said “There is no normal age at which children should be told about sex. Sex education can occur at any age — it is up to the parents to decide. And sex education may be bad for kids so maybe we shouldn’t have it in our schools…”

The CIA spent a lot of money to convince parents, churches, and schools not to have real sex education classes. The reason was that when kids were allowed to freely talk in a group about their sexual experiences or fantasies or theories of sex, the kids themselves could see that some of them had very different levels of exposure to and sophistication in these matters.

So if sex education had to be taught the CIA wanted canned talks in which the kids were not allowed to talk. It thus trained sex educators to control the amount kids could talk and tried to make it taboo for the kids to talk to each other afterwards.

The CIA also found out that there was a best age for sex education –about the start of puberty. So then they fostered some campaigns to force the education to be earlier. The reason for that was that some young child whose native curiosity would not lead to sophisticated knowledge of sexual action, were coming out with it in front of parents and therapists.

It was better for the CIA if they could say that the kid learned it in a sex education class than from CIA prostitution of them. So although it sounds contradictory, the CIA’s bottom line on sex education disinformation was—don’t have sex education classes, but if you must have them have them very early and don’t let kids talk at them. Make it a more taboo subject by the way you skirt it or only allow it to be taught in a very short segment and never referred to again.

The CIA sponsored conferences for sex educators under a front company call “First Dating Experiences” if I remember correctly. Or maybe just “First Experiences”. When the abstinence only people objected the name of the front company was called something like “Wait for Marriage, Inc.”

It was the same front. The same staff, address etc. The CIA also pushes abstinence and marital fidelity fronts while not practicing these things themselves. It does that to increase the effectiveness of its blackmail ops.

Sexual blackmail only works when the society is condemning towards others. It is not the abstinence of fidelity that the CIA is after, it is the condemning of others it is after.

Condemning is a form of hate and the CIA provokes hate and condemning as a way of controlling others. It is a mind control technique that can then be used to get people to fight wars etc against their best interests.

The CIA is looking for “handles” into a person’s psyche—an emotional issue that drives a person to act. Then it exploits it. It also creates handles by funding songs and lyrics into existence. That is another whole level of mind control directed at a population instead of individuals.

I have gotten off track some here. This is useful information but not staying focused on the main topic.

I want to mention one other way in which I learned about the Finder’s Experiment. The name Finders comes from a CIA slang word that was popular about the time this experiment started.

It was Fucked Into Not Denying (FIND). A boss at the CIA would tell an employee “Go find out who did this”.

It was like a game of musical chairs. Everyone would deny that they did it until finally somebody was the scapegoat and was fucked into not being able to deny it.

So the Finders acronym was a warning to people in the CIA to be careful and not get made into a fall guy for this whole Project by letting a word out about it. A person leaking such stuff usually got blamed for the stuff itself—as people outside the agency couldn’t tell who was above whom and where the buck stopped.

The first time I heard about the Finders Group was at a party. Some kids were brought in to a fancy DC estate dressed up almost in Halloween type costumes-clowns, witches, ghosts, etc. But the costumes had big buttons on back panels over the bottom so that the kids could easily have their private parts exposed. The kids were trick or treat age. But it was not fall.

There were about 15 of these kids brought into an upscale party of people in tuxes. I arrived on the arm of the DCI Colby. Men started messing with these kids sexually, putting them on their laps with their panels unbuttoned. They did not even go into a separate room to do it. I felt uncomfortable with that – it reminded me of my own abuse as a child—and I went out on the front steps to look at the night sky and imagine being on some other planet for awhile.

Colby came out and asked me if I wanted to go home—that meant back to his bed. I just couldn’t get away from this issue. I got a little mad at him and asked him who brought the kids, as if I didn’t know as a remote viewer. He was defensive and then admitted that they were part of a CIA experiment and this was their “coming out” test—their graduation test to see if they could seduce DC politicians (to stay alive).

Those who flunked the test were liquidated. I had been in that system all my life—be useful sexually or die. I was not amused. Colby went into the technical details of the experiment and a “Wasn’t it a good idea?’ type of pitch to me.

I threw up my dinner on the front steps of the estate and excused myself to go wash up in the bathroom. I was good at throwing up on cue.

What was it that Colby had said to me?

Colby explained to me that the point of the Finders’ Experiment was to train children to be like drug sniffing dogs—only they were to sniff out who would make good pushers for not just drugs, but illegal weapons, sex slaves, etc.

The CIA was looking for a down line in these businesses and it wanted to use expendable agents. The CIA was having trouble explaining how many of its operative died. It never put names on the gold stars in the marble panel in the entrance way because that panel was a bald faced lie.

The CIA had lots of deaths in action of its officers. The gold stars were propaganda for the novices to con them into a sense of false security—like that the CIA cared about them. The CIA did not care how many of them died. The Rockefellers wanted their deaths. It was the GAO who cared.

Training agents was expensive. Covering up their deaths was even more expensive than that because of the expense of finding the loose ends and tying them off. So the CIA had decided, even before Colby became DCI probably, to go to the cheaper expendables to foster its trade in contraband. The kids were divided into two groups—those that received training on how to pick the people to become a pusher and make them into one, or no training.

In the no-training group you tell the kid, under hypnosis and torture what you want them to accomplish and let them figure out how to accomplish it. I grew up in that model—General Patton used it. It was cheaper. Kids died all around me. But some figured out what to do to succeed.

It had a kind of intelligence logic to it that was “if the kid has to figure out what to do on their own, maybe the KGB won’t have seen that strategy before and it will work.”

Next I want to talk about the type of training that the kids received if they were assigned to get any at all. The training consisted of two weeks of hard torture during which they were taught how to do blow jobs, spread their legs, ask for contraband to be moved and sign alias names to the right places on contract forms to “witness” them.

The contracts bound the pusher to work for the CIA front company without being able to sue. Let me say that another way. Both groups were tortured using electricity and severe pain for two weeks.

The trained kids, in addition to being told that they had to move contraband because their lives depended on it, also had a couple of hours worth of instructions and practical guidance on how to do it. What do you think were the results of the experiment?

The CIA found from this experiment that it made no appreciable difference whether the kid was trained or not. Its reports made no mention of the two weeks of torture as that was “off the record” after the 1977 MKULTRA Hearings.

They also made no mention of the type of training as the CIA wanted to hide from possible future Congressional prying eyes, that the kids were to move contraband by finding buyer-pushers.

Instead, the CIA documents said that the point of the experiment was to detect which kids could “succeed in life” and whether any training that the CIA gave them could make a difference in that.

The reason everything was limited to two weeks was that was the length of time that the in-hospital psychiatric hospitalization could maximally be extended to to run basically healthy kids “through testing of their condition”. The CIA developed a bunch of bogus tests to run on ADD kids to justify their two-week hospitalization like “withdrawing them from sugar, food dyes, etc.”

It was a total scam. They just needed something so difficult that parents couldn’t easily do at home to con the parent into letting Johnny stay at the hospital. They withdrew the food alright. They barely fed the kids at all. They fed them out of boxes, pre-packaged pototo chips like Pringles and called that a sugar free diet. The last day the parents would come to pick the kid up and the interaction was observed carefully to see how well the kid could lie about his stay and what he had eaten in the hospital.

It was a complete fantasy. The kid had been down in the basement without a bed, clothes, or single hot meal. The kids that passed had incredible abilities to make believe. So good that they even believed it. They were multiples just like me. They had gone through an hour’s hypnosis at the end of that torture and with the help of the hypnotist had imagined all that had happened to them in that two-week period of time.

The parents were told that they couldn’t see the kids because the kids needed to learn a new way to relate to them to help their ADD, and that had to be learned well before they saw them again.

The parents wanted a break from their ADD kids for 2 weeks so it worked. And the kids did relate to their parents differently after two weeks of hard torture without a hot meal. Meanwhile, some say the CIA did actually give them the fluoride chelating drug—a pill once a day so that the ADD was better. The program was popular with parents.

The University facility touted its benefits. Researchers forged results to show how effective it was and others studied how to torture the kids and split their minds more reliably.

Not all kids split well enough to pretend, or keep up the pretense. These are the ones people know of as the Finder kids. They were taken away from their parents. They were not able to find pushers in their communities, so they were sent to be sex slaves and drug mules where they didn’t have to perform at as high a level.

If they couldn’t even do that, they were killed. They were not one-use kids for the sexual/torture use of the Ultra-rich, they were already used goods. The kids that Bush Sr. was expending were kids that came to that facility that were selected to be held in reserve for his use and his use only. Their parents had applied for their son’s hospitalization but the “application had been held up.”

Bush, Sr. had a certain look of boy he liked, like the youngest boy “Eager to Beaver” in the Brady House Boys (?). They looked like he looked when he was a boy before “it happened to him” at age 6. He kept on sodomizing kids like his dad sodomized him. His father kept it up much longer than others can imagine. He kept it up until he was close to death. Some things run in families.

Would you want to see your dad if that continued to be what you had to submit to? Dark and ugly secrets that even the principals might not know—what with multiplicity being what it is. Bush, Sr. — does he even know that he goes to that base and why? I leave it to your remote viewing skills and imagination to decide.

I was not at the CIA because of my ability to imagine what loose ends there were. I was there to know what loose ends there were and failing to know could cost me my life and more than that.

The actual results were that the CIA training was not adequate in amount or quality to do anything to train a kid in pushing. So the experiment was not a test of that at all. The experiment was a cover story for how to get the kids into one’s hands.

There were lots of experiments on how to mind control kids, but it was mainly a matter of trial and error, not scientific research. There was a lot of variability due to the skills and personalities of the individual torturers. The CIA even poorly studied whether using multiple personality torturers was better to make multiple personality kids. That seemed to have some advantage sometimes—it depended on which personality they were in.

Since that was not always easy to control, it was a bit hit or miss if you used multiples for the torturers. They didn’t always know the protocols and follow them, because they were not in the personality that knew them. Yet they might still feel intuitively that it was dangerous to admit ignorance of the protocols. In the end the CIA rarely used multiples as torturers in experiments—they were too unreliable. One multiple helped a child escape and that caused a big flap.

That multiple was me. Bush, Sr. wanted me to torture a child in his family into being an “oracle” like I had been tortured into being an oracle. This was just one of several attempts that Bush, Sr. made to try to get “my” powers to belong directly to his family. I was training officers in remote viewing just fine without any torture or brainwashing at all.

But Bush, Sr. when he was DCI, left me in the basement of the CIA with this child, George, who was about 10 years old with the instruction to torture him into being an oracle. Given the ages of his relatives when he was DCI, this boy named George was probably his nephew George Herbert Walker IV. I had one scared boy on my hands. I had done “interrogations” before for the CIA. To do them I looked at the person’s mind for what the CIA wanted to know, and wrote that down. I didn’t have to see the person, let alone threaten or hurt them to do that. When I met with them it was pro-forma and I asked them what they needed in terms of food, clothing, cigarettes etc. to make them happy.

So the first thing I did was ask George if he was hungry and ordered food be brought down from the cafeteria according to his specifications. It was not how he wanted his hamburger. The ketchup was wrong; on when it should have been off, or visa versa. So I took him up to the cafeteria. It still wasn’t made right; he said that the lettuce was put on it backwards, whatever that means. Ok, so he was fussy about his food, it wasn’t my fault.

I ordered a cab. I was not that much older than he that I had my own extra set of wheels waiting for me at the CIA at the time. I had the cab drive us to a 4 star-restaurant at the Ritz hotel in DC and serve him what he wanted. His DCI uncle had taken me there before which is why I thought of it. He ate while I bugged out and abandoned him at the restaurant. It was a fancy one. I figured no one would harm him there. It was better than being tortured in the CIA’s basement. I went into hiding for two days. By then Bush, Sr.’s anger had found another target.

George had eaten his burger and asked for another. It was only after dessert two hours later that he wondered what happened to me. Eventually, he was found, meanwhile the FBI started a manhunt to find me.

I was wanted on a “kidnapping charge” for kidnapping the nephew of the DCI. It wasn’t as if I was trying to hide where George was: I’d used a CIA credit card with my known CIA alias on it to pay for the bill in advance.

I was just trying to be a good baby-sitter and get him the food he wanted. He wanted a Ritz hamburger made of a slab of grilled steak, barbeque sauce, and shredded lettuce. Who would not want such a thing instead of what the CIA’s cafeteria served?

When I came out of hiding, I called the FBI and told them where I was. Then I moved my location to their headquarters in DC, which confused them. The FBI man at their headquarters insisted that I “give myself up”, from where I had first called them. I guess my guardian angel was looking after me—I went back to the CIA instead.

I walked into Bush, Sr.’s office and asked him to call off the manhunt for me. Since I was standing in front of him and not missing anymore, he did. He was too busy to torture me right then so it didn’t happen.

The next time I saw that George he complained that I had ditched him. He didn’t seem to have a clue that I had been ordered to torture and brainwash him by his uncle. I let it ride. I can’t help it if some people are multiples on their own without my help. But maybe he was just clueless for another reason, like being boxed on the side of the head too often by a family member. There are several ways one can get amnesia. The CIA also studied brain damage as a way of inducing it.

Oh, I said that I would say something about the lives of those kids that went through that university facility. The torture was unimaginable bad for two weeks.

After that they had to report once a week or so to a CIA case officer on a corner near their school to give him a signed contract. If the kid did not deliver—did not seduce his parents friends and blackmail them into pushing for the CIA, or in some other way get a person that week to agree to push drugs, hand guns, or pimp girls, then the CIA put the heat on him. That could take a variety of forms and was largely up to the imagination of the case officer.

The simplest method was to bully the kid by twisting his arm or threatening him or his parents with death, dismemberment or torture. That was usually enough to get the kid to deliver. The kids ranged in age from about 6 to 16. The case officers preferred the younger ones—about age 8 to 10—they still tried to obey without a lot of flak. There was a quota system. The kid had to make a certain amount of money for the CIA each month.

If he didn’t he could be disappeared into the “Finder’s Den”. Those kids had it much worse. Sometimes a case officer would take the kid to see those whorehouse drug dens to impress upon the kid not to screw up. The kids that ended up in the Finder’s Den were already severely traumatized before they arrived. Torture, whether it is consciously remembered or not, has a crippling effect on the mind. It is worse than broken bones. Bones heal up. Violated trust does not.

The kids made a kickback, a small “finder’s” fee for delivering each pusher. It amounted to about a 100 a month. It was a lot of money for poor kids. Occasional a parent figured out that the kid was being paid; and not for mowing lawns either.

A few parents sent other of their kids into the program to get a second dividend coming into the household. More often other kids noticed this extra money and wanted to know how to get it. As a result some kids got sucked into this CIA net to make money not knowing what was involved.

This was a national program. I am only talking about one facility. The failures ended up at Finder’s Dens, or dead. These kids were not usually sold into sexual slavery to independent brothel owners in the US.

They had been mind controlled at a fixed facility and had they remembered that it could have exposed that affiliated university to negative publicity and lawsuits. They were however sold overseas if they screwed up.

Part of the reason the CIA ran this program was because it felt like it was losing too much of the contraband profits to the middle men. Using kids like that, got rid of most of that expense.

It was against the child labor laws but the CIA and multinational Cabal did not care. If the kid was arrested by the police, the CIA just cut him loose and denied that they knew him. The kid could not prove it was the CIA. The case officers did not show them their badges or meet them at headquarters. A kid who was arrested spent time in juvenile detention. Sometimes they committed murder and big offenses to move the goods and ended up in the adult prisons.

At one point I looked at the issue of crime in the US. About 40% of crime in the US is directly due to the CIA. These kids were a major part of that.

The CIA only wanted to run them about 2 years. Then they were too streetwise to be easy to handle. After that they had to go independent or work for the competition if they wanted to continue making money that way. Some had no mental freedom to do otherwise because the mind control was not undone—it was merely not re-enforced and maintained.

Many ended up as pimps even at age 12 to 16. The CIA was having them sell tricks on the street for girls in its brothels or it any hotel room that it housed a sex slave in.

When the CIA turned the children loose, they sold their sister or their girlfriend, or the mentally retarded girl down the street. They knew by then how to hustle. They knew how to lie. And many of them figured out how to bribe the police to look the other way. They learned those things from the case officer and the pressure they were under not to get washed out to sea in the rip current to a foreign land.

Why end up as a sex slave in Saudi Arabia if you could live at home and work for yourself? Some sold their own bodies on the street. But they couldn’t usually make enough dough that way to satisfy the quota.

It was mainly a side line in case they couldn’t move the goods and had to make up a little on the side. The quota amounted to a profit of about $3,000 a month for the CIA, or about $40,000 per year. It was more than an average man’s income at the time. The bosses got roughly $33,000 per kid—about a full adult salary. So 3 kids were 100,000 a year for them, 30 were a million, 300 were 10 million, 3,000 were 100 million, and 30,000 were a billion. This was a worldwide operation, although in poorer countries the financial yields were different.

The drug trade is a big business. These kids were the child soldiers in it. They died of gun shot wounds, of suicide, of high speed get-away car crashes in stolen cars, of AIDS, of gang rapes, and of gang warfare. About 30% were dead by the time the CIA wanted to let them go two years later. It was about 20 times the expected death rate.

The CIA tried to figure out how to make 90% of them “phased out” of life by then so they couldn’t talk later. They fostered gangs and fueled gang warfare to do it. They supplied the names of the kids on the opposite side and gave bounties for their deaths of about $800. They got the extinction rate up to almost 90% by the end of the kids “useful life” to them.

Talk to the kids that survived in LA in the Bloods and the Crips. Talk to them about how they decided who to kill next.

To join the gang you had to kill. To make top dog you had to keep killing. The names were delivered with the money and the goods to sell. If you didn’t move goods you didn’t stay free. To move goods you had to have them.

To get them you had to kill a person on the list you got before the next delivery of goods or you didn’t get any. The reason for killing them was explained as “they are hurting our business—they are working for the opposition. Get them.”

The CIA was running both the Bloods and the Crips in LA. The opposition was a mirage. They wanted the kids dead after two years.

The CIA already knew where the kid lived and who it was selling to. If they wanted a kid gone, they made one call. The police came to the house and arrested the child or the CIA kidnappers arrived at the school and stole the kid.

Some kids tried to run and some managed to stay underground. But most did not understand that it was a nationwide and global problem. Setting up business in another city didn’t necessarily protect you.

I want to say a little bit more about how I knew about this “kill the kid” scheme because it is relevant to the issue of how trust worthy the information is. The CIA wanted to me as a past child assassin to train some of these kids. They figured that since they had forced me to kill as a child of 9, that I should be able to help them force these kids to kill for them. It was almost a reasonable assumption. But it was also true that I had learned as a child how not to kill people starting at age 10, even while I was inside the CIA. That was a much harder thing to learn to do because the pressure at the CIA was all running in the direction of killing.

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] c. 2007 <Jul 16  Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 Page 1 http://web.archive.org/web/20070716055755/http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4453

[2] c. 2007 <Jul 16  Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 Page 2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070731051156/http://conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4453&page=2

[3] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-by-dr-sue-arrigo-june-15-2007/

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

 

 

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, CIA, pedophile, pizzagate, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Robert Banks, former MP, allegedly part of Westminster Paedophile Network

This article is from Lux and Justitia Robert Banks MP (former) [1] based on Scallywag articles.

It was not a name that is familiar to me in connection with child abuse, so post it for others information.

Robert George Banks MP (former)

1937 Records indicate Robert George Banks was born on 18 January 1937.

RobertBanks-MP

As well as serving in Parliament as an MP (1974–1997), it is reported that Banks’ other career titles have included publishing executive, Royal Navy reserve officer, and partner in an investment company (Lloyd’s?). Further, Banks was in the past been described as a land-owning “horticultural nurseryman and farmer”, possibly owning land in Suffolk.

1974–1997 Banks entered Parliament as the Conservative MP for Harrogate in 1974. Banks would remain Harrogate’s MP until 1997 when he stepped down, although he never lived in the constituency, according to reports.

RobertBanksMP-1995

1987 Banks attended a Yorkshire Television luncheon with other guests including two alleged paedophiles, David Nicholson and Leon Brittan.

1992 Banks reportedly made an “unofficial” visit to Sudan with two parliamentary colleagues, Michael Colvin, who died in an unusual fire at his house in 2000, and Thomas Michael “Tom” Cox.

1995-1996 Banks was reported to own a house in Ripon which he had up for sale as of 1995. That same year, it was reported that Banks also had a second home in Suffolk (“his main home”). In 1996, Banks reportedly owned a flat in London Docklands. During at least part of the 1990s, according to the Scallywag journal, Banks was also a tenant in London’s Dolphin Square complex.

It is not known in which year Banks moved into his Dolphin Square flat, or in which year he moved out (assuming he ever did move out).

A person called “Robert George Banks” (presumably the former MP) appears in the past to have registered companies using the address: 807 Hood House, Dolphin Square SW1V 3NL. Companies registered to this address in the past have included ‘Credit Management Resources Ltd’ and ‘Wall Luxury Essentials’.

Banks was seen infrequently by Harrogate constituents when he was their MP, being locally dubbed “the invisible man” according to reports. In addition, according to the Yorkshire Post, Banks “never felt the need for an address in the [Harrogate] constituency during 22 years in the job.”

1997 Banks became a new director of Cyber TV in 1997, the Sunday Mirror reports. This fits with a statement Banks had made some two years earlier, to the effect that he wished to return to business after leaving Parliament.

2015 Banks’ current place of residence is possibly Suffolk, given that Banks once owned land in the county (and may still), or the London area.

Allegations:

  1. Robert Banks was significantly involved in the Westminster paedophile network along with lobbyists Ian Greer and Derek Laud and a number of politicians and VIPs. This is according to the investigative journal Scallywag. Vulnerable male children were trafficked by the network from care homes in North Wales and elsewhere to locations including Dolphin Square in Pimlico. Moreover, the Westminster paedophile network organised ‘paedophile parties’ at locations including apartments at Dolphin Square, where coerced and trafficked underage boys are said to have been assaulted and raped by MPs and other prominent individuals.
  2. Banks is identified as being the named tenant of the Dolphin Square flat in which, on the evening of 14th November 1992, a ‘paedophile party’ took place, organised by the network described above. Banks apparently took part in sexually assaulting and/or raping underage boys at the ‘paedophile party’. Parliamentary colleagues also at the 14th November 1992 ‘paedophile party’ are said to have included MPs Michael Portillo, Peter Lilley, David Nicholson, Edward Leigh, Alistair Cooke, Michael Brown and others. The source of the allegations against Robert Banks is Anthony Lillis, who himself was at the 14th November 1992 ‘paedophile party’ for part of the evening (though Lillis claims that he left early). Lillis has indicated that he was employed by Banks at the time of the ‘paedophile party’ as Banks’ parliamentary researcher. The day following the 14th November 1992 ‘paedophile party’ – i.e. on 15th November 1992 – Lillis alleges that Banks threatened him not to tell anyone about what took place at the ‘paedophile party’ of the previous night.

Sources:

  1. Tory gay bomb shell set to blow’, Scallywag Issue 21 1994
  2. ‘Lord McAlpine and the paedophile ring’, Scallywag Issue 22 1994
  3. ‘The Beast of the Valleys: Scandal of the children’s homes’, Scallywag Issue 23 1994
  4. ‘Tory gay love nest exposed’, Scallywag Issue 24 1994
  5. ‘Inside The Disks’, Scallywag Issue 32b 1997
  6. ‘Whitewash: Ian Greer’, Scallywag Issue 33 1997
  7. ‘The Waterhouse Report’, article by Simon Regan dated 20 February 2000
  8. ‘Jobs for the boys who were Tory MPs’, Sunday Mirror, 16 March 1997
  9. ‘The gamble for MPs in search of a new seat’, The Independent, 20 April 1996
  10. ‘MP deserted by ally in battle for constituency; Robert Banks’, The Times, 30 October 1995
  11. ‘Invisible man fights for seat in Tory revolt; Robert Banks’, Sunday Times, 29 October 1995
  12. ‘Squeeze on MP’, The Observer, 22 October 1995
  13. ‘Letter: Dictatorship and democracy’, The Guardian, 2 March 1992
  14. ‘Court and Social: Luncheon’, The Times, 15 September 1987
  15. ‘A northern jewel the Lib Dems have under lock and key’, The Times, 25 April 1996
  16. ‘Booth is defeated in fight for Finchley’, The Times, 3 November 1995
  17. ‘Has Norman Lamont finally found a perch?’, The Independent, 14 January 1996
  18. ‘Letter: Our MP will be very hard act to follow’, Ripon Gazette, 23 May 2007
  19. ‘Home truths matter for would-be victors’, Yorkshire Post, 5 June 2001
  20. Camera Press London/The International Magazine Services (IMS) photo archive. “IMS was a editorial photo archive in Scandinavia founded in 1948 but evolved from older archives that have images in the collection also.” http://www.doublequicktime.com/item/description/id/45549929

Updated [HT @thewakeupcall09]

1994 Scallywag Magazine Issue 24  p6 Tory Gay Love Nest Exposed [3] 

1994 Scallywag Magazine Issue 24 p7 Tory Gay Love Nest Exposed [4]

 

leigh as in Banks

Richmond & Twickenham Times [HT @craftymuvva]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Scribd Lux and Justitia Robert Banks MP (former) https://www.scribd.com/document/263203553/Robert-Banks-MP-former

[2] Wikia Robert Banks http://vips.wikia.com/wiki/Robert_Banks

[3] 1994 Scallywag Magazine Issue 24  p6 Tory Gay Love Nest Exposed [add h to start of url]  ttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7CcqQNXAAAdsAl.jpg

[4] 1994 Scallywag Magazine Issue 24 p7 Tory Gay Love Nest Exposed [add h to start of url] ttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7CeIpqXAAAkYm0.jpg

[5] 1996 Apr 19 Independent The gamble for MPs in search of a new seat http://www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/the-gamble-for-mps-in-search-of-a-new-seat-1305845.html [HT @thewakeupcall09]

[6] 2007 May 23 Ripon Gazette Our MP will be very hard act to follow (Robert Banks)

[7] 1996 Jan 14 Independent Has Norman Lamont Finally Found a Perch? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-norman-lamont-finally-found-a-perch-1323872.html

Many Spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, London, VIP CSA, VIPs MPs Lords etc, Westminster | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Richard Hook v The Clerk of Lancashire Police Committee 19 Mar 1980 Supreme Court (Police)

1976 Chief Constable of Lancashire “goings on”. It is not clear what these were.

A sergeant reported them to HMIC who asked the Police Authority to carry out an investigation, whose report was the Osmond Report.

The report disclosed a disgraceful set of affairs not only with the Chief Constable but also others. The Chief Constable was dismissed but the report was kept secret.

parr-lancashire                                                            Disgraced Stanley Parr

A new person on the Police Authority felt he had the need to see it to do his job and he was refused so this court case started. He was refused by this as well.

I publish this, as it is good to shine light on corruption in public officials, but also because Cyril Smith was MP at this time in Rochdale, Lancashire and abusing children and was not investigated properly.

Detective Sergeant Harry  Roby was the hero  who reported the “goings on” see  Lancashire Telegraph Downfall of Lancashire’s ‘untouchable’ police chief recalled [3]

 

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Richard Talbot Hook

v.

The Clerk to the Lancashire Police Committee

Royal Courts of JusticeWednesday, 19thMarch1980

The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)

(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of the Association of Official Shorthandwriters Ltd., Room 392, Royal Courts of Justice, and 2 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W. C.2).

MRS. J. SMITH (instructed by Messrs. Rooks Rider & Co., London agents for Messrs. J. K. Lawson & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. M. B. McMULLAN (instructed by the Solicitor, Lancashire County Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: In 1976 rumours were rife in Blackpool. Gossip abounded. About the goings on of the Chief Constable of Lancashire. He lived in the town. Not only about the Chief Constable himself. But other police officers too. And well-known citizens. These were the sort of ruinous: It was said, that in motoring cases, some offenders were not prosecuted when they ought to have been; that firearm certificates were issued to friends and acquaintances when they ought not to have been; that police cars were used for private purposes; and that there were close associations with undesirable characters.

There was at any rate one courageous member of the police force. He was a sergeant. He reported these goings on to Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and to the local Member of Parliament. They took it up with the Home Office who regarded it as so serious that they asked the Police Authority to carry out an investigation. Now the Police Authority is a county authority. It is established under the Police Act 1964. It consists as to two-thirds of county councillors: and one-third of magistrates. It is its duty to “secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area”: and to provide such buildings and so forth as may be required for police purposes.

At the suggestion of the Home Office, the Police Authority appointed a very distinguished police officer, Sir Douglas Osmond, the Chief Constable of Hampshire, to hold an inquiry into the complaint. These were his terms of reference:

“To investigate the allegations made by the Sergeant … and to follow up any other matters that may come to light during the investigation as calling for further inquiry” and to report:

“… on what, if any, evidence may be found which calls -for further and formal action “by the Police Authority”.

That was on the 20th August and the 6th September, 1976. All was done. Sir Douglas Osmond made his investigation. He made his Report on the 22nd December, 1976. He sent a copy of it to the Home Office, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to the Clerk to the Police Authority of Lancashire. It disclosed a disgraceful state of affairs, not only in regard to the conduct of the Chief Constable himself, but also of the conduct of others. As a result of it the Chief Constable was afterwards dismissed: but that comes later in the story. Meanwhile I have to say what happened to Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. At first the Clerk did not put the Report before the Police Authority. Instead he consulted the Chairman of the Police Authority and, with his approval, sought the opinion of leading counsel upon it. Counsel in giving his opinion took it upon himself to criticise Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report in no uncertain terms, saying:

“There are aspects of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report which frankly cause me anxiety. He has considerably extended his terms of reference … He has not merely listened to but recorded allegations against the Chief Constable which were frankly expressed to be’gossip’,’rumour’ and hearsay … The Authority would be wise to disregard these aspects”.

There are other parts of counsel’s opinion in which Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report was criticised very severely.

Now we have not seen Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report: but I must say that I regret that it was subjected to this criticism before the members saw it. When a responsible officer of the standing and reputation of Sir Douglas Osmond makes a report, I should myself assume that he has kept within his terms of reference. I see nothing wrong in his setting out rumours and gossip and hearsay. These are often such as to call for further inquiry: so as to see if they are well-founded or not. My inquiry years ago into the Profumo affair was provoked by gossip and rumours and hearsay. It seems to me that if the rumours and hearsay were so serious as to cause widespread concern – they should be inquired into. If only to reassure the public and to allay the distress of those under suspicion. No doubt Sir Douglas considered these to be sufficiently serious to merit further inquiry. So he was entirely right to set them out in his Report.

THERE IS A “LEAK”

Having got counsel’s opinion, the Clerk called a special meeting of the Police Authority on the 24th January, 1977. It was to consider Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. It was circulated with the agenda. In it the Clerk set out in full the advice of counsel with all his criticism of the Report. The Clerk also expressed his concern about possible legal proceedings for defamation and advised the members to take “the greatest possible care to ensure that the Report does not get into the wrong hands”. That was very good advice. Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report would be privileged in the hands of the members of the Police Authority to whom it was addressed: but not if it was handed to other persons.

Now someone did “leak” the Report. Large parts of it were published on the 25th February, 1977 in the Lancashire Evening Post. Much of it was defamatory, not only of the Chief Constable but also of other persons. The County Hall of Lancashire was aghast by the publication. On all lips was the question: Who was responsible for the leak? The Clerk inquired of everyone. No one owned up. It might have been a member of the Police Authority. It might have been one of the staff at County Hall: or one of the many other people who had access to it. If you include all grades, I suppose it would be 100 or 200 persons. No one knew. No one ventured a guess.

The newspaper was undoubtedly taking a risk in publishing Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. The publication to the newspaper was not privileged. Some time later they paid for it. We are told that three libel actions were brought. A police officer was awarded £10,000 damages by a jury.

On the 11th March, 1977 the Police Authority met and considered the “leak”. All members were asked to surrender their copies of the Report to the Clerk immediately.

At that meeting and another on the 31st March, 1977 the Police Authority took action on some parts of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. They appointed a tribunal to inquire into the allegations against the Chief Constable himself. They referred some matters to the District Auditor for investigation and report. They referred other matters to the Acting Chief Constable. But there were many matters in the Report on which action had been deferred: and no action had been taken.

THE POLICE AUTHORITY IS RE-CONSTITUTED

Now before anything else happened, the Police Authority was completely re-constituted. This was because the local government elections were held on the 5th May, 1977. Some old members retained their seats. Some new members were elected. The result was that the County Council had to re-constitute the Police Authority. All members were appointed afresh but some had more experience, having been on it before. One of the new members was Mr. Hook of 53 Ansdell Road, Blackpool. He was elected to the County Council to represent Blackpool Number 4 District. He took his place and was immediately appointed to the Police Authority as one of the County Council representatives.

Ever since that time Mr. Hook has asked to see Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. He felt that he should get himself up to date with all that was under discussion. But he has always been refused. Time after time he has asked: but always refused. The Clerk advised the Authority not to disclose the Report to him. The Clerk said that the advice was based on the opinion of leading counsel. None of the new members have been allowed to see it. The old members (about 20 of them) have seen it. But none of the new members (about 10 of them) have. Mr. Hook has made an affidavit in which he sets out fully his reasons for wanting to see the Report. He says that there were many matters still outstanding which were to be considered, such as (i) the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal about the Chief Constable, his possible dismissal, and the appointment of a successor; (ii) the reorganisation of the Police Force, including the integration of the Blackpool Force with the rest of the county: (iii) the appointment of a prosecuting solicitor, and, if recommended, the consideration of candidates; (iv) the use of police cars for private purposes of the police themselves and of other citizens, and (v) the conduct of the Chairman of the Police Authority himself.

The Clerk to the Police Authority has made an affidavit from which it appears that there are several matters still outstanding for consideration. He says that those parts of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report will be given to the new and old members of the Police Authority. But he makes this significant exception which runs through the whole of this case:

“Access is only being withheld to those parts of the report which contain matter potentially damaging to or defamatory of third parties”.

THE RESOLUTION OF THE POLICE AUTHORITY

Some of the new members and Mr. Hook himself felt so strongly that they should be allowed to see Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report that the matter was debated at a special meeting of the Police Authority on the 22nd February, 1978. The Clerk reported counsel’s advice as follows:

“As the original report and statements contained damaging and in some instances clearly defamatory allegations against certain individuals unconnected with the police force, Counsel felt that if they were to be published without there being a duty to publish them, there was a danger that the privilege which was attached to the original publication to the Committee would be lost. Publication to members of the Committee would be a sufficient publication for the purpose of defamation proceedings. In all the circumstances, Counsel considered that the safest course to adopt would be to refuse the members concerned access to the documents in question.

“… There was no objection to such parts which do not have defamatory connotations being circulated”.

RESOLVED: (23 members voting in favour and 3 against) that the advice of leading counsel be accepted and that those parts of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report which contain damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties should not be made available.

Now Mr. Hook challenges that decision. He applied to the Divisional Court for a judicial review. It is in the nature of a mandamus to compel the Clerk to the Police Authority to provide Mr. Hook with an unabridged copy of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report: on the ground that it is necessary for him to read the full Report in order properly to perform his duties.

Now I desire to say at once that Mr. Hook’s integrity is accepted to be of the highest. So are his motives. He honestly believes that he should be allowed to see Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report in full – so as to be able to do his duty by the people of Blackpool whom he represents. He cannot know the details, of course, because he has not been allowed to see it. Nor can we – for the same reason. We have not been allowed to see it. No one suggests that Mr. Hook would “leak” it. He does not even ask for a copy of it. All he asks is that it should be placed on “deposit” just as other confidential reports are. That means that it should be placed in a private room for him to read on his own. He does not want to take notes of it. Just to read it: and keep the contents to himself: so as to be better informed at any subsequent consideration by the Authority.

THE LAW

This case raises directly the question: What right has a committee member to see the documents belonging to the committee or addressed to it? Most of the cases in our books concern different rights: such as the right of a ratepayer to inspect the documents of the county, see The King v. Staffordshire Justices (1837) 6 Ad. & El. 84 ; or the right of a local government elector to inspect the documents of the local council, see The King v. Godstone (1911) 2 King’s Bench 465 , Wilson v. Evans (1962) 2 Queen’s Bench 383 and section 228 of the Local Government Act 1972; or the right of a shareholder to inspect the books of the company, see Davies v. Gas, Light & Coke Co. (1909) 1 Chancery 702 , Bank of Bombay v. Suleman (1908) 24 Times Law Reports 698 : or the right of the member of a trade union to inspect the books of the union, see Dodd v. Amalgamated Marine Workers’ Union (1924) 1 Chancery 116. The members of those bodies are not in conduct of its affairs. They have to show a sufficient interest in order for them to gain access to the books. This case is different. We are concerned with the members of a committee who have themselves the conduct of affairs.

THE PRINCIPLE

On principle it seems to me that when the affairs of a local government authority – or of a voluntary society — are entrusted to a duly appointed committee, then each of the members has ex officio – by virtue of his membership – an interest in all the affairs of the committee: and, by virtue of that interest, he has at common law a right to see and inspect all the documents of the committee – whether they relate to the past affairs or to the present affairs of the committee and whether they came into existence before or after he became a member. Often enough an old member says: “We had a point like this some time ago. Let’s look up the papers and see what we did then”.’The new members have a right to see the papers equally with the old members.

ITS RECOGNITION

This right was explicitly recognised in Rex v. Hampstead Council, Ex parte Woodward (1917) 116 Law Times 213. The council was represented by Mr. Macmorran, K. C. who was the acknowledged expert of his time on local government law. Lord Reading L. C. J. said (at page 215):

“Prima facie Mr. Woodward has a common law right to the production of documents which have come into existence as documents addressed to the Council or by the Council, of which Mr. Woodward was a member. As to that there is no dispute whatever. Mr. Macmorran, representing the Council, has stated from the first moment of his appearing before us to show cause that he does not dispute the general principle which I have just enunciated”.

That was a right which a few years earlier a Mr. Wrightson had successfully asserted – when he was allowed to see an agreement which the council had made before he became a member, see Rex v. Southwold Corporation, Ex parte Wrightson (1907) Law Times 431.

But then in Woodward’s case Mr. Macmorran went on to state an exception to that general principle. The burden was on the council to bring the case within the exception: because Lord Reading went on to say:

“I think that Mr. Salter is right when he contends that the burden is upon Mr. Macmorran’s clients to establish the fact bringing the case within the exception”.

THE EXCEPTION

Now the exception to which Mr. Macmorran referred was this: It is when the member is not acting bona fide (out of his interest in the affairs of the committee) but is acting “with some indirect motive or purpose”. In that case a man called Arlidge had an appeal against the council over a closing order. It was shown that the councillor Mr. Woodward was not actuated by the public interest. He was actuated by an indirect motive. He was seeking to help Arlidge make good his case against the council; so he was not allowed access.

A RIDER

Now, in addition to that principle and the exception, there is a rider: It applies when a council appoint a special committee to deal with a particular aspect of its affairs. In that case, each member of the special committee is entitled – by virtue of his membership – to see and inspect all the documents of the special committee itself. But the other members of the council are not automatically so entitled. They are not entitled to a roving commission over all the papers of the special committee. If another member of the council wishes to see the confidential documents of the special committee, he can only do so if it is reasonably necessary to enable him properly to perform his duties as a member of the council. That was why Mr. Conlan failed in Rex v. Barnes Borough Council, Ex parte Conlan (1938) 3 All England Reports 226. The Barnes Council were involved in litigation with the Ranelagh Club. They appointed a special committee to defend the action. Mr. Conlan refused to become a member of the special committee – because he was against the council’s defence. He wanted them to lose. Then afterwards he demanded to see the case to counsel and the opinion of counsel which the special committee had obtained. Perhaps he wanted to tell the other side about it’. That was going too far.

But if Mr. Conlan had been a member himself of the special committee, I have no doubt he would have had a right to see the case to and the opinion of counsel. Here Mr. Hook is in a like position. He is a member of the Police Authority which is a very special committee dealing with these affairs.

APPLIED TO THIS CASE

In this case Mr. Hook is himself a member of the Police Authority. He is completely bona fide in asking to see the Report of Sir Douglas Osmond. He honestly believes that it

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

12

contains matter which he ought to be able to see – so as properly to perform his duties as a member. His honesty is not questioned. If he had some indirect or improper motive in asking to see it – as, for instance, if he wanted to tell it to outsiders – to “leak” its contents – or to use it so as to enable someone or other to bring a libel action – then he might well be refused access to it. But the burden would be on the council to prove that he had such an indirect or improper motive. They have no evidence of it – nor indeed do they suggest it. So his right is intact. It should be given effect – unless the point about “damaging and potentially defamatory references” is a good one.

THE RESOLUTION OF THE 22nd FEBRUARY, 1978

It is plain from the words of the Resolution that the 23 members who voted for the Resolution did so because they thought “the advice of leading counsel be accepted”. I can understand their point of view. Left to themselves, many of them would have thought it right for Mr. Hook to see the whole of Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. But they would feel that they could not go against the advice of leading counsel. Even so, it is significant that three were stout-hearted enough to go against it.

Now that advice was of a very special kind. It was that the Authority should not disclose “damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties”. Putting it bluntly, leading counsel advised that there should be a cover-up – for that is what it comes to – a cover up of the damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties – because he thought there was a danger that defamation proceedings would be brought against the members of the Police Authority or their Clerk.

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

13

COUNSEL’S ADVICE

I am sorry to have to say it: but I must do it. In my opinion that opinion of leading counsel was erroneous. It is plain to my mind that any publication made to the new members as well as the old would be protected by qualified privilege. Take Mr. Hook himself. If he has a right to have access to the Report – as I believe he has – then the Clerk to the Police Authority is bound to let him see it. There would be a duty on the Clerk to show it and a corresponding interest on Mr. Hook to see it. So this case comes plainly within the test enunciated by Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward (1917) Appeal Cases at page 334 and repeatedly approved in later cases. Apart from this, I can see no possibility of any outsider knowing that the Report was seen by Mr. Hook – or being able to prove it – or get any damages for it. If anyone is libelled in the Report, that person will have had his action against the Lancashire Evening Post. He could not possibly prove any extra damage by the Clerk showing the Report to Mr. Hook.

To my mind, therefore, counsel was wrong in the advice which he gave to the Police Authority. There was no danger whatever in letting Mr. Hook see Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. On the 22nd February, 1978 the Police Authority were misdirected in point of law. Their Resolution therefore cannot stand. It should be set aside, see Secretary of State for Employment v. ASLEF (1972) 2 Queen’s Bench at page 493 , approved by Lord Wilberforce in Education Secretary v. Tameside (1977) Appeal Cases at page 1047.

It might have been different if all the members – each equally well-informed – had resolved that Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report had been fully implemented and there was no need for

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

14

it to be shown to anyone any more – not even to the old members, let alone the new members – for any purpose whatever. Just as a judge can order offending matters in an affidavit to be expunged from the record, so can a police authority order a report to be expunged and no access be given to it. But, in order that such a Resolution should be valid, it would have to be made by a valid Resolution – arrived at in a meeting in which all members were equally well-informed. That was not the case here. The new members did not know what was in Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report. They did not know whether further action was needed or not. It is not permissible for a caucus of old members to exclude new members by keeping them in the dark.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Hook has taken on this litigation at his own expense. He has not got legal aid. He failed in the Divisional Court and was ordered to pay the costs there of the other side as well as his own. He has appealed to this court, risking another bout of costs. He has done it as a matter of principle – because he believes honestly that there are matters in Sir Douglas Osmond’s Report which he should see – so as the better to serve those in Blackpool whom he represents. I can see no reason for his being refused unless it be either that he is not to be trusted and might “leak” its contents or that there is a desire to “cover up” the references to others which are damaging or defamatory. Either of those reasons would be so unworthy of this Police Authority that I cannot think that they entertain them. As I read their Resolution, they only refused him access because they were advised by counsel. That advice was, in my opinion, erroneous. It misled them into a wrong decision. But

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

15

for it, they would have directed the Clerk to allow him to see the Report. I know that some time has elapsed. It may be too late now for it to be much good for him to see the Report. But it can do no harm. As a matter of simple justice, I think his stand was justified and should be vindicated by this court. I would allow the appeal and grant a mandamus ordering the Authority to let him see the Report.

LORD JUSTICE WALLER: This is an application by Mr. Hook for judicial review of a decision of the Police Committee of the Lancashire County Council made on the 22nd February, 1978. The decision made by the committee was that the Osmond Report which had been made to the committee in 1976 and which had been withdrawn from the committee in early 1977 should not be shown to the members of the committee in 1978. The Divisional Court on the 18th July, 1978 refused the application and Mr. Hook now appeals to this court.

The Osmond Report was a report made by Sir Douglas Osmond at the request of the committee in the following circumstances. When Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary was making an inspection in Lancashire during the summer of 1976 a sergeant in the Lancashire Constabulary asked to see him and made a number of allegations about the conduct of the Chief Constable. The Home Office wrote to the Police Committee of the Lancashire County Council summarising those complaints. As a result Sir Douglas Osmond, the Chief Constable of Hampshire, was invited to enquire into the complaint, and on the 7th August, 1976 he started his investigations. His terms of reference were “To investigate fully the matters which are the subject of the complaint contained in the Home Office letter dated 20th August, 1976, and a report to be produced on what if any evidence may

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

16

be found which calls for further and formal action by the Police Authority under the Police Act and disciplinary regulations, together with any recommendations in relation to the investigation which may be deemed necessary to be brought to the attention of the Police Authority”. The Osmond Report was received by the Clerk on the 17th December and on the 22nd December the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote saying that after consideration he thought the matter should be disposed of by the Police Committee. The Clerk wrote to the members of the committee on the 6th January saying that he was taking the advice of leading counsel, which advice was received on the 13th January. On the 18th January a meeting was summoned for the 27th January to consider the Osmond Report and the agenda included Counsel’s Opinion. In my opinion the Clerk acted wisely in obtaining the opinion of counsel before putting the report before the Police Committee. He was endeavouring to present the committee with independent advice. If he had not obtained such advice the Clerk might have been required to advise the committee about personalities whom he knew, thus laying himself open to criticism. Leading counsel introduced his advice with the following preliminary observations:

“In my view it is of the utmost importance that the Authority bear in mind that they are for these purposes exercising a quasi-criminal judicial function and that even a Chief Constable is entitled to the benefit of the rules of natural justice.

“In most circumstances it would be unnecessary to utter cautionary words of that kind and I only do so because there are aspects of Sir Douglas’ report which frankly cause me anxiety. He has considerably extended his terms of reference

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

17

and has conducted a wide ranging scrutiny of the conduct of the Chief Constable. Some extension may well have been inevitable but it is clear that he has gone back through a number of years and has criticised and analysed some conduct of the Chief Constable even before his appointment to this office.

“Further, and this is perhaps much more important, he has not merely listened to but recorded allegations against the Chief Constable which were frankly expressed to be’gossip’,’rumour’ and hearsay. Also he has relied upon the actions of subordinates, particularly of Chief Superintendent Rydeneard when there was no evidence, express or implied, that the Chief Constable even knew of such actions. Such matters may or may not reflect upon the competence of a Chief Constable, but when considering whether he may have committed an offence or not they have no probative value. When coming to a decision on this matter, I think the Authority would be wise to disregard these aspects and keep in mind at any rate the basic essentials of Criminal evidence”.

Leading counsel then went on to consider what offences the evidence disclosed. I respectfully disagree with the Master of the Rolls that this was a criticism of Sir Douglas Osmond. I agree with the Master of the Rolls that Sir Douglas cannot be criticised for repeating gossip that he had heard because there might well have been other information which members of the committee might have, which would be relevant. On the other hand, counsel was equally correct in warning the committee not to act solely on gossip. In my judgment to have in mind “the basic essentials of criminal evidence” was wise and proper advice.

On the 27th January, 1977 a meeting of the Police Committee

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

18

took place to consider the report and the committee resolved that the Chief Constable be given written notice of the complaints. A formal statement consisting of 50 pages was sent to him on the 8th February, 1977. There was a meeting on the 11th March at which the Chief Constable was present and it was then decided that all copies of the Osmond Report should be returned, and they were returned by the 31st March. One of the reasons for having the report returned was the nature of some of the potentially defamatory statements in it and the fact that there had been a leak to the press on the 25th February.

On the 5th May, 1977 there were elections and as a result of those elections on the 8th June new members were appointed to the Police Committee, including Mr. Hook.

It was decided to appoint a tribunal to consider the possible breaches of discipline. The charges were served in July and before the tribunal sat there was a further leak of an agenda marked “Strictly Private and Confidential” which included the offer of resignation by Mr. Parr. The tribunal presided over by Mr. Patrick Bennett, Q. C. sat on the 17th October and made its report on the 8th November. The tribunal found 26 out of 37 charges proved and recommended that Mr. Parr be dismissed. On the 6th December the committee resolved to consider the report. In addition the parts of the Osmond Report dealing with matters referred to the tribunal and the transcript of the evidence before the tribunal together with statements of the witnesses were made available to members of the committee. On the 20th December Mr. Parr was dismissed.

Mr. Hook, who had asked at an earlier stage to see the Osmond Report but understood that it would not be available until after the Chief Constable had been dealt with, then wrote,

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

19

through his solicitors, asking to see the Osmond Report. On the 22nd February, 1978 the Police Committee met to consider his request. By this time 10 of the 30 members of the committee had been appointed since March 1977. At that stage certain parts of the report were available for inspection and certain parts were not, by a decision made on the 20th December. The report was divided into eight sections and they were either put on deposit, or not, as follows:

(1) Introduction – shown in full.

(2) The amplified complaint – not released.

(3) Alleged intervention of Chief Constable in granting a renewal of Firearms Certificates – not released.

(4) Alleged undesirable associates of the Chief Constable – not released.

(5) Alleged unnecessary intervention by the Chief Constable in normal processes – all those which were proceeded against disclosed, otherwise not.

(6) Misuse of transport – disclosed.

(7) Defects in leadership – not disclosed.

(8) Summary and recommendations – disclosed.

At the meeting on the 22nd February, 1978 the Police Committee had before them an agenda which included the opinion of counsel taken no doubt following the precedent in the Conlan case (to which I will refer later) together with the observations of the clerk. Counsel mentioned in his opinion that the original report and statements contained some defamatory allegations, some of which were based on rumour and common gossip. Counsel then addressed himself to the matter which had to be decided, and said: “The only matter which gives me cause to hesitate is whether such allegations could now be

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

20

relevant to the general welfare of the force. This must be a debatable point but when I recollect that much of the report, including the introduction, conclusions and all parts relating to Mr. Parr’s proceedings, have already been made available incline to the view that to release the remaining documents would be dangerous”. Counsel had also mentioned and had in mind the possibility of leaks and the question of whether or not there would still be qualified privilege for a recirculation of the document. The question of whether or not one could successfully plead qualified privilege when recirculating papers containing rumours and gossip must be debatable. The circulation of rumours and gossip is obviously undesirable in the ordinary way and the fact that it might be difficult to defend if recirculated must be a matter which the committee should take into consideration. The clerk in presenting the agenda to the meeting specifically drew attention to some unpublished parts of the report which would be made available later in the meeting and other non-defamatory points which would be useful to members of the committee. The committee by 23 votes to 3 resolved that those parts of the Osmond Report containing damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties should not be made available. The affidavit sworn on behalf of the Lancashire Police Committee amplified their reasons as follows: “(i) It is essentially a report into allegations made against the former Chief Constable which has led to disciplinary action being taken and concluded against him in accordance with disciplinary regulations following a hearing by an independent tribunal whose findings and recommendations the committee accepted and therefore have fully discharged their functions under the discipline regulations, (ii) In so far as there are

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

21

matters in the report relating to the constabulary as a whole various reports have been called for and those parts of the report germane to such matters have been, or will be, given to the committee. (iii) Access is only being withheld to those parts of the report which contain matter potentially damaging to or defamatory of third parties and which relate to allegations which the committee decided did not reveal that the Chief Constable might have committed a disciplinary offence”. The committee had done all it could to take proper advice before reaching its decision. The opinion of leading counsel had been obtained; indeed they acted throughout on his advice. Counsel’s opinion on matters of qualified privilege has been criticised, but I cannot quarrel with the general tenor of his advice that republication of rumour and gossip is undesirable. Indeed if the defamatory statements are in fact irrelevant to Mr. Hook’s duties as a councillor, disclosure would not be privileged. If they were not reasonably necessary for the performance of his duties they would not be privileged (see per Lord Justice Lindley in Stuart v. Bell (1891) 2 Queen’s Bench at page 349 and Gatley, 7th edition, at paragraph 449- See also Adam v. Ward (1917) Appeal Cases 309 per Lord Atkinson at page 340).

Accordingly, in my judgment, the argument that the committee made a decision based on improper advice fails. Criticism is made of the form of the Resolution, and I will deal with this hereafter.

There was no dispute between the parties as to the law about disclosing documents in the possession of the council. In Rex v. Barnes Borough Council, ex parte Conlan (1938) 3 All England Reports 226 at page 230 Mr. Justice Humphreys, giving the judgment of the court, said that a councillor had a right

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

22

to inspect all documents in possession of the council “so far as his access to the documents is reasonably necessary to enable the councilor properly to perform his duties as a member of the council. The common law right of a councillor to inspect documents in the possession of the council arises from his common law duty to keep himself informed of all matters necessary to enable him properly to discharge his duty as a councillor. There must be some limit to this duty. To hold that each councillor of such a body as, for instance, the London County Council, is charged with the duty of making himself familiar with every document in the possession of that body would be to impose an impossible burden upon individual councillors. The duties are therefore divided amongst various committees and sub-committees”. The final decision as to whether something is necessary or not for the members of the committee must in the last resort be that of the committee of the council. There can be no absolute line to be drawn and, in my judgment, where it is doubtful whether or not disclosure is reasonably necessary to enable a councillor who is a member of a committee properly to perform his duties, the committee may take into consideration possible ill-effects on innocent people of allowing documents to be inspected.

Furthermore, in so far as it is a matter of discretion, it is the discretion of the council which this court has to consider and it is not a question of this court exercising its own discretion. The test is, was the decision which the committee of the council made one which a reasonable council could make?

The constitution and functions of the Police Committee are laid down in the Police Act 1964. By section 2 the Police

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

23

Committee consists of two-thirds councillors and one-third magistrates appointed by the magistrates for the county. Section 4 lays down the duty of the Police Authority to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area “and to exercise for that purpose the powers conferred on a Police Authority by this Act”. Subsection (2) empowers the Police Authority to appoint the Chief Constable. Subsection (3) creates the power to provide and maintain buildings for the police force. Subsection (4) to provide and maintain vehicles, apparatus, clothing, etc. Then section 5(1) says: “The police force maintained for a police area under section 1 of this Act shall be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable appointed Under section 4(2)”. Section 6 contains, among other things, powers in the Police Authority to appoint the Deputy and Assistant Chief Constables of the force. The Chief Constable reports to the Police Committee formally once a year and informally at its meetings. The general division of responsibility is that the Chief Constable is responsible for the operation and discipline of the force whilst the Police Authority has overall authority as I have indicated. There is one particular division in that the discipline of the Chief Constable, the Deputy Chief Constable and any Assistant Chief Constable is the responsibility of the Police Authority while all officers below the rank of Assistant Chief Constable are the responsibility of the Chief Constable. It was of course because of the Police Committee’s responsibility for the Chief Constable that the Osmond Report was prepared and it was because of that report that the disciplinary proceedings were taken.

The Police Committee from the beginning were excluding from their minds those matters which could not be proved. At

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

24

the meeting on the 27th January, 1977, at which the Osmond Report. was considered, the committee resolved that they did not wish to be informed of the names of those involved at that stage because names would necessarily be disclosed in the charges against the Chief Constable. They would be reminded in due course of the identity of persons named in disciplinary charges against the Chief Constable. The decision made on the 22nd February, 1978 was in line with the policy of that earlier decision.

Was it reasonably necessary to enable Mr. Hook to carry out his duties for him to have access to the matters not disclosed? Although the words of Mr. Justice Humphreys are not the words of a statute, they import two considerations, namely necessity and reasonableness. In one sense a councillor would be better informed if he knew all about every policeman in the force. On the other hand, he is not concerned with the day to day running of the force; that is for the Chief Constable. The Police Committee’s primary concern (apart from finance, establishment, buildings, equipment, etc.) are the Chief Constable, the Deputy Chief Constable and the Assistant Chief Constables and the reasonableness of making available potentially defamatory information based on rumour and gossip is a matter essentially and appropriately for the Police Committee.

Although the form of the resolution “That the advice of Leading Counsel be accepted and that those parts of Sir Douglas Osmond’s report which contain damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties should not be made available” has been criticised by counsel, I do not think there is any real substance in such criticism. The opinion of leading counsel was expressed in very moderate terms, e. g. “I incline to the view”, “I feel it would be unwise”, and accordingly the

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

25

committee had to make up its own mind. There may be passages in that advice about which opinions may differ. In my view, however, it cannot be denied that information based on rumour and gossip which it was not possible to prove and which may be wholly untrue should if possible not be repeated. It is certainly more than arguable that it is not necessary to know rumour and gossip the truth of which cannot be proved. Indeed if it had been disclosed and there was a defamatory passage that it was not reasonably necessary for members of the committee to know, there would probably be no privilege (Adams v. Ward and Stuart v. Bell supra).

It is accepted that Mr. Hook will not repeat anything which he learns if allowed to see the report. But it is not only Mr. Hook, it is all the new members of the committee and indeed the old members who have not seen the report for a considerable time and who, apart from their original sight of the report, made a point of keeping themselves ignorant of the names mentioned in the report. Mr. Hook is asking for the whole report to be available, but the committee have resolved that those parts containing “damaging and potentially defamatory references to third parties” should not be disclosed. There is other information not covered by this resolution which the clerk at the meeting said would be helpful, and it appears that Mr. Hook has not seen this. I do not understand why since it apparently is not covered by the resolution.

I have already indicated that in my opinion the committee did not act on improper advice. The question then remains whether or not it can be said that the conclusion to which the committee came is one at which no reasonable committee could properly arrive. I have come to the conclusion that the

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

26

appellant has failed to show that no reasonable council committee could come to the conclusion at which this committee arrived and I would dismiss this appeal.

The question of granting an order for judicial review is a matter for the discretion of the court. Even if I had taken a different view from that which I have expressed above it would have been my opinion that this was not a case where a court in its discretion should grant judicial review of the proceedings of the council committee. To republish gossip and rumour either twelve months after (that being the date of Mr. Hook’s application) or three years after (that being the date of this hearing) they have been locked away is in the highest degree undesirable, particularly where action has been taken wherever the report related to facts and more particularly when this appeal is being heard after a new Chief Constable has been appointed.

LORD JUSTICE DUNN: Prima facie a councillor has a right to the production of documents which have come into existence as documents address to the council of which he was a member (R. v. Hampstead Borough Council, ex parte Woodward 97 Law Times Reports per Lord Reading C. J. at page 215 ), provided that he has a bona fide ground for wishing to see them (R. v. Southwold Corporation, ex parte Wrightson 97 Law Times Reports per Lord Alverstone C. J. at page 432). No question arises here as to the applicant’s bona fides, but at the date of the report and of its original submission to the Police Committee before the special meeting of the 27th January, 1977 when it was circulated in full to all the then members, he was neither a councillor nor a member of the Committee. So he is only entitled to such production of the report as will enable him

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

27

properly to carry out his duties as a member of the Committee. (See R. v. Barnes Borough Council, ex parte Conlan (1938) 3 All England Reports 226). This case has stood for over 40 years. It has never been doubted. It was accepted by the Divisional Court and the Bar as an accurate statement of the law, and I agree with Lord Justice Waller that it sets out the case relevant to the circumstances in this case.

The minute of the meeting of the 22nd February, 1978 refers in terms to the advice of leading counsel, and the Committee resolved that his advice should be accepted. Leading counsel had in fact advised on three separate occasions in regard to the contents of the report, its disclosures, and the actions to be taken upon it. His views as to the disclosure may be summarised as follows. First, he advised that the report showed that Sir Douglas Osmond had conducted a wide ranging scrutiny of the conduct of the Chief Constable, and that some of the allegations recorded in the report were frankly expressed to be gossip, rumour, and hearsay. This is not to criticise the conduct of the investigation by Sir Douglas, who at that stage would be anxious to follow up all possible lines of inquiry whether or not they resulted in admissible evidence sufficient to support criminal or disciplinary charges, and I agree with Lord Justice Waller that leading counsel was right to warn the Committee of the danger of acting on gossip, rumour and hearsay. Secondly, counsel advised that certain of the allegations in the report were defamatory of third persons and drew attention to Conlan’s case and Wrightson’s case as supporting the proposition that a councillor’s right of access to documents was limited to those documents which were reasonably necessary to enable him properly to perform his duties as a member of the council. Finally,

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

28

counsel advised, not without hesitation, that further disclosure of the defamatory material to the Committee, including the new members, would, as he put it, be dangerous; although he added a rider to the effect that he was not acquainted with the reasons why such disclosure could be said to be reasonably necessary to enable the applicant properly to discharge his duties. In the agenda for the meeting of the 22nd February the Clerk to the Committee as custos rotulorum noted in relation to the defamatory material: “No evidence has been forthcoming to show that production to an individual member of the Committee was necessary to enable him to perform his duties”. If counsel’s advice was wrong, then it could be said that the Committee, having expressly relied on it and given it as the only reason for their resolution, had taken into account a matter which they should not have taken into account, and that on general principles the court could interfere to override their decision. (See Associated Picture Houges Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 King’s Bench 223).

Was counsel’s advice wrong? The communication of the report to the members of the Police Committee would be a privileged occasion. And I accept with respect that the passage referred to by the Master of the Rolls from the speech of Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward (1917) Appeal Cases at page 334 sets out accurately the law as to a privileged occasion giving rise to qualified privilege, and that that has been repeatedly approved in later cases. But at page 340 of Adam v. Ward Lord Atkinson said this: “A more difficult question, however, remains upon which the authorities cited give little, if any, assistance. It is this: What would be the effect of embodying separable foreign and irrelevant defamatory matter in a libel? Would it make the occasion of the publication of the libel no

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

29

longer privileged to any extent, or would those portions of the libel which would have been within the protection of the privileged occasion, if they had stood alone and constituted the entire libel, still continue to be protected, the irrelevant matter not being privileged at all and furnishing possible evidence that the relevant portion was published with actual malice. In the absence of all guiding authority the latter would, in my opinion, be more consistent with justice and legal principle, and I think it is, in law, the true result”. And Lord Loreburn, in the same case, said at page 320: “The fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect all that is said or written on that occasion. Anything that is not relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected. To say that foreign matter will not be protected is another way of saying the same thing”. So far as I am aware, neither of those statements of the law has ever been doubted since, and they are cited with approval in the current edition of Gatley on Libel and Slander at page 583.

There was undoubtedly foreign matter in this report, and although the chances of its publication to the Committee ever coming to light might have been remote I believe that counsel was right to advise caution. This was especially so in the circumstances, where not only had the full report itself but also the agenda of an important meeting at which the decision had been taken to dismiss the Chief Constable been leaked to the press. That had resulted in at least three libel actions against a local newspaper, in one of which the plaintiff, a police officer, recovered substantial damages.

[1980] EWCA Civ J0319-1

30

The Committee were aware of the leaks, and counsel had correctly directed them upon the law as to a councillor’s right of access to documents. They were in a better position than anyone else to know what their own duties as members of the Police Committee were and, in particular, what if any further information they required to enable them to deal with the incidental recommendations in the report, none of which it appears required direct action by the Committee themselves. And they voted by a large majority that those parts of the report which contained damaging find potentially defamatory references to third parties should not be made available.

In my view the court should be slow by the exercise of a prerogative power to interfere with a decision democratically arrived at in that way. The Committee might have dealt with the matter differently. But, speaking for myself, I cannot say that they were in error in accepting counsel’s advice and I too would dismiss the appeal.

(Order: Appeal dismissed by majority. No order for costs. Application for leave to appeal granted).

Links

[1] 1978 May 3 Hansard House of Lords OSMOND REPORT http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1978/may/03/osmond-report

[2] Lobster Magazine Our Friends in the North West: The Owen Oyston Affair http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/lob34-03.htm

Bill Harrison was a grocer who became one of Lancashire’s most successful property developers. With managing director Norman Leech he developed an enormous caravan park on Marton Mere, a patch of marshland owned by Blackpool Council. The lease to his firm, granted without any rival bidding by Blackpool Council under its Tory chairman, Len Broughton, was criticised by both the Caravan Club of Great Britain and the Sunday Times. Harrison told the Sunday Times that after his daughter’s car had killed two women pedestrians in Kirkham, he telephoned Len Broughton ‘and asked him if he could tell me the name of the police chief that I should contact in order to have certain aspects of the case investigated rather deeper.’ This telephone call was cited later in the Osmond Report which led to the sacking of the Chief Constable of Lancashire, accused of improperly reducing the charges against Harrison’s daughter. Harrison blames Owen Oyston for a newspaper investigation of the affair. He told a reporter: ‘It is very possible that Owen Oyston as a principal advertiser with the Lancashire Evening Post had considerable influence on the paper’s coverage of my daughter’s case.’ Oyston says he was actually a friend of the sacked Chief Constable.

Harrison was friendly with Airey Neave, murdered by the INLA after organising Margaret Thatcher’s election as Tory leader. During Tory conferences at Blackpool, Margaret Thatcher landed by helicopter on the lawn of Greyfriars, Bill Harrison’s home at Preston, where she used to stay overnight. Other government ministers have stayed at Greyfriars, Lord Waddington, Mrs Thatcher’s former Chief Whip and Home Secretary, and the Derbyshire Tory MP Philip Oppenheim have also been involved in the affair.

[3] 2011 May 11 Lancashire Telegraph Downfall of Lancashire’s ‘untouchable’ police chief recalled  http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9020203.display/

[4] 2014 Aug 18 New York Enquirer Police Corruption and Organised Crime http://nyenquirer.uk/police-organised-crime/

The investigation by Lancashire Police into Cyril Smith was plagued by political interference from the start. It was conducted by Lancashire Police Special Branch, not Lancashire Police CID. Smith was protected by the Liberal Party, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, William Palfrey, and MI5. Full story here. Eventually, Officers from MI5 seized the files relating to the Lancashire Police investigation.

Interestingly, the next Chief Constable of Lancashire Stanley Parr CBE QPM was dismissed for similarly abusing his position to improperly influence cases. A key allegation was that Parr prevented the prosecution of a County Councillor who was also a Police Committee member and local businessman over a driving summons.

When a journalist got close to Smith, he was threatened with arrest by the Metropolitan Police on the orders of MI5. This policy of using Police powers to suppress evidence of abuse by high profile figures still continues to this day. When the North Yorkshire Enquirer team started to probe Savile and Jaconelli’s links with North Yorkshire Police and the relationship between Councillor Jane Kenyon-Miller and North Yorkshire Police, one of our journalists was also threatened with arrest.

The Labour MP Simon Danczuk has alleged that Smith was protected because he was a member of a powerful paedophile network based in Westminster. Certainly the orders by MI5 to (1) seize the files, (2) serve a D-Notice on a journalist to prevent him from revealing serious crime by a senior politician, (3) threaten to arrest the journalist,  and then (4) the decision to continually suppress the evidence for thirty years, could only have come from the top.

[5] 2015 Jan 8 Blackpool Crime BLACKPOOL: OWEN OYSTON RAPIST OR VICTIM? https://blackpoolcrime.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/blackpool-owen-oyston-rapist-or-victim/

[6] 2015 Mar 20 Daily Mail Revealed: Ex-chief constable who says Cyril Smith cover-up went right to the top http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3004934/Ex-chief-constable-says-Cyril-Smith-cover-went-right-top.html

[7] You Tube Channel 4 Police: Cyril Smith guilty of sexual abusehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq-PGXWcba8

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Court, North West, Police | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fenwick, Chamberlain, O’Hanlon, Jones and Fisher 8 Mar 1978 Court of Appeal (Police)

The Kelland Inquiry was the third Inquiry by Police into police corruption in the seventies, see Cathy Fox Blog The Fall of Scotland Yard [4] and Spectator Police and the pornographers [3]

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Gilbert Kelland’s Inquiry into corruption of over a dozen Soho and Mayfair detectives led to three trials, and the dismissal of Commander Wallace Virgo, sidekick Moody and ex Commander Kenneth Drury the most senior Scotland Yard men then brought before the courts as well as several others and the discreet dismissal of 20 other detectives.

This is an appeal by George Edward Fenwick, Michael Leonard Chamberlain, Charles Edward O’Hanlon, David Cyril Jones and Peter John Fisher who were tried in Nov and Dec 1976.

Fenwick, Chamberlain and O’Hanlon sought leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. Jones and Fisher applied for leave to appeal against sentence.

Porn sellers were concerned were Bernie Silver, James Humpheys, Big Frank Misud.

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

Nos. 343/R/77

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Wednesday, 8th March 1978

Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane

Regina v

George Edward Fenwick

Michael Leonard Chamberlain

Charles Edward O’Hanlon

David Cyril Jones

and Peter John Fisher


(From the Shorthand Notes of Walash, Cherer & Co. Ltd., 55-57 Clifford’s. Inn, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1BU. Telephone Number: 01;242 7057. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

MR. P. WEITZMAN Q.C. and MR. T.J. LANGDALE appeared on behalf of the Applicant Fenwick

MR. M.H. SELF Q.C. and MR. R. GREY appeared on behalf of the Applicant Chamberlain.

MR. W.M. HOWARD Q.C. and MR. J.G. BOAL appeared on behalf of the Applicant O’Hanlon.

MR. J.G. BOAL appeared on behalf of the Applicant Jones.

MR. S.N. PARRISH appeared on behalf of the Applicant Fisher.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by judge)

LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE: These applicants stood trial at the Central Criminal Court before Mr. Justice Mara-Jones and a jury, charged with series of offences involving corruption. the trial lasted some 33 days in November and December 1976 and ended on 22nd December that your with the following results: all the applicants were convicted by unanimous verdicts on count 1, conspiracy to accept bribes corruptly. On the individual counts which were laid is the indictment thereafter, under section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 – those counts comprised the rent of the indictment – there were the following convictions, each of them by a majority of eleven to one: the applicant Fenwick was convicted on four counts, namely counts 5, 9, 10 and 11; the applicant Chamberlain on five counts, namely counts 11, 13, 17, 19 and 21; O’Hanlon on three counts, namely counts 11, 18 and 21; Jones on three counts, namely counts 2, 4 and 9; and Fisher was convicted solely on count 1, that is the conspiracy count.

Tho sentences were as follows: Fenwick on count 1 was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and was sentenced to two years on each of the other four counts on which he was found guilty, those two-year sentences to run consecutively between themselves, but concurrently with the ten years, giving him a total term of ten years’ imprisonment; Chamberlain was sentenced to eight years on count 1, to twelve months on each of counts 11 and 13 and to two years each on counts 17, 19 and 21, again those individual sentences on the substantive counts being consecutive amongst themselves but concurrent with the eight years, making his total sentence eight years; O’Hanlon was sentenced to seven years on count 1 and to two years on each of the other counts, dealt with is the same manner, making seven years in all; Jones was sentenced to seven years on the first count and to two years on each of the other counts dealt with in like manner, making seven years is all in his case; and Fisher was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on count 1.

Fenwick, Chamberlain and O’Hanlon seek leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence it is with those three applicants that this part of the judgment of the Court is dealing. Jones and Fisher apply for leave to appeal against sentence only.

All these applicants were police officers and all the charges arose out of their activities as members, past or present so to speak, of the Obscene Publications Squad, the headquarters Of which was at New Scotland Yard. Fenwick was a Detective Chief Inspector in that squad from September 1970 to January 1972, during which time he was very largely in control of the squad. Chamberlain was a Detective Constable in the squad from August 1970 until about August 1973, when he retired from the Metropolitan Police Force. O’Hanlon was a Detective Sergeant is the squad from 14th Jane 1971 to January 1973, but was absent on a criminal inquiry in Australia for some two months during that period. Jones was in the squad from September 1966 to November 1967, first as a Detective constable and later as a Detective Sergeant. Fisher was a Detective Sergeant in the squad from April 1969 to the autumn of 1971.

Although, as I said, the headquarters of the squad was at New Scotland Yard, the main store where the seized pornographic material with which the case was very largely concerned was kept, was in the basement of the Forensic Science Laboratory in Holborn.

The undisputed background to the case, stated as briefly as can be, was this. The squad was very small. There were only some fourteen officers or thereabouts engaged in it at any one time, of whom the Chief Superintendent and one of two Chief Inspectors ware, to all intents and purposes, engaged full time officially on other duties not connected with the squad. To a large extent the squad ware a law unto themselves.

So far as these applicants were concerned, the trouble really started for them when Sir Robert Mark become commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Up to that time the policy had apparently been – and no criticism is made of it –to take no action against booksellers of pornographic material – who were referred to throughout the trial as “pornographers” to save time, and we too shall refer to them as such – except as a genuine complaint by a member of the public or else in circumstances where the Director of Public Prosecutions had himself ordered or suggested that each steps should be taken. But in late 1972 that system was changed and raids began to be made upon suspected pornographers or their stores on the initiative of the police, not stimulated by either the public or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

What is more important is, the investigation of this type of offence was then taken over by a small squad of uniformed officers under a Chief Inspector called Hay and they began to investigate the problem of pornography in the west End, which was indeed a problem. So in 1973 the Obscene publications Squad as it had been up till that date, manned by plain clothes officers, was wound up and the uniformed branch took over.

After that a whole series of complaints came to light to the effect that these pornographers in the West End had, over the years been making regular payments to officers who were employed on the Obscens publications Squad, in consideration of those officers warning the pornographers about intended raids and in consideration of the officers giving preferential treatment in other ways to those who paid the money.. There had been examples in this case, for instance, of an occasion where It was alleged that Chamberlain, assisted by O’Hanlon, with Fenwick also involved, cooked the evidence before the Magistrates Court in London in respect of a gentleman called Murrin, and it was alleged that the evidence was falsified by Chamberlain because he had received, through an intermediary, the sum of £1,000 from Murrin for the price of that activity. That is the sort of evidence which was before the jury.

There was a code word to warn the Pornographers that a raid was likely to be in the offing: “W.H. SMITH” was the rather unkind choice which was made for that purpose.

The other chief allegation with which we are concerned in these applications was that from time to time these officers, or some of them, would take a Pornographer to the store in Holborn, where the seized material was kept, having taken the precaution of equipping the Pornographer in question with a C.I.D. necktie to make It look as if he was one of the force, and the Pornographer in question would be allowed to inspect the goods and to buy seized pornography so that ho could sell it at a profit.

In 1972 there was an inquiry instituted as a result of certain allegations which had been made in the press. Detective Constable Collins was is charge of that inquiry. It elicited no evidence of corruption and the general view seems to have been, at least amongst the police officers, that the “Collins Inquiry’ was a whitewashing exercise which was of little moment or of little value. That is the impression one gets; It may be right, it may be wrong.

Eventually inquiries were taken over by the A. 10 Branch, which of course is the branch which investigates complaints against members of the Metropolitan Police Force. It is really as a result of the inquiries which members of that branch made that those charges were laid against the applicants.

There was a formidable body of evidence called on behalf of the prosecution. On the one hand there were the pornographers who said, if they were to be believed, that they had been paying money for years to keep in business without being molested by the police, without having their valuable store of pornographic material seized and taken to Holborn to be stored or shredded, as the case may be. Ex hypothesi they were all men of dubious character, many, if not all, of them had convictions of one sort or another and there was every possible reason for them to blacken the police If they possibly could and as doubt each of them would be tempted to blacken the police unjustly and with lies if he could. It was on their evidence that the specific charges – all the counts except count 1 – were based.

On the other hand there was the evidence of four police officers who had themselves served on the Obscene Publications Squad, who spoke as to their knowledge and experience of what had gone on whilst they were in the squad. They spoke as to regular payments being made by these three applicants with whom we are dealing, Fenwick, O’Hanlon and Chamberlain and they spoke about payments being made to other members of the squad on a more or less regular basis. This evidence was directed to count 1. It did act deal specifically with any of the allegations, which have been called the substantive counts, which appeared later is the indictment

It was of course evidence of great weight, because, as the learned Judge pointed out in commenting upon it, it required a good deal of courage for these officers to come forward and give evidence, which would have the side effect, at any rate, of blackening their own good name and of showing, however unwilling they Bight have been, that they themselves were involved in this terrible story of corruption.

The importance of count 1 scarcely needs emphasising. It could have been, no doubt, a possibility that the individual substantive counts really told the whole story, namely that a series of officers had given way to the undoubted temptation, which must present itself to every police officer who has his job in the West End of London the temptation to make easy money. The importance of the conspiracy count was to show, if it was substantiated, that this went further than a series of individual officers behaving in an illegal and corrupt manner, but to show, if It was to be believed, that this was a centrally operated system of even greater gravity than a series of individual officers receiving money.

The first officer who gave that evidence was Detective Inspector Kilkerr. He spoke about being told by Fenwick, when he first arrived on the squad, not to apply for a search warrant without getting, so to speak, clearance either from Fenwick, O’Hanlon, Fisher or Chamberlain. On the very first Friday night said Kilkerr, Fenwick gave him a handful of crumpled Treasury notes, despite his protests. This continued each week. It was about £20. Later the payments were takes over by Fisher and later still by O’Hanlon, who had been rather more open in his payments than either Fenwick or Fisher. It seems that Kilkerr left most of the envelopes containing these amounts of money in his drawer in the office of the Obscene Publications Squad and he was rebuked by O’Hanlon for running that sort of risk on the ground that if anybody had carried out a snap search of the officer’s desk, it really would have been fatal to every one if these envelopes and contents had been found.

Detective Sergeant Munro gave similar evidence and so did Detective Sergeant Warren. Is said ho had been paid by Jones amongst others. Detective Sergeant Tomlin was the fourth officer concerned. He was paid regularly by Jones or Fenwick or sometimes by a man called Tilley, who does not appear in this particular series of applications.

The Pornographer evidence was given by a series of men. There was Wallace and Reynolds who was Wallace’s partner. They spoks to the incidents alleged in counts 2. 9 and 10; Mason and his shop manager or friend, a man called Vinn, who spoke to counts 4 and 5; Gibbons and his partner Murrin, who spoke to counts 11 and 21; Nicholls and Cox, who spoke to count 13; and gentleman who were called Mr. A and Coomber, who spoko to count 17, 18 and 19.

In addition there was one witness who did not fall into either category, either a Pornographer accomplice or police accomplice, a man called Mr Martyn-Woodnutt. who was in fact a solicitor in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He case into the picture in such a way that his evidence in the and turned out to be of considerable importance. He had been in charge of prosecuting the case against Murrin, whose name I have already sentioned. In that case the prosecution before the Magistrates had foundered badly and resulted in Murrin being acquitted, because Chamberlain had, according to Mr. Martyn-Woodnutt, suddenly and without warning gone back on the proof of evidence which he had given for the purpose of the prosecution.

I need not go into the details of the prosecution against Murrin. It was based on observation in Soho when Murrin and another man had been seen peering into the boot of a car. The suggestion was that Murrin had been inspecting pornographic literature with a view to buying it and he had been charged with the attempt. The evidence according to an affidavit which was sworn by Chamberlain was almost overwhelming against Murrin. But when it came to the hearing before the Magistrates, as I said, the applicant Chamberlain gave evidence which in effect exonerated Murrin from suspicion and resulted in his acquittal. There was further evidence given that through the efforts of Gibbons, who acted as an intermediary, money was paid – £1,000 no less – to Fenwick, which no doubt would be distributed, some of it getting to Chamberlain as a reward or as inducement for him to change the evidence in the way that he did.

The importance of Mr. Martyn- Woodnutt’s evidence was this. First of all as against Chamberlain, that if he was to be believed, Chamberlain, for no apparent reason, changed his evidence as I have indicated, so that Murrin was acquitted. Although the applicant O’Hanlon was not in Court to hear Chamberlain give that evidence, according to Mr. Martyn-Woodnutt, after the incident he had a conversation both with Chamberlain and O’Hanlon outside the Court is which he asked what on earth had happened. If he was to be believed, that conversation made it perfectly plain that both the officers were in agreement and that each of them had been equally reaponsible for what happened. That evidence, if it was believed, was very important corroboration from an untainted source, untainted sources being difficult to find in prosecutions such as this.

We have already pointed out the way in which the police were able to help the Pornographers in return for the money which, it was said, the Pornographers handed to the police. There were two witness called by the prosecution, both of then Pornographers. The first was a was called Mason, who plainly had made a great deal of money out of this business and spent most of his time, for tax purposes, living outside the United Kingdom. He was involved in counts 4 and 5. He gave evidence, amongst other things, of being taken to the Holborn stores by Fenwick and 0’Hanlon, The second man was Wallace who appeared in counts 9 and 10. He also gave evidence of corrupt payments.

That is the background against which this case was played out, and I now turn to the complaints which are made about the trial in respect of each of the applicant with whom we are now concerned.

First of all with regard to Fenwick, the first complaint made by Mr. Weitazman arises from a passage in the summing up at page 11 in Volume 2, and that deals with the way in which the Jury were told to view the evidence on each of the particular counts later se, which runs as follows: “You must consider the evidence against each defendant on each count separately. If yon should find a defendant guilty of one charge, that does not mean that you must finding guilty on any other charge that may be laid against him. However, if yon find there is such a similarity between the evidence on a count where yon find a man guilty and other counts, so as to indicate a systematic course of conduct on the part of that individual defendant, that fact may assist you in coming to a conclusion on that other count or counts. I hope you follow as Mr. Weitzman makes two complaints about that. First of all he suggests, although not with very such enthusiasm, that the Judge should more properly have directed the jury that each individual count did have to be considered separately and that it would be improper for the jary to use the evidence on count 2, for example, when considering counts 3, 4, 5 and so on, The second submission, which he put with sore enthusiasm and more forcibly, was that the Judge there failed to carry out the duty which this Court sad the House of Lords said a Judge in these circumstances should carry out, namely explaining to the jury in much greater detail than he did the sort of similarity between the various counts which must be present before a jury can properly use the evidence of one count when considering guilt or innocence on the others.

We were referred to various passages in the decision of this Court in R. v. Scarrot 65 Cr. App. R. 125 , It is submitted by Mr. Weitzman that the Judge ought to have given to the jury in this case the sort of direction which the learned Recorder gave to the jury in Scarrot’s case.

We were referred to a passage at page 128 of the report, which reads: “To be admissible, the evidence by Its striking similarity has to reveal an underlying link between the matters with which it deals and the allegation against the defendant upon the count under consideration. Subject to one comment, which really goes only to choice of language, wo would respectfully accept the way is which the general principle was put by Lord Salmon in Boardman’s case (1994) 60 Cr. App. R. 165 , 188. Lord Salmon puts the general principle as follows: ‘Whether or not evidence is relevant and admissible against am accused is selely a question of law. The test must be: is the evidence capable Of tending to persuade a reasonable jury of the accused’s guilt am some ground other than his bad character and disposition to count the sort of crime with which he is charged? In the case of an alleged homosexual offence, just as in the case of an alleged burglary, evidence which proves merely that the accused has committed crimes in the past and is therefore disposed to commit the crime charged is clearly inadmissible. It has, however, never been doubted that If the crime charged is committed is a uniquely or strikingly similar manner to ether crimes committed by the accused, the manner in which the other crime, were committed may bo evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that the accused was guilty of the crime charged. The similarity would have to be so unique or striking that commonsense make it inexplicable on the basis of coincidence, I would stress that the question as to whether the evidence is capable of being as regarded by a reasonable jury is a question of law. There is no easy way out by leaving it to the jury to see how they decide it.'”

We feel that examples drawn from the sphere of homosexual offence and cases involving much crimes are of limited value when considering a serious case of corruption of the sort with which these charges worm concerned. It seems to us likewise, from what I have already said about the background to this case and the charges against these various men, inescapable that the jury must, in fairness to the defence and the prosecution, be given the chance of considering the evidence relating to all the various substantive counts when directing their attention to any particular substantive count.

The matter was dealt with in R v. Boardman 60 Cr. App. R. 165. At page l81

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

11

Lord Hailsham said: ‘The truth is that mere succession of facts is not normally enough must be something more than more repetition. What there must be is variously described as ‘underlying unity’ (Moorov) ‘system’ (see per Lord Reid in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilbourne nexus’, ‘unity of intent, project, campaign or adventure’ (Moorov), ‘part of the same criminal conduct’, ‘striking resemblance’ (Sims). These are all highly analogical not to say metaphorical expressions and should not be applied pedantically. It is true. that the doctrine ‘must be applied with caution’ (see Ogg per Lord Aitchison). but the test in each ease and in considering each particular charge is: “Was the evidence with regard to the other charges relevant to that charge?” (per Lord Wark). The test is (per Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilbourne ) whether there is ‘such an underlying unity between the offences’ as to make ‘coincidence an affront to common sense’, or, to quote Mr. Justice Hallett in Robinson (1953) (37 Cr. App. R. 95, 106) , in the passage cited by Professor Cross: ‘If the jury is precluded by some rule of law from taking the view that a something is a coincidence which is against all probabilities if the accused person is innocent, then it would soon to be a doctrine of law which prevents a jury from using what looks like common sense.’ “

It seems to us that whichever principle, metaphor or analogy, one likes to use here, it would have been wrong if the Judge did not invite the Jury in some such terms that he used to consider the evidence of each count separately, but nevertheless if they saw fit so to do to use the evidence of other counts as demonstrating a system, and in the particular circumstances of this case it seems to us that the passage which I read from his judgment is all that was necessary to put the jury correctly on the lines on which they should consider the matter. That ground accordingly fails.

Mr. Weitzman’s next ground was an allegation that the Judge had dealt unfairly and improperly with a side issue is the case which arose is this way. Chamberlain was not the first of the applicants to give evidence. He had been

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

12

preceded, at any rate, by Fenwick. In cross-examination of Chamberlain Mr. Mathew, appearing on behalf of too Crown, had cross -examined his about a company called Arder Ltd. Briefly the interesting feature about that company was that its directors were apparently the wives respectively of Fenwick, Chamberlain and Jones. The reason obviously why Mr. Mathew had reserved this particular piece of ammunition for Chamberlain was that there was evidence that Chamberlain self had paid some £1,000 for the benefit of that company. So he was the obvious person who should be cross-examined about the matter.

There is no doubt that the cross-examination of Chamberlain was very effective. He was driven to a position where he was on the horns of a dilemma and whatever he said was going to toll against him and it obviously did.

The complaint made by Mr. Weitzman is this. The affect of that evidence must have rubbed off on Fenwick. So far no one could possibly dispute that. Ho said that the cross-examination had been carried out upon Chamberlain after his client had given evidence and without Fenwick having been given the opportunity to deal with this matter himself. The answer to that is a short one. It was open to Mr. Weitzman to apply to the Judge to have his client recalled in order that this matter might be put to him. He did not make that application and it is too late to complain about it now. Indeed even if he had been given an opportunity of dealing with the matter, it is difficult to see what he could have said which would have made the situation any better for him.

The next ground of complaint is with reference to a passage in the summing up at page 40 in Volume 2. This deals with the two pornographers, Wallace and his partner Reynolds. What the Judge said was this: “If you can trust Wallace and are sure that he has told you the truth, supported as it is by his partner, Reynolds, but not corroborated (because Reynolds too would be an accomplice) them you should convict both Jones and Fenwick on those counts.” The complaint made by Mr. Weitzman is that the Judge should not have used the word “supported” because by using the word “supported” he is in effect telling the jury that the evidence of Reynolds was corroborative of that of Wallace. It is perhaps a

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

13

little difficult to use moderate language about that submission although it was made charmingly by Mr. Weitzman, because the very next words are “but not corroborated”. We suppose it could have been said, if the Judge had been choosing his words with elaborate Parliamentary care, be would have said “Reynolds had given similar evidence” without using the word “supported”. But to suggest that that sentence, taken as a whole, would have misled the jury into using Reynolds as a corroborative witness of Wallace is saying too much. That is not a valid ground of appeal.

Them it is said, so far as count 11 is concerned, that the verdict of the jury on that count was inconsistent with their verdict of not guilty on count 6, the basis of the complaint being that on both counts the evidence against Fenwick consisted only of the uncorroborated evidence of the Pornographer Gibbons It is suggested that since on count 6 the applicant was the only defendant whereas on count 11 he was charged with O’Hanlon and Chamberlain, and since on count 11 there was, so to speak, additional evidence against O’Hanlon and Chamberlain, the jury may have been misled by that fact into believing that there was corroborative evidence against Fenwick when there was not.

When one reads the direction which the learned Judge gave to the jury, there is me mistake which he can be seem to have made. He deals with the matter is four places. The first one is at pass 78H to page 79B of Volume 2, which reads as follows: “Count 11, members of the jury, is Fenwick, Chamberlain and O’Hanlon. 14th October, 1971. The bribe alleged to have been given is £1,000 by Gibbens, alias Fletcher, alias Joss Charles. This is going to take some time to sum up, but it is really, you say think, about as important a piece of evidence as the prosecution could hope to rely on. This is a case where there is evidence capable of amounting to corroboration of the allegations made by two accomplices: Murrin and Gibbons.”

It is perfectly true that the Judge does not say in terms there that it is only corroboration is respect of the other two and not of Fenwick, but one

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

14

turns to page 93G. There the matter is referred to again: “It is agreed” says the Judge, “that no enquiries were made by Chamberlain, who was in charge of the case, or O’Hanlon, who was a supervising officer, at the Western Police Headquarters about Murrin. If you accept the view that the answers given by the defendant Chamberlain in cross-examination were false to his knowledge, that is evidence capable of amounting in law to corroboration of this charge against Chamberlain.” So there he is making it absolutely plain that the limit of the corroboration does not include Fenwick.

At page 98D is the same: “If you believe Mr. Woodmutt, as I say, his evidence is capable of amounting to corroboration of this charge is count 11 against both Chamberlain and O’Hanlon….”. Here again he does not include Fenwick.

Finally one turns to the other volume, at page 43 of Volume 3, where one finds the same distinction made: “That evidence was relevant, of course, to count 11, where both Chamberlain and the defendant O’Hanlon are charged with an offence, as well as Fenwick.” So there it is.

It is complained that the Judge should have said positively that this evidence is not corroborative against Fenwick. But short of using those very words he made it as plain as he could. That was what the situation was, and it is quite impossible to say, for these reasons, that the verdict on this count was in any way unsafe. It seems to us that the direction was accurate and adequate and if anything was wrong with the original direction on page 78 which I have read. it was more than amply cured by the later direction to which reference has been made.

That brings us to Mr. Weitzman’s third ground. It starts off with the statement “The learned trial Judge, whenever he expressed a view about the evidence, indicated a view hostile to the defence. The impression throughout was one of bias against the defence.”

This is a ground which has been embarked upon by all three applicants is different terms and in different forms, and it is right that we should deal

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

15

with it as though it were a single ground advanced on behalf of each of them.

What they are saying. courteously and carefully, is this, that the impression which the directions of the learned Judge to the jury gave both to then and possibly, more important, to their cliants, was one that the trial was conducted with unfair bias in favour of the prosecution. A number of different passages have been drawn to our attention and quite plainly the learned Judge made comments. He made vigorous comments and in some cases extremely telling comments about the evidence. It is equally plain that the devastating comments he made were most of then directed at the evidence of the defendants and not very many of the devastating comments were directed at the evidence called for the prosecution despite the fact that so many of the prosecution witnesses unsavoury character. That is the way in which the complaint is put.

In some cases the way in which a judge handles a trial, and the sort of expressions he uses and the sort of atmosphere which is produced may indeed be unfair and may result in the jury coming to the wrong conclusion. But in order to assess the value of this type of criticism, which is difficult to make politely, but nevertheless has been made very courteously in this Court, the way one must examine it is this. One most look at the overall picture of the evidence in this case, because if the evidence is overwhelming on behalf of the prosecution, that inevitably, like it or not, is going to be reflected in the sumsing up, It is only where the evidence is balanced, the defence on one side and the prosecution on the other, than one must scrutimise the way is which the Judge handles it with vary great care.

It seems to each of us, reading the papers in this case, that the evidence was really overwhelming. Although it may be that some of the remarks which the Judge made may have gone a little further than each one of us night have gone, nevertheless, scrutinising it with groat care, we have come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that this is within measurable distance of a case where the Judge by the language he uses succeeds in producing a result which is in any way unfair. We hope we have dealt with that with sufficient clarity.

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

16

Now to turn to more specific matters in ground 3 in Mr. Weitzman’s notice of appeal: the first allegation relates to the way in which the Judge dealt with the evidence of Detective Sergeant Dell. That is at page 57, Volume 2: “Well, members of the jury, that is evidence in favour of the defendant Fenwick, and you must give it due consideration. There is no reason to suggest that Dell is telling you anything but the truth about that, but, If he was telling Dell that he still had his suspicions about whether he was still engaged in the porn trade, why did he not have him followed in the West End? You give that such weight as you think proper. If you think it does not help, ignore it.” That phrase “ignore it” is referring to his comment and not to the evidence of Dell. If that had been the way that the Judge was dealing with the evidence of Dell, that would be a proper complaint about it. But it is perfectly plain to us that what the Judge is saying there is this: “I makes this comment. If you like it, well and good. If you think it does not help and is a bad point, ignore it.” He is referring quit clearly not to the evidence of Dell, but to the consent which he himself had made.

The next complaint is that the learned Judge suggested that a number of witnesses who had served on the Obscene Publications Squad called by the defence did not help the jury very much in deciding whether corrupt payments had been going on in the squad. He deals with that in these terms: “So you may think – it is a matter entirely for you – that all those witnesses who gave evidence do not really help you very much in deciding whether there were corrupt payments going on in the squad at the time with which you are concerned.” Indeed having read the account which the learned Judge gave of their evidence, it seems to us that this was a proper comment.

The next complaint is that the Judge dealt too cavalierly with the evidence of Detective Sergeant Greenfield, who was called by the defence and this is really part of the complaint of the Judge’s whole conduct of the trial and the direction to the jury which operated unfairly. I have already dealt with that efficiently I think with that matter, which would include the specific complaint made

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

17

about the evidence of Detective Sergeant Greenfield.

The next complaint, really the last of the main complaints of Mr. Weitzman, was relation to the witness Mason. The witness Mason had been saying in his evidence that Fenwick had gone down with a man called Andrews to the store in Holborn where the seized literature was kept. His evidence of course was very important so far as Fenwick was concerned. The complaint is that although Mason was demonstrated to have been telling lies, or at least to have been inaccurate in a number of matters, the Judge failed properly to comment on that fact and that his comment fell far short of bringing those matters properly to the attention of the jury. Mr. Weitman agreed that all the material was reviewed by the Judge. The complaint is simply that he did not comment enough.

It so happens that the learned Judge had before him as extract from the verbatim transcript of the evidence on this point (it is at page 1 of Volume 3), and the Judge actually read out question and answer, everything that had been said on this matter. No doubt the transcript had been obtained by Mr. Weitzman for the benefit of everyone and it seems carrying criticism beyond the point of legitimacy to say that the way the Judge read oat the evidence in question verbatim did not deal sufficiently with the matter before the jury, because he did not make adequate comment on all the evidence that he heard.

There were other matters of complaint which Mr. Weitzman, with our leave, raised but which wars not in his notice of appeal. He complained about the way in which the learned Judge had dealt with the policy of the Obscene Publications Squad prior to the arrival of Sir Robert Mark. We do not read that part of the learned Judge’s direction as anything but an historical account and we do not think that Mr. Weitzman can properly complain about anything which was mentioned there.

There were other complaints, particularly about the way in which the learned Judge dealt with the evidence of Woman Police Constable McGoohan called in support of Fenwick. That evidence, it was said, should have been approached with more emphasis in order to show that corrupt payments were probably not being made

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

18

regularly as the prosecution alleged. Those are fringe matters, but in the end it seems that none of the specific grounds advanced by Mr. Weitzman on behalf of his client can succeed and there is nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory as far as the conviction of Fenwick is concerned.

That brings us to the application of Chamberlain, which was argued before us by Mr. Self. The first ground that he put forward in the notice of appeal he did not pursue. That was a complaint that the Judge was wrong in allowing count 1 to be tried at the same time as the substantive counts.

Ground 2 complains that the Judge should have told the jury that the evidence of the accomplics officers was not admissible on the substantive counts, that is was not admissible on anything except count 1, and should be disregarded by them entirely so far as counts 2 onwards were concerned. One accordingly looks to see where the learned Judge dealt with that natter.

In the first place at page 15C, Volume 2. He is here dealing primarily with the question of corroboration, and he says: “Having said all that, I must asks it clear to you that, if you, having given due need to ay warning, are convinced that a particular accomplice or accomplices are telling you the truth about these charges, you are entitled to act upon that evidence, even though it is uncorroborated.

What is the nature and extent of the danger of acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of a witness? You may think that there is a distinction to be drawn here between the porn merchant accomplice and the police officer accomplice, in this respect: the former are persons of bad character anyway, all engaged on their own admission, in evading the consequences of deliberately breaking tho law. In addition, some of them have convictions for dishonesty, as wall as convictions for contravening the Obscene Publications Acts. In individual cases, such as Gibbons and Collingbourne, who served substantial prison sentences as the result of police action, there may be room for the motive of revenge.”

Then one turns to page 19, where the learned Judge says this: “… even if you found a particular defendant not guilty of all the substantive counts

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

19

in which he is named as defendant, it would still be open to you, on the evidence in this case, to find him guilty on the count of conspiracy on the basis of the evidence of the police officers, if you accept it. Is that clear? That is because the evidence of the police officers was of a general nature and it cannot be tied up to any individual count in the indictment, except, of course, the charge of conspiracy.”

At page 44, Volume 3, he says this: “As I have told you on more than one occasion, you are to consider counts 2 to 22 first and decide guilt or otherwise on each defendant on those counts before you come to consider count 1. Then, whether you found any of the defendants guilty on counts 2 to 22 or not, you will come to consider count 1, the charge of conspiracy. When you do, you will consider and take into full account the evidence of the four police officers: Kilkerr, Munro, Warren and Tomlin.”

That is the way in which the learned Judge dealt with the matter. It is true that he did not in terms tell the jury that the evidence of the police officers was inadmissible on a substantive count. But he did the next best thing or did what amounted to the same thing by using language which I have indicated he did. In respect of that matter he was telling the jury as plainly as could be that the evidence of those officers was to be considered on count 1 and count 1 only.

The next complaint is that the learned Judge goes on, at a passage in Volume 3, at page 18, to mention the police officers in the same breath as the pornographers, the suggestion being that he persuaded the jury to consider the officers’ evidence on substantial counts. I am not going to read the passage but it is perfectly plain, if one reads it, that the Judge there is dealing with an entirely different matter. He was dealing with the likelihood or unlikelihood of this large body of witnesses, each of them coning forward to commit perjury. We cannot see how any jury can possibly be led by that passage to regard the officers’ evidence on any other count but count 1.

Ground 2, as put in the notice of appeal, is as follows: “Lies attributed

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

20

to the Defendant concerning Mason were said in the summing up to be capable of being corroboration. This was stated in general terms with no reference to any count. Later in the summing up although the Learned Judge Aid then state that the corroboration was referable to the conspiracy count, he at no time excluded the evidence from the Jury’s consideration of the substantive counts or the other evidence concerning alleged payments by Mason to the Defendant. The Defendant was not charged with any substantive counts on Mason’s evidence.”

That ground arises in the following way. There was plain evidence that this particular defendant and Mason knew each other and had known each other well. There was evidence that Chamberlain had denied any knowledge or acquaintanceship of Mason and it was plain, indeed it was admitted by Chamberlain, that he had lied about his knowledge of Mason. The learned Judge quite rightly directed the jury that those lies told before this case started ware matters which they could properly consider as being corroboration so far as Chamberlain was concerned.

The way in which the Judge dealt with it can be demonstrated at page 68C Volume 2: “Although there is no specific count in the indictment which alleges an improper payment by Mason to these two officers, he did give evidence to the effect that he gave them sums of money, £20, £25, which, obviously, would have been regarded as corrupt payments. It is a matter for you to consider, It would certainly be relevant to the consideration which you will, in due course, give to the charge of conspiracy in count 1. It is capable of amounting to corroboration so far as those two defendants are concerned, O’Hanlon and Chamberlain, of their involvement in a conspiracy to receive corrupt payments.”

It seems to us that what he is saying there is absolutely correct and the direction which he has given to the jury is correct. He is saying that the evidence given by Mason and the possible corroboration of that evidence, is referable to count 1. Indeed it could scarcely be complained if the Judge had gone on, although he did not, to say that the admitted lies. told by Chamberlain might have amounted to corroboration on other counts as wall.

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

21

So far as that is concerned, we can see no substance in the complaint.

The next ground of complaint is a similar complaint is regard to Wallace. It reads: “Reference the pornographer Wallace’s case: Although frequent references made is the summing up to the Defendant’s participation in a bribe received from Wallace no direction was given to the jury as to how such evidence was to be considered in relation to the substantive counts, there being no substantive count concerning the Defendant and the said Wallace.”

This allegation was an allegation of a payment of £50 by Wallace to Chamberlain. One of the matters to which we have been referred is the fact that Wallace in Court said that he was unable to recognise Chamberlain, He had only seen him on this one occasion some years before and he was unable to recognise him. He was net asked to make any identification in Court. No reference was made to that in the summing up. There was so corroboration in respect of this £50 payment to Chamberlain. It was all part of the conspiracy or appeared to be part of the conspiracy which was going on in the Obscene Publications Squad at this time. It seems to us clear that it fell well within the sphere of similar type evidence and could properly be used by the jury if they so wished in respect of count 1. Indeed it could be, as I have said with regard to Mason’s evidence, used in respect of any other count. The fact that the learned Judge did not give any specific direction as to how the jury were to approach that evidence, which so to speak was in the air so far as Chamberlain was concerned, does not seem to be a proper ground for complaints

The next complaint by Mr. Self was that the learned Judge failed to give a proper direction to the jury with regard to corroboration. There is no question at all but that the general direction on the law of corroboration was faultless. There is no need for me to read it. No complaint has made and one would not expect criticise to be made of a Judge of this experience so far as the general directions were concerned.

The complaint is this, that the learned Judge failed, as is said to be necessary in the decision in kilbourne 61 Cr. App. R. 84 , to direct the jury

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

22

that there is no point in looking for corroboration of evidence which is prima facie incredible. In other words it is suggested that the learned Judge should have said to the jury “Before you start to consider corroboration at all, you must ask yourselves whether the evidence which is said to be corroborated is worth listening to at all.”

It seems to us that this was the theme upon which the whole of the direction was based. It was made abundantly clear to the jury that these pornographers were persons upon whose testimony one would only with great reluctance rely. It seems to us to have been implicit in everything that the learned Judge said that the first thing they had to decide wan whether they started to believe these pornographers generally. Although no such direction in term was given to the jury, it is plainly to be inferred from everything that the Judge said and the jury could not have been left in any doubt as to what their task was on this particular aspect of the case.

Then complaint is made that the learned Judge, having directed the jury rightly that the accomplice police officers required corroboration, then by praising the actions of these police officer accomplices, he detracted from or destroyed the affect of the warning about corroboration. So it is necessary to read the passage about which complaint is made: “Before I come to deal with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I must remind you that they too are accomplices, because they have admitted that they took a share of what they believed to be corrupt payments. Accordingly, it would be dangerous for you to convict any of these defendants on their uncorroborated evidence. There is no evidence capable in law of amounting to such corroboration in the case of those police officers, but. if you are convinced that they, or one or more of them, have told you the truth, you can act upon that evidence alone.”

Then he goes on to make the comments, about which complaint in made; “You may think that those four police officers fall into a very different category from the pornographers and their associates. They are all man of good character, and the Crown submits that there is really no conceivable reason why they should

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

23

lie to the detriment of their former collegaues. By coming forward here and admitting being party to the sharing Of those corrupt payments, they have not only placed the six defendants in peril on this very grave criminal charge but they have destroyed their own reputation. Their good name has gone forever. There is no evidence (and, indeed, it is not suggested) that they have conspired together to tell wicked lies against their follows. Yet it is suggested by the defence that each of them has come forward and given similar false evidence about what went on in the Porn Squad during the time that they were serving on it.”

That was obviously a powerful comment. But was it an unfair comment? We think the answer is, unhesitatingly, me. It was a comment which the learned Judge was bound to make. He would hare been doing less than his duty if he did not. That really was the nub of the case. If there was no conspiracy between these officers amongst themselves and no conspiracy between the officers as a whole and the pornographers as a whole, it is inconceivable that the jury could come to any other conclusion than one of guilt. We do not think that those comments were unfair. We think that they should have been made and were made properly.

The next complaint concerned corroboration provided by the Murrin case and the evidence of the solicitor from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The complaint is that “The Learned Judge invited the Jury to consider aspects of the Marrin case (count 11) as being capable of corroboration, bat he gave no assistance to the Jury as to whether this evidence was or was not capable of corroborating the other pornographers outside Marrin and Gibbons, i.e. count 7, count 12, count 13, count 17 and count 19”.

The passages of the summing up relevant to those are as follows: first of all Volume 2. page 140, which reads as follows (I think I have road this before); “In this case there is evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration in that direct names, namely, the lies that were admittedly told by the defendants Chamberlain and O’Hanlon to the investigating officers, and the answers given in cross-examination by the defendant Chamberlain at the committal proceedings of Marrin and what Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt said happened outside the court after the

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

24

case had been dismissed. It is for you to decide whether or not Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt’s evidence is true. If you decide that it is. it is for you further to consider whether that amounts to satisfactory corroboration of the allegation made against the two defendants, Chamberlain or O’Hanlon, in relation to that count.”, making it perfectly clear exactly it is that count to which the corroboration refers.

These remarks are repeated in similar terms, though not precisely the sane terms, at various points is the directions, at pages 79, 93, 94, 98 and also in Volume 3 at page 44. It is quite plain that the learned Judge left the jury is no doubt exactly what it was they ware entitled to do, if they thought fit, in respect of any corroboration arising out of Martyn-Woodmutt’s evidence.

The next complaint is that the learned Judge invited the Jury to consider the defendant’s denials of knowing Mason as being capable of corroboration. The complaint is that this was early in the summing up and it was not until page 68 of the summing up that the learned Judge referred to this matter as being only referable to the conspiracy count. The short answer to that is he did make it perfectly plain to the jury at page 68 that this matter was referable only to the conspiracy count and in doing so he probably erred on the said of overcaution. There is nothing in that complaint.

There are farther complaints made about the question of corroboration and the way in which the learned Judge dealt with it both with regard to Mason’s case and with regard to the Martya-Woodmutt/Marrin incident and with regard to the Wallace case. We hope Mr. Self will not think we are being in any way discourteous or abrupt in the way that we deal with those matters. But it seems to us that they are susceptible precisely to the same answer as the other grounds. The learned Judge dealt with the matter correctly and fully. There are no proper grounds for complaint. Consequently so far as the application for Chamberlain is concerned, his application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

25

That brings us finally to the case of O’Hanlon. His main complaint was a suggestion that the learned Judge failed adequately to distinguish between O’Hanlon aad Chamberlain on the very important matter of the Murrin case. I have already touched upon that feature. But let me explain haw it is that Mr. Howard pate that natter.

It will he remembered that the evidence given before the Magistrates in Marrin’s case was given by Chamberlain. No evidence was given by O’Hanlon. Indeed he was not in Court. nobody expected him to be and he was not. He was outside.

Unhappily, the solicitor, Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt, in a manuscript report which he made on the incident at a later stage, wrongly stated that both those officers had given evidence and that was a mistake. He was cross-examined and properly cross-examined. No doubt he was cross-examined on that point because it went to his credit.

What happened after the case was this. Quite plainly Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt was, to say the leant, a bit upset at what had gone on. There he was, holding a proof in his hand, proof form a police officer, which plainly indicated the guilt of Murrin and there was the police officer on his oath in the witness box giving evidence which bore very little relation to the proof at all. That was all evidence, and powerful evidence, against Chamberlain, because if the Jury took one view of the matter, that would be strong evidence that Chamberlain was deliberately perjuring himself in order to justify his reception of part of the £1,000, if the prosecution were to be believed, which had come to the police via Fenwick. So Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt, according to his evidence, had a long conversation both with Chamberlain and O’Hanlon outside Court. The effect of that evidence was, according to Mr. Martys-Woodmutt, both these officers were quite plainly implicated in this change of front and although O’Hanlon had not given evidence, if Martyn-Woodmutt were to be believed, O’Hanlon was outside court accepting that he van a partner is what Chamberlain had been doing.

It is suggested that the learned Judge did not adequately distinguish between

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

26

the part played by Chamberlain on the one hand and O’Hanlon on the other. The way he dealt with this is to be found at page 93C – it is a passage I have read before and I apologise, for reading it again; “As I say, Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt has been strongly criticised for wrongly placing in that note a record of the fact that O’Hanlon had given evidence when he had not. He deserves censure for having done that. It was a bad mistake. It was not a criminal offence, members of the jury, though it has been made to sound like it. What you are concerned with in this case, according to the Crown, is somebody who committed perjury, which is a criminal offence: the defendant O’Hanlon.”

That, as Mr. Howard has rightly pointed out, is a mistake, an obvious mistake. O’Hanlon had not committed perjury. If anyone committed perjury, it was Chamberlain. Bat nobody seems to have observed the mistake. The Court must have been packed with counsel. If they had observed it, no doubt they would have risen and corrected the learned Judge. So little effect did that mistake have that nobody seems to have observed. It cannot vitiate the conviction or lead the conviction to be unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Then the Judge want on as follows “As I say, at that time, Mr. Martyn-Woodmatt believed that these two officers were telling him the truth and that Chamberlain’s answers upon oath were true. Indeed, there is no question about it, the case for the defence is put on the basis that answers Mr. Martyn-Woodmutt gave and the evidence he gave about what happened outside the court are untrue, and untrue to his knowledge.” Again I interpolate, that was one of the suggestions which were made to his. Another suggestion which was made was that he was mistaken in his recollection about these events which took place very long before the evidence which he was giving before the Central Criminal Court.

Then the learned Judge goes on to say: “It is agreed that no enquiries were made by Chamberlain, who was in charge of the case, or O’Hanlon, who was a supervising officer at the Western Police Headquarters about Murrin. If you accept the view that the answers given by the defendant Chamberlain in

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

27

cross-examination were false to his knowledge, that is evidence capable of amounting is law to corroboration of this charge against Chamberlain.” He makes it quits plain that that particular matter refers to Chamberlain alone.

Reading those passages and those on the next page, which are to like effect, we do not think that the Jury could possibly have been led into a situation where, for example, they were considering the fact that Chamberlain had gives perjured evidence, if he did, that that could is any way be taken against O’Hanlon. What he was inviting the jury to consider (and properly) was this, namely that if the solicitor’s account of the events outside the Court were to be believed, both officers must plainly be involved. So far as that ground is concerned, that is not substantiated.

The next complaint is with regard to count 18, namely that the learned Judge failed to put O’Hanlon’s defence on this count adequately or at all to the jury. The case depended upon the evidence of Mr. A and the suggestion by Mr. A was that O’Hanlon had manufactured two witness statements which were alleged to have been made by Mr. A. In other words in order to extricate Mr. A from the difficulties in which he found himself, O’Hanlon had, for the usual consideration, made out two statements which Mr. A signed, statements which, with O’Hanlon’s experience of the matter, were sufficient to get Mr. A out of his difficulties.

The complaint made by Mr. Howard on this point is a complaint that is not altogether easy to follow, but I will endeavour to do the best I can. He complains that the learned Judge did not give any space in his summing up to the fact that Mr. A and the other pornographer, Gibbons, may have been connected in this matter, the suggestion being that the contents of the statement about which complaint is made may in fact have been Mr. A’s own statement and not suggested or written out by O’Hanlon. The basis of that is that Mr. A and Gibbons know each other. One of the names used in the bogus statement was Martin and another of the names was Malkin. It is said that Merthon was the name of a Danish supplier of pornography with whom Mr. A or Gibbons had traded. Mr. A had opened a bank account in the name of Morthon himself. It is

[1978] EWCA Crim J0308-1

28

suggested from the similarity between these names that there must have been some connection between Mr. A and Gibbons, based on this, what appears to us to be, somewhat flimsy foundation, and that the learned Judge should have referred to this in his summing up as tending to help or substantiate the defence of O’Hanlon that he had nothing to do with the manufacture of these statements.

I must confess that if the jury had had the same sort of difficulty as we have had in understanding precisely what the suggestion was, it would not have been very helpful to them in their consideration. Secondly, the Judge is not only entitled to, but must be selective in the material which he places before the jury. It seems to us that if he had placed this material before the jury, it would have been counterproductive from everybody’s point of view, including the point of view of O’Hanlon. We consider that the Judge was correct is not mentioning that matter.

The next matter was withdrawn by Mr. Howard and is not for consideration. The final ground which he put before us was the ground which each applicant had raised, that the whole conduct of the trial was unfair. I hope I have dealt with that sufficiently.

So far as O’Hanlon is concerned, his application for leave to appeal against conviction must fail.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Court, Indecent Images, London, Police | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Government of India v Martin Ashley 10 Oct 2014 High Court (Extradition)

Martin Ashley aka Raymond Ashley aka Raymond Varley was wanted by authorities in India on suspicion of child sexual abuse after the imprisonment of Dr Freddie Peats for child sexual abuse. Peats ran a childrens home.

This was an appeal against a finding that Ashley was too ill to be extradited which failed. The offences were between 1989 -1991.

Further links to Goa and Peats and Varley are here

  • Aangirfan GOA – CHILD TRAFFICKING AND CHILD ABUSE – UPDATED [3]
  • Aangirfan RAYMOND VARLEY; RICKY DEARMAN [4]

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2014] EWHC 3505 (Admin)

CO/2291/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Friday, 10 October 2014

Lord Justice Elias

Between: The Government of India

v.

Martin Ashley (also known as Raymond Ashley)


Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr P Caldwell (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

Mr M Butt (instructed by Bullivants & Partners) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

JUDGMENT

(Approved)

1.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom: The Appellant, the Government of India, seeks the extradition of the Respondent, Martin Ashley, formerly known as Raymond Varley, who is accused of various sexual offences against children in the period 1989 to 1991. India is a Category 2 territory, and thus Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to this case. On 8 May 2014, following an extradition hearing, District Judge Purdy discharged the Respondent under Section 91 of the 2003 Act, finding that his mental health would be such that it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite him. The Appellant Government now appeals on the single ground that the judge’s finding in that regard was wrong.

2. The background to the charges against the Respondent is briefly as follows.

3. Dr Freddie Peats ran a boys’ home in Goa, India. In 1991, he was arrested following complaints of serious sexual abuse of boys in his care, including allegations that he permitted or facilitated children being taken by visiting European and Australasian men to nearby hostels where sexual abuse occurred and indecent photographs taken. It is the prosecution case that the Respondent was one such man.

4. The Respondent was charged with criminal conspiracy for the commission of various sexual offences on children, the period of conduct involving him being between 1989 and 1991, identified by reference to dates that he stayed at a particular hostel in Goa, as well as the evidence of the children. It is said that photographs discovered during the investigation into Dr Peats’ activities show the Respondent with a number of the children who allege they were abused. It is the prosecution case that those photographs implicate the Respondent: and the conduct alleged against the Respondent was in the form of serious sexual abuse of four young boys and a girl. The Respondent denies the photographs are of him, and he denies any wrongdoing.

5. On 21 March 1996, Dr Peats was convicted of various offences at the Additional Sessions Court in Margao, Goa; and was sentenced to life imprisonment. A number of others involved have been extradited from their various countries of residence, and several are now serving sentences of imprisonment following conviction in India.

6. The Respondent was born on 7 September 1947, and was in his early forties at the time of these alleged offences. A domestic warrant for his arrest was issued in India on 15 October 1996. At that time he was living in Thailand – where he had been living since 2000 – but it appears that, in early 2012, he was deported or otherwise removed from Thailand to the United Kingdom in circumstances that are not entirely clear but which in any event have no relevance to this appeal.

7. A request for extradition was made by the Appellant Government to the United Kingdom Government on 25 April 2012, and the case was certified as a Category 2 case on 15 May 2012. The Respondent was arrested at his home in Halifax on 29 May 2012.

8. The extradition proceedings have had an unfortunately protracted course, particulars of which are set out in paragraph 6 of the District Judge’s judgment. It is unnecessary here to refer to the details of the delay, much of which was concerned with investigations of prison conditions in India. By April 2013, the Respondent was threatening to commit suicide if extradited to India; and, at a hearing on 9 April 2013, it appeared the Respondent had been referred by his doctor to the local mental health team. That hearing in April 2013 was adjourned for a variety of reasons, including to give time for any medical report to be prepared and filed.

9. In the meantime, in a clinical context, the Respondent was referred by his doctor to a clinical psychologist, Dr Sarah Canning, whom he saw on 1 October 2013. She indicated that he would need further tests for a full assessment of his dementia which was by this stage (in the words of the District Judge) a “tentative diagnosis.” On 14 November, the Respondent had a head scan, but was told that the results would not be available to Dr Canning for some weeks. The results of that scan were not before the District Judge and, as I understand it, have never been disclosed.

10. Meanwhile in the extradition proceedings, on 19 November 2013, the District Judge heard submissions on all remaining issues, including those concerning the Respondent’s mental health; and he adjourned the matter to 14 (later moved to 22) January 2014 for a full and final ruling. By this time, the Respondent had filed a statement indicating that he believed he suffered from dementia, and he wanted further time to obtain medical evidence. That application was opposed, but the judge granted it. He adjourned the hearing again on 22 January, to 28 March 2014, for that purpose.

11. The Respondent then took matters into his own hands. Believing he was suffering from some sort of dementia, without reference to his solicitors he self-referred to another clinical psychologist, Ms Linda Atterton, a Chartered Clinical Psychologist specializing in neuropsychology, whom a friend of the Respondent had identified on the internet.

12. Ms Atterton prepared two reports dated 10 February and 19 March 2014, which were served on the Appellant on 18 and 19 March 2014 respectively. On 25 March, the Appellant sent the Respondent and the court an email indicating that Ms Atterton’s evidence was disputed, and she would be required to give evidence. At the 28 March hearing, the District Judge specifically asked the Appellant Government whether it intended to seek a medical examination of the Respondent or call evidence in rebuttal, and was told that it did not; but the hearing was adjourned, yet again, to 25 April 2014 to enable Ms Atterton to attend. She duly attended that hearing, at which she gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Respondent did not give evidence himself.

13. At the time of her first report (10 February 2014), Ms Atterton did not know that the Respondent was facing extradition. That report included the following:

14. (i) Ms Atterton set out her qualifications and experience, which included regular instructions to conduct assessments to pinpoint type and extent of neuropsychological impairment. She said she was routinely asked to see patients with a view to assessing mental capacity, fitness to plead and capacity to manage their own affairs, including instructing a solicitor. In her second report, she confirmed that she regularly makes

assessments of mental capacity and fitness to plead and to instruct a solicitor, having received appropriate training to do so. She has assessed well over 100 patients at various stages of dementia.

15. (ii) Ms Atterton first spoke to the Respondent by telephone. In just trying to arrange an appointment, she said he lost track of what he was saying and in finding words, so it was difficult to have a coherent conversation with him. She said it was apparent to her from the beginning that he was suffering from some type of dementia.

16. (iii) At their first meeting, the Respondent told her that he believed he was suffering from some type of dementia. He had been advised by the Alzheimer’s Society and a friend to keep a diary detailing his difficulties, which he had done for three months. That diary suggested that he suffered severe disorientation with regard to time and place – he would, for example, arrive somewhere having forgotten his reason for going there – and also difficulties with concentration, word-finding and problem-solving.

17. (iv) She conducted an assessment of the Respondent, shortened because of the severity of his difficulties in doing it. She carried out psychological tests of attention, concentration, visual spatial functioning, verbal fluency, problem solving and language, including confrontational naming. She found his concentration, attention, working memory, short-term memory, semantic memory and verbal fluency all severely impaired. His writing, visual spatial function and long-term memory were also impaired. She found him to suffer from disassociation, a state in which a person feels removed from himself and watching himself, besides or above – which, in her judgment, was highly likely to be neurological.

18. (v) She concluded that “there [was] widespread, moderate-severe impairment, affecting everyday life, self-care and capacity to look after his own affairs and be safe at home and in the community”. She said she could not pinpoint the type of dementia, but it might be Alzheimer’s, and irrespective of label, it would deteriorate.

19. Ms Atterton’s second report (dated 19 March 2014) was specifically prepared to assess the likely impact of extradition. She said as follows:

20. (i) Her diagnosis of the Respondent’s condition was “without any doubt” dementia.

21. (ii) She considered there was absolutely no evidence of malingering or simulation of deficit. The Respondent’s presentation was severe and typical, and it would be almost impossible to simulate in neuropsychological assessment.

22. (iii) The Respondent was severely impaired in terms of both comprehension and expression of language. He found it very difficult to remember the meaning of words.

23. (iv) That deficit interacted with and compounded severe memory problems with the result that he is unable to represent himself to others coherently, and he had limited capacity to instruct a solicitor without substantial support. If he were to have to change solicitors, he would quite likely lack capacity to instruct new solicitors appropriately.

24. (v) His level of functioning was dependent upon familiarity of surroundings, so that extradition would result in a severe drop in functioning. She was concerned about the effect of likely extradition on his physical and mental well-being, saying:

“I… do not believe he is well enough in any respect to be currently facing proceedings. It would be impossible for his functioning to improve to a level where this would not be the case. Deterioration is almost inevitable and there is no medication that will significantly improve his functioning or any other means of doing so.”

25. Ms Atterton gave evidence oral evidence, and was cross-examined, at the hearing. She said she understood that a friend of the Respondent had identified her as an expert through the internet. At one stage, she appears to have accepted that she could not give a formal or pathological diagnosis of dementia; but she said she was able to give an opinion based on her training and expertise. She had previously assessed the fitness to plead of individuals, although she had not given evidence before a criminal court on fitness to plead.

26. When Counsel for the Appellant suggested in his closing submissions that the Respondent might have been exaggerating his symptoms, the District Judge said, “Why not have your own report then?”. However, no adjournment for any further evidence was requested; and no further medical evidence provided.

27. The District Judge delivered his judgment on 8 May 2014. He rejected the Respondent’s submissions that the warrant ought to be discharged because the evidence did not disclose a prima facie case, or because of passage of time, or because extradition risked breaching article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of prison conditions in India. However, he did discharge the warrant under Section 91 of the 2003 Act on the basis of the Respondent’s mental health.

Section 91 provides:

“Physical or mental condition

(1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing it appears to the judge that the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.

(3) The judge must—

(a) order the person’s discharge, or

(b) adjourn the extradition hearing until it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is no longer satisfied.”

28. In respect of those provisions, we have been referred to a number of authorities, particularly two cases in which this court considered the extradition of Shrien Dewani, namely Dewani v Government of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin) (” Dewani No 1 “), and Government of South Africa v Dewani [2014] EWHC 153 (Admin) (” Dewani No 2 “). In those cases, this court emphasized the public interest in seeing that persons accused of crimes are brought to trial, and thus, to account (see Dewani No 1 at [77]); and stated that the only situation in which a court is likely to say it would be oppressive and unjust to return a requested person is where it is clear that he would be found to be unfit to plead in the requesting state, bearing in mind his health and age, and taking into account such factors as the time that might be taken to bring him to trial in the requesting state – because in those circumstances a fair trial would be impossible (see, particularly, Dewani No 2 at [51] and following).

29. Mr Caldwell for the Appellant submitted before us that the District Judge’s reliance on the evidence of Ms Atterton was misplaced. Not being a medical doctor, she was not qualified to make a clinical or pathological diagnosis of dementia; and her report lacked “rigour”, as evidenced by her inability to recall the date of her appointment with the Respondent, her lack of notes of meeting with him, the absence of record of responses from him, and her evaluation of his dementia as “moderate-severe” which lacked precision. The District Judge did not approach her evidence with caution, as he should have done, given the curious manner in which she was instructed, direct by the Respondent; and the fact that, at the time of her first report, she was unaware of the extradition request, and thus not aware of a good reason on the Respondent’s part for exaggerating his symptoms. Although venturing an opinion as to the Respondent’s inability to participate in a trial, she failed to consider his capacity to recall events from the past, and her opinion on the severity of the Respondent’s condition was inconsistent with the degree of his participation in the then-recent stages of the proceedings, including his apparently clear and lucid account of his case to his legal representatives in his proof of evidence in November 2013.

30. In short, Mr Caldwell submitted Ms Atterton was insufficiently qualified to give the expert evidence that she purported to give; and, in any event, that evidence was insufficient for the District Judge properly to conclude that the Respondent’s mental condition was such that it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite him.

31. However, lucidly as those submissions were made, I am unable to accept them.

32. In respect of Ms Atterton’s expertise, that was directly challenged by the Appellant Government before the District Judge, Ms Atterton being cross-examined on it. The judge referred to that specific challenge in paragraph 1 of his judgment. As it was put to that judge, Mr Caldwell submitted to this court that Ms Atterton was insufficiently qualified to make a pathological diagnosis of dementia, not being a medical practitioner or a psychiatrist. However, she said that, as a psychologist, she had a specialism in neuropsychology in which she has an academic diploma. She said she had “experience of dementia on a daily basis over many years”; and saw patients like the Respondent “daily.” She said that “it is quite frequent that a person is not referred to a psychiatrist within the NHS”, but reliance is instead placed on a psychologist like her.

33. Looking at the District Judge’s judgment as a whole, it is quite clear that, on the basis of the evidence before him which was tested by way of cross-examination, he considered Ms Atterton was competent to give the evidence that she did give as to the Respondent’s current functional deficit and the prognosis in respect of that deficit. On the evidence before him, in my view he was clearly entitled to come to that conclusion; and, as this court reviews that conclusion, it is to be noted that he was in a far better position than this court is to make that judgment because he heard the evidence, including the cross-examination. Particularly given that advantage in the judge, the conclusion cannot be said to be wrong.

34. I also note, as did the judge, that the Respondent’s NHS GP referred the Respondent to a clinical psychologist for consideration of the extent of his dementia, which was apparently the doctor’s provisional diagnosis.

35. Similarly, the judge was fully able and entitled to find Ms Atterton’s evidence “compelling”, which he did. Again, that cannot be said to be wrong.

36. The judge frankly accepted that the medical evidence before him was “relatively limited”; but the Appellant had been given more than a fair opportunity to examine the Respondent and put in medical evidence of its own if it wished to do so and, even at the end of the lengthy extradition process, expressly declined to do so. Before the District Judge, there was the fact that the Respondent had been referred to Dr Canning and the evidence of the Respondent himself in his statement, as well as that of Ms Atterton – although, of course, Ms Atterton’s evidence was clearly crucial. The judge recited the important elements of that evidence as he saw them, including her opinion that the Respondent’s “concentration, attention and working memory are all severely impaired”, “his short-term memory was extremely poor”, and he suffered from “widespread, moderate-severe impairment, severely affecting everyday life”, with the result that he needed “immediate daily support, both practical and emotional to keep him safe”. The judge noted, and clearly accepted, Ms Atterton’s rejection of any suggestion of malingering, as (she said) to manipulate the test results one would need to know the tests she would use – and she herself did not know beforehand the tests she would ultimately use. He noted that Ms Atterton considered that nearly every aspect of the Respondent’s intellectual function was affected, he had moderate to severe mental dementia already and, if standing trial in the United Kingdom in just a few weeks from her report, she said: “I do not think he could follow even with breaks… [He] lacks capacity to give evidence or face cross-examination”, and this would be “…magnified several times if a few years on”. On the basis of that evidence, the judge found that “any suggestion of meaningful participation [by the Respondent] in the trial process, [in India after extradition] is simply preposterous” (paragraph 15 of the District Judge’s judgment).

37. Mr Caldwell submitted that the judge’s approach was in error in a number of ways. For example, he said that the judge did not express any caution as to the underlying basis of Ms Atterton’s instructions, i.e. having found her on the internet, the Respondent instructed her himself and initially without any indication that he faced extradition. In my view, the fact that the Respondent did not indicate to Miss Atterton at the outset that he faced extradition cuts both ways, because it cannot be suggested that Ms Atterton could have been influenced in her first report by any knowledge that he was facing extradition. However, by the time he delivered his judgment, the judge well knew the circumstances of Ms Atterton being instructed: she had been cross-examined about  them with some vigour by Mr Caldwell. There is no basis for suggesting that the judge failed to take them into account.

38. Similarly, Mr Caldwell submitted Ms Atterton’s report was “lacking in vigour”, because she could not recall the date of her examination and assessment of the Respondent, she had no notes of the meeting and she was not qualified to make any clinical diagnosis of dementia, not being medically qualified. As to the absence of notes from her meeting with the Respondent and her inability to recall the date of that meeting, I accept that Ms Atterton’s evidence may well have been the stronger if she had made notes but, again, the District Judge was well aware of that as an issue – as it too had been pursued by Mr Caldwell – and, in assessing Ms Atterton’s evidence he (the judge) was able to give the absence of notes etc the weight that he considered appropriate.

39. Mr Caldwell also submits before us that Ms Atterton’s report made no proper assessment on the so-called Pritchard criteria, i.e. the criteria for fitness to plead and to conduct a trial originally set out by Alderson B in R v Pritchard (1836) 7 Car & P 303 ; but, with respect to that submission, I consider the criticism unfair. Those criteria (which are helpfully set out in Archbold 2014, paragraph 4–235) focus, not only on fitness to plead, but also on whether the individual is able to instruct legal representatives, plead to charges, challenge jurors and understand and give evidence; and, in my view, Ms Atterton did in substance cover these matters in her evidence, certainly sufficiently to enable the judge to conclude, as he did, that the Respondent was not fit to plead now and there was no likelihood of his ever being fit to plead in the reasonably foreseeable future. The evidence of Ms Atterton had been firmly that the Respondent’s functional deficit would only deteriorate.

40. Mr Caldwell specifically relied upon a passage in Ms Atterton’s second report, namely paragraph (III), in which she indicated that the Respondent was then unable coherently to represent himself to others, and she said: “I believe he is therefore limited in his capacity to instruct a solicitor currently without substantial facilitation by the solicitor or those supporting him in this respect”. Mr Caldwell submitted that that is not the same as being unable to instruct a solicitor; but that passage has to be read in context, including paragraph (VI), where Ms Atterton said that she did not believe the Respondent was well enough in any respect to be currently facing these proceedings – let alone the possible consequences of the proceedings – and that it would be impossible for his functioning to improve to a level where this would not be the case.

41. It is not, in my view, to the point that Ms Atterton did not venture an opinion as to the type of dementia from which the Respondent suffered; as she was clear as to the functional deficit arising from the condition whatever its label; and she said that the prognosis and consequences would not vary, whatever the type.

42. Mr Caldwell, somewhat belatedly, relies upon an undertaking made by the relevant Under Secretary of State on behalf of the Appellant Government, dated 1 October 2014, to the effect that, if the Respondent were extradited to India and were there found to be of unsound mind within the meaning of sections 329 to 331 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure – and thus unfit to plead or participate in a trial “within a reasonable period of about 18 months of such finding by the trial court” – then he will  be returned to the United Kingdom. However, whilst of course I accept that what will or may happen in the requesting state following any extradition may be a material circumstance for the purposes of Section 91, I do not consider that undertaking significantly assists Mr Caldwell’s cause. First, of course, it was not before the District Judge. Second, where it is found that a requested person’s physical or mental health is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him, section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the judge at an extradition hearing to order the requested person’s discharge, or adjourn the hearing until it appears that his condition is not such that it would be wrong to extradite him. The words in section 91(3) are imperative: “The judge must…”. Where a judge finds that the requested person is unfit to plead and participate in a trial, and there is no likelihood of that unfitness relenting within a period of reasonable time, the appropriate course is to discharge him; not to order his extradition for the authorities in the requesting state to consider again that fitness. Dewani is distinguishable; because, in that case, the relevant mental state was not thought to be permanent.

43. Those are the main matters relied upon by Mr Caldwell. In my view, they — together with the other matters to which he referred in his written and oral submissions (which I have considered; but which, in my respectful view, add nothing of force — in substance, amount to a submission that the weight the District Judge gave to the evidence of Ms Atterton was wrong. As I have described, the Appellant Government was given more than a fair opportunity to conduct its own medical, psychiatric and/or psychological examination of the Respondent, and prepare and rely upon its own evidence in relation to such examination. It steadfastly refused to do so. In those circumstances, the judge was in the best position to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the evidence before him, including that of Ms Atterton; and was, in my judgement, fully entitled to find the evidence of Miss Atterton compelling and, on the basis of it, conclude that the Respondent was not fit to plead or to conduct a trial in India and that he would be unlikely to be so fit in the reasonably foreseeable future. On the basis of Dewani, the conclusion that the Respondent had a mental condition such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him was one which, in my view, the judge was fully entitled to make, for the reasons he gave; and, on the basis of his earlier findings, it was in my view, all but inevitable. Certainly, in my judgment, this court cannot say that he was wrong, there being no objective grounds on which this court could properly depart from the findings of the District Judge.

44. For those reasons, I do not consider the District Judge erred; and I would dismiss this appeal.

45. Lord Judge Elias: I agree. The substance of Mr Caldwell’s submission, as my Lord has pointed out, was that the judge placed far too much weight on the evidence of Miss Atterton and that as a consequence the conclusion that Section 91 was satisfied was a perverse one, having regard to the evidence as a whole. That is an extremely difficult argument to advance, particularly since the judge had the benefit of hearing Miss Atterton give evidence orally and to assess her answers to what was, no doubt, robust cross-examination. Mr Caldwell has, indeed, identified various features of the evidence which point strongly against the judge’s conclusion, and perhaps other judges would have given them greater weight than this judge did: but questions of weight are always for the judge. Here the district judge was no doubt conscious of the factors relied upon before us, because they were pressed before him too. He had regard to them, but nonetheless he considered, in the light of all the evidence, that Section 91 was satisfied. In my judgement, it cannot possibly be said that this conclusion was perverse or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

46. Thank you, for your attractive and well-presented submissions, if I may say so. Thank you, for your written submissions.

47. MR BUTT: The only other matter is an order for assessment of the Respondent’s legally aided costs.

48. Lord Judge Elias: You will get that.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

Posted in asia, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Edward Coghlan 12th May 1997 Court of Appeal (Diplomat)

Robert Edward Coghlan was a British Diplomat who appealed against his 3 year prison sentence for a large collection of indecent and obscene video cassettes, including videos involving children, as well as indecent and obscene articles, such as magazines and photographs. The goods were moving from Japan to Madrid for a change of post in approximately late 1995/6, against a prohibition on importing.

He applied for leave to appeal against conviction and he appeal against sentence. The sentence was reduced to 2 years.

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[1997] EWCA Crim J0512-28

No: 96/6721/W3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Monday 12th May 1997

Lord Justice Otton

Regina
v.
Robert Edward Coghlan

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD Tel No: 0171 831 3183 Fax No: 0171 831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR R HOUSTON appeared on behalf of the Appellant

JUDGMENT (As Approved by the Court)

Transcript [1997] EWCA Crim J0512-28  Monday 12th May 1997

LORD JUSTICE OTTON: On 5th September 1996, in the Crown Court at Southwark, before His Honour Judge Butler QC, the applicant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of goods contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, namely a quantity of indecent or obscene material. On the following day he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He now renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction, he having been given leave to appeal against sentence by the single judge.

The background to this offence can be stated quite briefly. The applicant was a member of the British Diplomatic Service. He has had a distinguished career, rising to the post of First Secretary at the Embassy in Tokyo. In about August or September 1995, as he reached the end of that posting, he was aware that he would be leaving Tokyo to take up another posting. He received a letter from the Foreign Commonwealth Office dated 29th September indicating that his next appointment was to be First Secretary Commercial in Madrid and indicating various matters of administration to bring that posting into effect, including that he should aim to arrive at the post in May 1996.

Consequently, his personal belongings had to be moved to Madrid. The shipping costs were paid up to a maximum by the Foreign Commonwealth Office. In due course a list of items he possessed was sent to Amertrans, the shippers employed by the Office to the British Embassy in Tokyo. The destination was shown as “UK/Madrid, Spain”. The shippers confirmed the shipping details on 15th December in the following terms:
“Please make sure we receive all original documents well in advance of vessel arrival in UK. Please confirm the shipping details as soon as you have them.”

The applicant packed his belongings in Tokyo or, if not he himself, under his general supervision on 13th December 1995. Two days later he left Tokyo and made his way back to the United Kingdom through Bangkok, Perth and Zurich. On 12th January the shippers received an amended movement authority saying that the applicant’s next posting was in Madrid and the estimated arrival date was May 1996. This document was passed to the applicant. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office chose the route by which the belongings were to be transported, namely by boat from Japan to the United Kingdom and then for onward shipment to Madrid.

The ship carrying the applicant’s goods and chattels left Tokyo on 10th February 1996 and duly arrived in England on 5th March. The applicant arrived home from his holiday on 22nd February 1996. As his goods were due to arrive in the United Kingdom the shippers required the applicant to complete what is known as a Customs and Excise Form C3. This is a formal document and is headed: “Bringing your personal belongings to the United Kingdom from outside the European Community”. So there was no doubt that the Form C3 was required and the purpose was to cover the bringing into the United Kingdom of personal belongings. The form required the signator to make a declaration whether he was importing any “prohibited and restricted goods”. These were defined, among other things, as “indecent or obscene video cassettes, films, books, magazines and any other articles”. On the face of the form it was indicated that “imports are examined by Customs and there are heavy penalties for making false declarations, including possible forfeiture of goods”.

The signator had to declare:
“I have read the notes on this form. All the answers given on the form, [and] the packing list…are true and complete. I am personally aware of what is contained in the packages…”
Against the words “prohibited and restricted goods” on the C3 form the applicant had written the word “none”. The form was signed and dated 5th March and Customs received the form on 12th March. The applicant subsequently admitted that his declaration was false, in that amongst his personal belongings was a large collection of indecent and obscene video cassettes, including videos involving children, as well as indecent and obscene articles, such as magazines and photographs. He admitted that he knew about the prohibition on the importation of such material. At trial there was no dispute regarding the indecency and obscenity of the video cassettes and the other articles.

The material was found during what the prosecution maintained was a random check by Customs officials. If the material had not been found by the Customs, the shippers would have stored it for the applicant in its warehouse for some months until the date on which it had to be trans-shipped to Madrid in anticipation of his arrival at the beginning of May. In essence it was the prosecution’s case that, by 22nd February, at the very latest, the applicant knew that goods which he knew were prohibited were destined for a UK port, albeit that they were subsequently to be trans-shipped to Madrid. He filled in the Form C3 with that knowledge. He lied on the C3 form because he wanted the prohibited goods and he knew that once they cleared Customs in the United Kingdom, if they cleared, the goods could easily be moved to Spain. The goods did not clear Customs but were technically imported goods.

At trial the applicant gave an account similar to that which he had given to the police, namely that he did not expect to see his goods until he got to Madrid. He did not fill in the Form C3 initially as he did not expect them or want them to come to the United Kingdom. He had expected the goods to be sent direct to Spain. With regard to the videos involving children, he did not know what the position was when he bought them and he did not want to watch them. He would not have bought them if he had known that they involved children. He saw no reason to complete the C3 form initially. However, as a result of the way that matters transpired, he realised he had no choice but to complete the Form C3. He was taken aback and tried to resist or delay signing the form, but he realised that he had no choice; in other words, he realised that what he was putting on the form was in fact false. He knew that if the C3 form was accepted by Customs and Excise without the goods being examined the goods would have cleared customs. He had no intention of taking the videos out of storage. He let the packers include the videos because he did not know how to get rid of them. In the event the jury convicted.

In the original grounds of appeal three other grounds were advanced but Mr Russell Houston, who appeared in the court below and before us, indicated that he no longer sought to pursue them.
The point taken on this application is that the judge wrongly failed to direct the jury that the applicant would not be guilty of the offence charged if the prohibited goods had already been innocently imported before any fraudulent act had been committed by the applicant; the goods were innocently imported by other persons with no knowledge of the fact that they were imported. The applicant, on the basis of the argument advanced, would not have been concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation; the goods were innocently imported by persons with no knowledge that they were prohibited and that the applicant had not been party to the importation. As the judge wrongly failed to direct they in the way that is indicated, they were deprived of considering an alternative to the way that the case was presented by the Crown.

In considering that submission it is necessary to consider the precise terms in which the indictment was laid and upon which the applicant was arraigned:

” STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Being knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of goods contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Robert Edward Coghlan was on or about the 12th March at Containerbase, Barking, in the county of Essex, in relation to prohibited goods, namely a quantity of indecent or obscene material, knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation thereof imposed by section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.”
Section 170(2) provides as follows:
“Without prejudice to any other provision of the Customs and Excise Acts 1979, if any person is, in relation to any goods, in any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion—-
(b) of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force with respect to the goods under or by virtue of any enactment he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and may be arrested.”
In furtherance of his argument Mr Houston drew our attention to section 170(1):
“Without prejudice to any other provision of the Customs and Excise Acts 1979, if any person—-
(a) knowingly acquires possession of any of the following goods, that is to say…(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any such goods
and does so with intent to defraud [counsel would wish me to emphasise] Her Majesty of any duty payable on the goods or to evade any such prohibition or restriction with respect to the goods he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and may be arrested.”
Counsel correctly draws our attention to the fact that in order to constitute an offence under section 170(1)(b) the prosecution has to establish an intent to defraud or to evade any such prohibition or restriction etc. He submits that what in effect happened was that an indictment was laid under subsection (1)(b) and not under subsection (2).
We cannot accept that as a basic proposition. The indictment made it perfectly clear that the offence was laid under subsection (2).
The Court has on previous occasions had to consider the relationship between subsection (1) and subsection (2). In R v Neal and Others 77 Cr App R 283 , Griffiths LJ, giving the Court of Appeal’s judgment, said (at page 288) that the language of subsection (1):
“…is so embracing and casts the net so wide that one is left to wonder what purpose is served by subsection (2), for it is difficult to think of any behaviour aimed at defrauding the Customs and Excise that would not be caught by subsection (1). However, subsection (2) has consistently appeared in a similar form in a succession of Customs and Excise Acts as a final and sweeping up provision. We are satisfied that it was inserted by the draftsman with the intention of casting his net as widely as words enabled him.”

That, clearly, was the purpose of that subsection and creates a catch-all situation. An offence laid under subsection (2) does not require the element of mens rea which is required under subsection (1)(b). As the editors of Archbold state at 25–455:
“However, whereas section 170(1)(a) requires proof that the accused acquired possession of the goods, and section 170(1)(b) requires proof that the accused performed any of the activities listed in subsection (1)(b), subsection (2) imposes no such limits on its application. For the purposes of subsection (2), the word ‘fraudulent’ means dishonest conduct ‘deliberately intended to evade the prohibition or restriction with respect to, or the duty chargeable on, goods as the case may be’: per Lord Lane CJ in Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1981) [1982] QB 848 .”

In the present case we merely substitute for “duty chargeable on” in (a) the language of (b) as in the indictment.
There has always been a distinction between evasion and importation. In Archbold at chapter 25–410 it is stated:
“By ‘evade’ Parliament meant no more than there must be an intention on the part of the accused to ‘get around’ the prohibition or restriction. ‘Evade’ in this context does not carry the connotation of fraud or dishonesty as it does in revenue laws: see Hurford-Jones , 65 Cr App R 263 , CA. Evidence of an intention to take the imported goods elsewhere without landing them, or to keep the vessel, carrying the goods, in an anchorage only long enough to buy fuel for a voyage into international waters is irrelevant once it is proved that the accused knew that the goods were being imported contrary to a prohibition on importation.”

Counsel points out that the actual bringing ashore of these goods occurred when a perfectly innocent dock employee would have handled the goods to effect that. This sort of situation has been considered on more than one occasion by the courts. It is well established that such offences are continuing offences because, by definition, the evasion of a prohibition or a restriction often involves a continuing series of events and is rarely limited to the moment of importation itself (see also section 57 MacNeill v HM Advocate (1986) SCLR 288 .) In R v Neal and Others (supra) Kenneth Jones J gave a helpful illustration in his summing-up at page 286-7:
“Now the words, ‘the evasion of the prohibition on the importation’,… are wider than simply the single word ‘importation’. Let me give you a very simple example. A boat arrives in a port in this country and it has on board cannabis resin. One of the sailors,…actually carries that cannabis resin ashore. He hands it over to another man who is waiting, who loads it into a van.

The van is driven off to some place where the drug is unloaded and is stored away in some building and there you have someone who helps in that unloading—perhaps the owner of the building in which it is stored. Maybe, at a later stage, it is transported to yet another building and is stored there and it may be that behind all this operation, controlling it and supervising it, is some organising person. Now you see, of all those men—the sailor, the van driver, the store keeper, the organiser—strictly speaking, only the sailor has imported the drug into this country. He is the only person who has carried it into this country, and that is what importation means, but he and each of those other persons have all taken part in evading the prohibition on the importation of that drug and taken their part in getting round it, in setting at nought the ban which the law imposes on the importation of the drug.”

Griffiths LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said at page 288:
“Subsection (1) clearly includes those who are not a part of the original smuggling team. For example, it includes anyone who acquires possession of goods unlawfully removed from a warehouse, or anyone who hides goods on which duty has not been paid, or anyone who carries goods the importation of which is forbidden; and there could be no warrant for reading into the language of the subsection the qualification ‘provided they are part of the original smuggling team’.”

In those circumstances, we have to consider how the learned trial judge directed the jury. He did so in the following terms:
“So then, what are the matters that the prosecution must prove before you convict this defendant? Well they have to prove each of the following: firstly—I will take them in turn—that prohibited goods were imported into the United Kingdom. You will have no difficulty about that; they were. That happened when the ship came into Southampton or perhaps even a little earlier, but that does not matter very much. They have been imported, they had entered the United Kingdom by 5th March, 1996. Secondly, the prosecution have to prove that this defendant was knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition on their importation.

As I have already told you, goods of this kind must not be imported; it is illegal to do so. Now—and this is important—the evasion of a prohibition or restriction will often involve a continuing series of events. You do not look only at the moment of importation. So, for example, if prohibited goods are brought ashore by a person, when another person who knows the prohibited goods have been brought ashore drives them away in his car, he is evading the prohibition on importation. It does not matter a jot that the goods are already in this country. He is taking part in the process.”

We have considered the argument advanced by Mr Houston in an attractive and succinct manner, but we have come to the conclusion that there is no substance in it. The judge correctly identified the principles involved and directed the jury in accordance with the law accurately, succinctly and helpfully. A direction in the form suggested by Mr Houston would have been inaccurate and inappropriate. In those circumstances, we conclude that the application to appeal against conviction must be refused.
(Submissions re sentence appeal followed.)

LORD JUSTICE OTTON: It is not necessary to recite the facts upon which this conviction and sentence are based. Suffice it to say, that when the baggage was explored it was found that he was in possession of no less than 109 videos and other obscene and indecent articles, such as magazines and other publications.
We are bound to say that it would have been open to the judge at trial, having heard all the evidence and having seen a sample of the obscene material, to infer that, with such a number and type of articles involved that there would have been a temptation, if not an intention, on the part of the defendant to disseminate this filthy material had it arrived in Madrid. Such dissemination may not necessarily have been for commercial gain. That is neither here nor there.

It was suggested in argument that if this appellant had been found in possession of this obscene material, the sanction, on a summary conviction, would have been a fine. That is not the whole picture, because it is clear that by section 1(1)(c) of the Protection of Children Act that on indictment, an offence of having in possession obscene or indecent photographs of children carries a maximum of three years’ imprisonment or a fine.
When the judge came to sentence he was very careful as to how he approached the sentencing task. It is right to say that, unfortunately, following the conviction and before the judge came to pass sentence this case had received considerable publicity in the press which suggested that this appellant was part of a paedophile ring.

However, the judge, when coming to sentence, said that he totally put out of his mind anything that might have been written about this case and that he was sentencing solely upon the basis of the evidence which he had heard during the trial. In doing so, of course, he was perfectly correct and no criticism can be made of the way that the judge approached this sentencing exercise. He proceeded to sentence on the basis that he accepted counsel’s submission that there was no evidence to suggest that there would have been any dissemination or that there would have been any commercial gain. He was prepared to sentence on the basis that this material was solely for the purposes of the appellant.

That being so, we have to consider whether the sentence of three years is manifestly excessive within the template of fact upon which the judge proceeded. We have come to the conclusion that it is. Moreover, we take into account that this man has had a distinguished career in the British Diplomatic Service, rising from a modest start to the position of a First Secretary, first in Tokyo and then, on reappointment, to Madrid. As a result of these matters he stands in a state of total ignominy. His proclivity has been revealed to colleagues and superiors, who no doubt until then had a high regard for him. He has brought upon himself and his family unutterable shame, which must be part of the punishment and retribution meted upon him.

We have come to the conclusion that the correct sentence in this case should be one of two years’ imprisonment. We therefore propose to quash the sentence of three years and substitute a lesser term. To that extent the appeal against sentence is allowed.
MR HOUSTON: My Lord, may I mention the question of legal aid in relation to the application for leave to appeal against conviction? I do so on this basis: I appreciate that one needs to point to some exceptional circumstances to justify its grant—-

LORD JUSTICE OTTON: I do not think we have power to. I would have thought that, if you were to proceed or your solicitor was to proceed on the basis that this was one composite hearing, your legal aid which has already been granted to you for this purpose would more than cover what you said today.
MR HOUSTON: My Lord, the basis of it was this, namely that the solicitor, as your Lordships will appreciate, I think you will agree properly, we having seen this article appear in the Mail on Sunday, two days later spent a considerable amount of time in liaison with Customs.

LORD JUSTICE OTTON: You are asking us to certify for the solicitor as well?
MR HOUSTON: My Lord, yes.

LORD JUSTICE OTTON: Yes, we are prepared to grant that application, but it must be understood that it is in respect of the appeal against sentence only. We are grateful to your solicitor for the efforts he has made in that regard.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Court, Indecent Images, pedophile, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Survivor v The Director of Public Prosecutions 25 Jan 2001 High Court (Aston Villa FC)

This was an application to challenge the decision of the CPS to stop a prosecution.

The alleged abuser was a scout for Aston Villa Football Club. The offences were between 1971 and 1977. It also mentions abuse at Forde Park.

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2001] EWHC 58 (Admin)

CO/2468/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE


Royal Courts of Justice

Strand London WC2

Thursday, 25th January 2001

Lord Justice Brooke and

C

v.

The Director of Public Prosecutions


(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Telephone No: 0208-421 4040/0208-404 1400 Fax No: 0171-831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR R BLYTH (instructed by Woollcombe Beer Watts, County Chambers, 75 Queen Square, Exeter, Devon EX4 3RX) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR P J L LAMBERT (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Avon Branch Office, Froomsgate House, Rupert Street, Bristol BS1 2QJ) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by the court)

Thursday, 25th January 2001

JUDGMENT

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is a renewed application by C for permission to challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service which was formally given to the Bristol Magistrates’ Court on 3 November 1999, deciding to stop a prosecution of the proposed defendant for five charges of indecent assault and two charges of rape of a man, between 1971 and 1977.

2. In the formal letter, it was said that the reasons for stopping the case were as follows:

“The defendant is aged 86 years with no previous convictions or other complaints against him. The offences are 20 years old. The indecent assault charges could not be proved as there was no ‘assault’ and the 2 x buggery charges are no longer criminal offences as the complainant was 19/20 yrs old at the time. The admissions are made in an interview without a solicitor and [do not appear in the transcript of the interview] until page 62. The total of those factors lead me to decide it is not in the public interest to proceed.”

3. The applicant, who was born in [redacted] 1953 and is now a man of 47, wrote to the Chief Crown Prosecutor expressing concern about this decision, and received a reply that the case had been carefully reviewed by a Senior Crown Prosecutor:

“Several considerations arose from that review. First, the proposed defendant is now aged 86 and apparently in a poor state of general health. Secondly, these alleged incidents took place some 20 years ago when, as I understand it, you were 19/20 years old. Whilst at that time acts of buggery would have constituted criminal offences because you were under 21, the law has since changed. The prescribed age is now 18.

Therefore, conduct of a similar nature amounting to buggery would not now be prosecutable.

So far as the indecent assaults were concerned, they could not be prosecuted because there was no true assault. In any event, having regard to the age of these matters and the other factors set out above, it would not have been in the public interest to proceed even if an assault could had been established.

I hope I have been able to explain the reasons why proceedings against the proposed defendant could not be continued.”

4. Before reading the response to that letter, I must say something about the contents of a statement made by the applicant to the police, of which we have a draft, dated 11 April 1999. He explains that at about the age of seven or eight, he had to go into care. He was resident at three Social Services establishments, and was then at different schools. He was then sent to Forde Park School, which was residential accommodation run by Devon Social Services. He says that he was subjected to physical and sexual abuse by staff there. He then described that how when he left the school, he had been given career advice which told him to keep up his football as he showed promise and that he had the potential to become a professional footballer. His statement describes how, in the early 1970s, he sent a letter to Aston Villa Football Club asking for a trial, and these were the  circumstances in which he came in touch with their local football representative or scout, the proposed defendant.

5. He describes how he first came into contact with the proposed defendant and of his great desire to become a professional footballer, and he describes an incident when there was a conversation when he was back in the proposed defendant’s flat, “and he said to get into professional football I had to do things for him.”

6. The statement goes on:

“I asked whim what he meant and he said that this would be ‘satisfying’ him by [redacted]; he told me not to worry about my age (I was 19 —19 1/2 at the time) as he said this would be all right. I was quite shocked by what he had said but I was very anxious to get a trial and get into a footballing career and genuinely believed he could help me. I left that night having declined his suggestion.”

7. The statement continues to the effect that there were prospects, he believed, of playing football for Manchester United, who were said to be very interested in him. He describes how various acts of an indecent nature took place. At one stage the statement reads:

“He told me things like I would feel better if I did and I declined to participate and left.”

8. That was a refusal to take part in an [redacted].

“I was feeling very used and only had thoughts of furthering my football career with his help and guidance.”

9. And so the matter went on. Acts of buggery were alleged, and the main thrust of the statement is that he was very influenced by this man. He feels that he was manipulated to his ends, and he was doing things that, under normal circumstances, he would not have done as he had no other relationship with the man, sexual or otherwise. He describes what he thinks has been the permanent effect of the way he was treated by a man with whom, although at that stage he was an adult, there was, to a certain extent, a relationship of trust.

10. So it came about that in his letter of 13 December 1999, which was written about eight months after he first came forward with these allegations, he said that it was his understanding that on arrest the proposed defendant made admissions in relation to the allegations he had made. He said he would like a detailed account of the ruling that allowed this man to walk out of the magistrates’ court a free man. He then raised four particular points, including the suggestion that the CPS might think that senior citizens were above the law. He expressed concern that the criminal law might be working to ‘time bar’ rules. In particular he said:

“Don’t you think the public would be interested to know that their sons with aspirations of becoming the next Michael Owen, are at risk from the proposed defendants of this world? This man took young boys (sic) dreams and aspirations and tore them to shreds and made them dirty. Would it be of interest to the public that CPS won’t be pursuing the conviction of this man?”

11. The Crown Prosecution Service wrote a short letter in reply. They did not address that fourth point at all. In short, a reference was made to their earlier letter, and the writer said:

“Clearly, ‘senior citizens’ are not above the law. In this case, the proposed defendant is 86 years old, the alleged offences more than 20 years old; offences of that nature would not now be prosecutable, and finally, the proposed defendant is apparently infirm and in a poor state of health.

In order to prove an assault in these circumstances, it will be necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the approaches made by the proposed defendant were without consent. This standard of proof cannot be attained.”

12. There was a delay in bringing these proceedings, but Mr Lambert for the Crown says that he wishes to take no point in that delay. In my judgment it is inappropriate for the court to take a point.

13. Both parties to the proceedings are very well aware of the very high hurdle which this court places before applications for judicial review of decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions can be judicially reviewed. In R v Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte Hitchins ( 13 June 1997 ), after giving the judgment of the court in two such applications which were dismissed, I ended by saying this:

“It would be wrong to leave [these applications], however, without repeating what Staughton LJ said 18 months ago in this court in R v Crown Prosecution Service, ex p Waterworth (unreported, 1st December 1995 ):

‘Parliament has entrusted the decision of who should be prosecuted and for what offences to the Crown Prosecution Service under the supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. We can only interfere if the decision is wholly irrational or perverse or absurd or such as no reasonable Crown Prosecutor could make.'”

14. My judgment continued:

“As recently as 1975 Lawton LJ said in Selvarajan v Race Relations Board [1975] 1 WLR 1686 at p 1697 that so far as he knew the courts had never interfered with the Director’s discretion. In Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1995] QB 335 Steyn LJ observed at p 346 that the Attorney-General, and through him the Director of Public Prosecutions are accountable to Parliament for what they do, or omit to do, in relation to criminal proceedings, and that the scope for judicial review proceedings is very limited indeed. We unreservedly agree, and we hope that the frequency with which this court is now dismissing applications of this nature (see, for example, ex p Waterworth (supra); ex p Jennifer Jones (unreported, 10th June 1996 ); ex p Burke (unreported, 12th December 1996 ; and now these two cases) will be fully taken into account by those contemplating similar challenges in the future.”

15. There is, therefore, a very high hurdle. That the high hurdle can be surmounted in very rare cases is evident from the judgment of this court in R v The Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Treadaway , which was given in the following month on 31 July 1997 by Rose LJ and Jowitt J, when the court did quash a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions in what it described as a very unusual case indeed. The unusual feature of the case was that a High Court judge had heard evidence from material witnesses on both sides and had reached a conclusion of assault by a high standard of proof, giving his reasons in detail. This court considered that that judgment required a most careful analysis if a decision not to prosecute was to be made.

16. On the present occasion, I remind myself that all we are concerned about is whether we should grant permission to C to apply to the full court for judicial review; whether his case is properly arguable or whether it should be shut out now and he is not given the opportunity to argue it. Nothing that this court says at this stage can possibly take the place of a judgment of the full court following reasoned arguments on both sides.

17. Mr Blyth is aware that his client faces formidable hurdles to get over, but in my judgment this is a case which demands a further scrutiny which this court will be able to give it on a full application for judicial review.

18. The Crown Prosecutors, operating at the end of the 20th century, were clearly taking into account the fact that the law had changed and that attitudes had changed, and although the consensual act of buggery with a man of 19 was a criminal offence at the time when it is alleged, and there is some evidence of admissions, it is no longer a criminal offence. In those circumstances they thought it would not be in the public interest to prosecute, particularly in the light of the proposed defendant’s age and failing health and the unlikelihood of a jury being willing to convict.

19. What it appears to me to be arguable is that the Crown Prosecution Service has failed to take into account the legal ingredients of consent in a sexual case of this kind. Even between 1971 and 1977 the offence of assault with intent to commit buggery was a very serious criminal offence. If there was any prospect of the Crown succeeding to the criminal standard of proof in proving, without supporting evidence, that the acts of which C makes complaint did happen, and that they did happen without consent (and the onus would be on the Crown to prove the absence of consent), that would be a powerful consideration which would have to be taken into account by a careful prosecutor, and there is no evidence that it was taken into account.

20. One of the difficulties is that the law as practised in the criminal courts up and down the country every day treats consent as a very simple concept. The case of Olugboja [1982] 1 QB 320 has been widely reported, a judgment of Dunn LJ, following the amendment to the Sex Offences Act in the middle of the 1970s, but subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal on that issue have not been reported, except when they raise points which are of interest to academic lawyers or which may appear to raise interesting technical questions as to whether certain types of fraud may vitiate consent. I addressed some of these issues in the judgment of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal on 10 October 1996 when I was sitting with McCullough J and Judge Rivlin QC, both of whom have vast experience in the criminal law. Indeed McCullough J for many years served on the Criminal Law Revision Committee.

21. The reserved judgment of the court in the case of McAllister , which is very briefly summarised in 1997 Criminal Law Review at page 233, moved the debate forward from the judgment of Dunn LJ in Olugboja . I am going to quote a little bit of my judgment in that case so that it will be available to the full court when it considers this appeal. I said this:

“The legislature in many other common law jurisdictions (in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States) have now given the courts detailed statutory guidance as to what constitutes consent, and what are the circumstances which may vitiate consent, as the very recent Law Commission Consultation Paper No 139 has shown, but although that guidance embraces a lot of the common law rules we also use in this country to direct juries, we do not have any guidance of this kind in a codified form.

It is against this background that what Dunn LJ said in Olugboja falls to be considered, and he was pointing out little more than the obvious. In the absence of statutory guidance Parliament has been content to leave it to the jury, or to the magistrates, as finders of fact to decide whether there was or may have been consent to activities of a sexual nature between two human beings when each had the intellectual capacity or maturity to take decisions of this kind for themselves. Who they are, whether they have met each other before, whether they know each other well, whether they are or have been related in marriage, and the nature of their relationship to each other, are all matters which the factfinders will have to consider. Dunn LJ was able to draw on his long experience at the bar and on the bench in the Family Division when he observed that consent covers a wide range of states of mind in the context of intercourse between a man and a woman, ranging from actual desire on the one hand to reluctant acquiescence on the other.

In the unreported case of Mohammad Zafar (92/2762/W2, 18th June 1993), this court commended a direction to the jury by Pill J in a case involving a charge of rape where a man and a woman had lived together for a long time as husband and wife. In his charge to the jury Pill J had said:

‘In considering whether it is proved that the complainant…did not consent, bear in mind when considering the evidence the relationship between them. When people enter into long-term relationships/marriage either within or outside marriage they usually contemplate regular sexual relationships. In most partnerships, even not entirely happy ones, there is often a give and take between the partners on sexual as on other matters. A female partner may not particularly want sexual intercourse on a particular occasion but because it is her husband or her partner who is asking for it she will consent to sexual intercourse. The fact that such consent is given reluctantly or out of a sense of duty to her partner, is still a consent.

However, a woman is entitled to say “no” and to refuse to consent even to her husband or long-term partner.

There is a dividing line between a real consent on the one hand and a lack of consent or mere submission on the other. It is for you to decide whether the absence of consent is proved in this case applying your combined good sense, experience and knowledge of human nature and modern behaviour to all the relevant facts of the case.'”

I went on:

“It is considerations like this a jury will have to take into account, and in the absence of statutory guidance judges are left to make it clear to juries, without incanting ritualistic formulae, that they have to decide as a question of fact whether in all the circumstances there was or may have been a real consent or that the defendant may have honestly, if mistakenly, believed there was. In the absence of obvious pointers such as a fraud (of a particular type) or threats of violence this may often require quite a subtle understanding of human nature, but in the last resort it will be a decision for the twelve members of the jury to make and there will be a limit to the help a judge can reasonably give them.

The focus of the inquiry in all these cases is based on the sexual autonomy of the complainant. The circumstances of a possibly reluctant consent may be infinitely varied and on each occasion the jury has to decide whether an alleged agreement to a sexual act may properly be seen as a real consent or whether it should be regarded as a submission founded on improper pressure which this particular complainant could not reasonably withstand from this particular defendant.

Whether the charge be one of rape or one of indecent assault on a complainant over the age of 16, the governing principles are the same, although in the latter case it is likely that the more humiliating or painful the assault, the more willing a jury may find that no consent was in reality given.”

22. As I have said, the applicant faces formidable problems in this case. There are formidable evidential problems because it is only his word. There is no supporting evidence except possibly, and we do not know the quality of them, certain admissions. And there are formidable problems relating to the burden of proof.

23. But all these are matters which, in my judgment, the full court ought to consider on the substantive application. In particular it should consider whether there is any evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service took into account the matters of law to which I have just drawn attention in this judgment.

24. As Mr Blyth has said, there was no sign in the original decision that there were any evidential problems in this case. The decision was taken on public interest grounds, and if the proposed defendant is ill and of failing health, then it may be that there was an overwhelming case on public interest grounds, but in my judgment the absence of any evidence on the material currently before the court that the Crown Prosecution Service took into account the very important factors which C set out as item four in his letter to the Crown Prosecution Service, is a matter which ought to be considered carefully by the full court, which should be presided over by either the Lord Chief Justice or Rose LJ or Kennedy LJ.

25. For those reasons, whilst not wishing to suggest that there is not force in some of the other submissions which Mr Blyth has made, which no doubt he will repeat to the full court, I would grant permission.

26. MR JUSTICE MORISON: I agree. If the case against the proposed defendant were put to a jury, it seems to me that the real and sole, but important, issue would be consent. The question before this court is whether, on the material before them, the Crown Prosecution Service have lawfully, sensibly and rationally concluded that a prosecution should not proceed.

27. Mr Lambert on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service accepts that their stated reasons for not proceeding were open to debate and criticism, and ultimately was minded to accept, though I hasten to say not formally, that this was a case which could properly be considered by the full court. I regard the position of Mr Lambert on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service in this court as entirely proper at this stage.

28. I would wish to emphasise that by giving permission, this court is, of course, not second guessing or trying to second guess the outcome of the full court’s consideration of this matter in due course.

29. I agree with everything that my Lord has said.

30. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: It is, in every sense of the word, desirable that this substantive hearing should be expedited, but we will have to consider the timetable between now and then. The application should be formally served on the Crown Prosecution Service, who already has it, within seven days. It may be that they will accept what they have received so far as formal service. I do not know.

31. MR LAMBERT: We so accept, my Lord.

32. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: How long would you like to put in any evidence in reply?

33. MR LAMBERT: I would seek 21 days.

34. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: 21 days. That seems to be reasonable.

35. MR BLYTH: Obliged, my Lord.

36. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: To be listed on the —how long is this going to take? A day?

37. MR BLYTH: My Lord, we agree that it will probably last a day.

38. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: Yes. To be listed for a day on the first open day more than seven days after the respondent’s evidence has been filed.

39. Very grateful to you both.

40. MR BLYTH: I am very grateful. My Lord, would you order that the applicant’s costs be taxed in accordance with Regulation 107?

41. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: If it is a permission application, do I need to do it now? There is going to be a substantive application.

42. MR BLYTH: There is.

43. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: You will get a full order then.

44. MR BLYTH: My Lord, there is only one other matter, and that is that I was approached by a gentleman of the press who wanted to know whether there are any extraordinary reporting restrictions on this case. My view is, of course, that the proposed accused should not be named. It seems to be a matter for my client whether he chooses to disclose his own identity, but I thought it right to mention the matter to the court in case there were any matters which I had not taken into account which the court thought that the press should be alerted to.

45. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: Do you have any submissions to make about that, Mr Lambert?

46. MR LAMBERT: My Lord, no. If there is no intention to publish the name of the potential accused man, then —

47. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: It seems satisfactory to refer to the complainant by the letter C or something of that kind.

48. MR BLYTH: Yes.

49. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: Subject to that, and if the prospective defendant is not named, I hope that we have succeeded in getting the balance right between the rights of the press and a certain amount of need to not to publicise names if it is not necessary to do so.

50. MR BLYTH: My Lord, I am sure the press —

51. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: Let me make that direction clear. We direct that there will be no report of this decision which will identify the name of the prospective defendant and that the prospective applicant should be called by the name C throughout. When I come to proof the transcript, please remind me of that. Very well.

52. I direct that it is transcribed and available to the full court.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Court, Devon, football, Schools / teachers, South West | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment