Corruption

The Eurocrats and Marc Dutroux II: A Judge, A King, a Psychopath and his Lover

“The truth is that those journalists who tell the story complain that they have been harassed, sacked, threatened and many say they have been forced to stop reporting on this issue to continue working.’ As one senior Belgian said to me citing these examples ‘You must not underestimate how bad Belgian justice is.’” 

– BBC Journalist, Olenka Frenkiel


On June 17, 2004, Marc Dutroux, a long-standing criminal and low-level police informant, was given a life sentence for supposedly “leading a gang” that kidnapped and raped six girls in the mid-1990s, resulting in the deaths of four. His links to a sex and crime ring led to other arrests including his wife Michelle Martin an elementary school teacher who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for kidnapping and rape (though she has since been paroled after serving 16 years). Co-accused Michel Lelièvre a petty thief and drug addict received 25 years for kidnapping and drug-dealing. Jean Michel Nihoul however, known for his penchant for organising orgies at a local chateau with high society links and a long history of assorted criminality, was jailed for only five years for drug-dealing and several counts of fraud. His lover, Marleen De Cockere was also arrested and charged with conspiracy.

After an enormous public out-cry over the murders, Belgium’s Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene finally began to make the right noises. All of a sudden, the government professed its dedication to the cause of reform in the justice and police systems, particularly regarding parole criteria for those convicted of child sex offences after decades of denial and disinterest. The Royalty, most notably King Albert, conveniently jumped on the bandwagon and vocally called for further immediate reforms. However, in 2001 the publication of The Paedophile Dossierthe Scandal of the Dutroux Case [1] gave the Brussels palace virtual apoplexy regarding what they viewed as “grotesque” deformations against the unblemished character of the king. The next Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, described it as “an unacceptable assault on the dignity of our nation and its people.” [2]

dutroux

Marc Dutroux

The book suggested that Albert attended sex parties in the 1970s and 1980s where children were routinely abused. The Luxembourg-based investigative journalist Jean Nicolas, who co-authored the book, said he made no accusations against King Albert, but merely published legal documents written by a Belgian judge. However, the palace grievances were upheld in the Belgian courts and a formal denial was to be included in all future copies. Nevertheless, Albert had a record that was not the cleanest public image for a King, though sadly common place for historical royalty who remain above the law.

In the 1970s, then still the Crown Prince, he was implicated in a sex affair involving the bribery of Saudi officials. The Belgian government also sought to have their own addendum regarding the handling of the affair but the judge reminded them that this was political issue, thus did not come under the court’s jurisdiction (which is bizarre in itself). However, at this late stage it was a case of too little far too late, especially when the rumours of institutionalised sexual abuse and a wider network of child rape had still not been satisfactorily investigated.

The conclusion of Dutroux’s eight year trial was preceeded by numerous postponements, delays and suspicious stone-walling. There was also evidence of extraordinary negligence from the police and government officials involved in the investigation, several police officers having been detained and questioned over the scandal. Resignations and dismissals followed, as well as one of the largest peacetime demonstrations ever seen by the Belgian public, furious at what they considered to be, at best, ineptitude and at worst, a cover-up which extended right to the heart of Belgian royalty.

The reason that the trial was said to have taken so long was due to the persistent rumours that a child sex ring was in operation and the investigations that followed. In fact, the exact opposite was the case. No such investigations took place and the length of the trial was largely due to the obstructions and delays from police and justice officials. In the final month, Dutroux’s lawyer “sensationally called for the suspension of the trial to give investigators time to confirm the existence of such a child sex ring.” [3]

After a few days, the request was rejected by the judge and the verdict was handed down on the June 17, 2004.

Not one week after the sentencing of Dutroux a French forestry worker, Michel Fourniret, confessed to killing six girls in Belgium and France from 1987 to 2001, suggesting yet more evidence of police ineptitude or purposeful apathy regarding child abduction. [4] Only several months after the arrest of Dutroux was yet another child molester found after the discovery of the body of Loubna Benaissa, who was 9 when she disappeared in August 1992. She was found in a trunk in the basement of one Patrick Derochette who was charged with murder along with three members of his family. [5]

Just what was going on in the heart of Belgium?

Marc Dutroux – from petty criminal to procurer of children

Having settled with his family in the Belgian province of Charleroi and unable to obtain work, Marc Dutroux, gradually sank into petty crime making a mediocre living from trading stolen cars in Poland and Slovakia. He graduated to selling young girls into prostitution throughout Europe beginning in the late eighties and early nineties. As he began to explore and exercise his criminal tendencies, Dutroux was arrested in 1989 for the rape and abuse of five young girls. Nevertheless, his luck was in and as a product of Belgium’s curious laws which were more than flexible regarding child abuse at the time, he and many convicted paedophiles were able to walk free by 1992. The law only tightened up when the full scale of the death and abuse came to light upon his arrest in 1996. By then, many girls had gone missing in the vicinity of Dutroux’s two homes.

The magnitude of the “incompetence” of police investigation into the crimes slowly became known over the seven year period from his arrest to his sentence. These included warnings to the police from Dutroux’s own mother regarding possible kidnapping of girls in one of her son’s houses, to overlooking basic police investigative protocol by ignoring informants’ information which later proved accurate and which led to the loss of vital clues. Finally, an eyewitness managed to record the number plate of a suspicious car in the area where the girls went missing and Marc Dutroux was arrested on August 15 1996 and subsequently charged with the murder of four girls.

timecov

Julie LeJeune and Melissa Russo on the cover of Time Magazine

Two girls, Laetitia Delhez, aged 12, and Sabine Dardenne, aged 14 were found alive but the others were not so lucky. Tales of torture, rape, pornographic filming and a general litany of sexual abuse took place in a secret dungeon in the basement of one of Dutroux’s houses. Julie Lejeune and Melissa Russo were two other eight year old victims who were plucked off the street, in June of 1995 drugged, repeatedly raped and subsequently allowed to starve to death. According to Dutroux, his accomplice in the kidnappings, Bernard Weinstein forgot to feed the children while he was incarcerated for another crime involving car theft. He later confessed to killing Weinstein in a fit of rage by drugging and burying him alive next to the bodies of Russo and Lejeune. The police refused to hunt for the girls at the time even though Dutroux was known as a prime suspect. Nor did they search Dutroux’s house for five months. When a search was finally organized, they found nothing, despite reports of children’s voices in the cellar.

Further known victims were An Marchal, aged 19, and Eefje Lambreks, aged 17, who were found at another house owned by Dutroux, several weeks after the discovery of Russo and Lejeune. Dutroux and accomplice Michel Lelievre admitted kidnapping two other girls who had gone missing at a Belgian resort in Ostend one year earlier.

The general resistance and clear obstruction of the authorities extended over several years until the Belgian public were convinced that a massive operation had been in place to protect politicians and officials in high places who had been connected to the child sexual abuse ring. They also believed that the government, police and courts were all involved in the cover-up.

Dutroux was dubbed a “perfect psychopath.” He revelled in the media circus and the audience attention in court and frequently displayed self-pity ploys and almost comical delusions of grandeur so typical of psychopathy. Dutroux stated he was not a paedophile as commonly believed and experts agreed with him: ‘The age of the victims did not seem to arouse in him any given effect or to play a particular role, beyond allowing him to kidnap them, to manipulate them, to confine them,’ said the report. What Dutroux relished was total power over people … Dutroux himself cited the injustice of being denied ice creams at the beach as evidence of emotional privation …” [6]

240215-300-206-scaleThis gave credence to his insistence that he was not in it for reasons of paedophilia but rather as a psychopathic opportunist, seeking power over others and the resulting gratification and kudos that went with it.  Rape of his victims and the murder of his partner he admitted to, but was he guilty of the specific accusations levelled at him?  According to comments reported by Flemish-language television station VTM, Dutroux had claimed in a secret interview in his cell that he “…was in regular contact with people belonging to that network. But the justice system doesn’t want to investigate this lead.” And further: “People want to believe that I am at the centre of everything. They are mistaken,”… I did things of which I was not the driving force. I was used as an instrument by others, who were themselves used as instruments by others.” [7]

The official position in most of the Belgian press, police and the government regarding the inordinate length of time to bring Dutroux to trial was due to the “conspiracy theories” which forced investigators to search for child rape networks which they claim, didn’t exist. But parents of the victims and much of the shocked Belgian public who were watching very closely knew this was far from the truth. In fact, a proper investigation was obstructed at every turn.

After the trial revealed unforgivable incompetence from police and the criminal Justice system in general, it begs the question was this “bungling” purposeful? Was it designed to delay and give time to paper over the cracks in the alleged network beyond Charleroi and Belgium as so many believed?  Dutroux had even claimed that two police officers had helped Lelievre and himself to kidnap Marchal, and Lambreks who were later raped and murdered. The common knowledge that several government officials, police officers, and a former European Commissioner frequently attended Nihoul’s orgies at Neufchâteau chateau gave further credibility to the idea that the accused was not acting alone.

According to journalist Yves Desmet who later appeared on television with Paul Marchall the father of victim An Marchall, the “… incompetence of the police investigation was staggering. When an associate of Dutroux actually went to them and told them all about this place – the fact there was a dungeon and exactly what Dutroux intended to do there – they did absolutely nothing.” [8] When the police finally knocked on Dutroux’s door years later and heard the sounds of children calling, still no questions were asked.

The emergence of suspicion and the intense distrust from the Belgian public closely following the trial and arrest continued to boil in the background. What made matters worse was the fact that the presiding Judge Van Espen was found to have had a business relationship with key suspect in the crimes Jean Michel Nihoul and his wife. It was only when this connection was discovered by a Belgian journalist that the Judge reluctantly thought to excuse himself. This serious conflict of interest was apparently no cause for concern. Prior to his resignation he had ordered the police to stay away from the case, as well as presiding over endless delays, blocks and buried evidence.

J-Connerotte

Judge Jean-Marc Connerotte, 2004

Judge Jean-Marc Connerotte became the replacement. Here was a judge who was highly knowledgeable on Dutroux and his criminal history having personally gathered a great deal of evidence on the accused and his connection to the child rape ring. More importantly for the public confidence, the Judge had also personally rescued two of the girls from the dungeon under Dutroux’s home. Known for his integrity and competence Connerotte appeared to be the perfect candidate for the position. Nonetheless, he was eventually dismissed from the case, the official reason was a perceived conflict in the Judge’s ability to be impartial due to his attendance at a fund raising dinner in aid of missing children. This flimsy reasoning was seen by many as a desperate bid to get rid of a highly capable and dedicated Judge in order that investigations didn’t go too far into a considerable den of crime and corruption and which would further rock the foundations of an already compromised Belgian government.

From the nature of the daily threats he had to endure, it was inevitable that Connerotte would never have completed his time on the case. Prior to his removal, Connerotte said he had become “the object and the victim of a campaign of defamation and misinformation at the hands of certain sectors of the media,” due primarily to the fact that he had handled two files: “Titres” [or stolen goods] and “Cools” [referring to Andre Cools Belgian politician assassinated in 1991]. He had been charged with the task of investigating “certain persons and certain criminal activities that seem[ed] to benefit from high-level protection.” [9] *

As a formal complaint regarding his treatment, he sent a letter to King Albert II in 1996 detailing the corruption within the Belgium justice system and its institutional subservience to a criminal underworld or mafia. He singled out for particular attention one Detective Superintendent R. Brose in Liège, “the very man responsible for the Cools unit …” for which the Magistrate was working and which therefore, led to the realization that the Liège CID, far from working with him to bring those responsible to justice, were in fact, seeking to undermine his position. His role thus became untenable, where no progress could reasonably be made due to a “Judiciary dysfunction” which turned into a: “… veritable ‘institution’ whose smooth running assures the legitimacy of certain criminal activities and the impunity of those responsible.”

Judge Connerotte continued in his letter:

“This institution seems to acquire its authority and supremacy over sectors of the justice system by relying on a complex and secret modus operandi, that of the appropriation of certain key circuits of our institutions created and regulated by the Law. It is a matter essentially of political, financial, police, and media circuits. This mafia-style criminal phenomenon is evidently not peculiar to Belgium, but it involves particular manifestations that are well suited to this small country. We can imagine the obstacles that a judiciary inquiry will meet when investigating such facts: numerous taboos, problems of mentality, and a lack of cultural reference on the issue in order to be able to become aware of or deal with such criminal phenomena, taking advantage in Belgium of official reticence in terms of their acknowledgement, which favours or supports their occultation.

The function of a criminal system of this sort is obviously to serve its fundamental purpose, the pursuance of particularly profitable illicit activities, such as money-laundering, and to protect the ‘legitimacy’ of its activities and the impunity of its agents. This indispensable function corresponds to the motive of criminal protection that assures the permanency of the incriminated system by means of the infiltration of the certain circuits of our institutions, especially the police force, a veritable ‘knot’ which my whole investigation has come up against. [10] [Emphasis mine]

Albert
King Albert II of Belgium Unjustly maligned or a glimpse behind the curtain?

This description comes as close as you will find as to the nature of much of the European law, judiciary and police which is enmeshed in a criminal underworld. In the letter, Connerotte was particularly scathing of the Belgian media which seemed to be working in concert with Liège CID using “simplistic images verging on caricature, and to present the Neufchâteau investigators and magistrates as incompetent, grotesque and dishonest figures following an improbable trail on the basis of an empty file… the cruder it is, the better it works.” If indeed a child-sex mafia was targeting a respected Judge this more than lent credence to Dutroux’s insistence that the same forces were in control. Connerotte testified that the investigation was seriously hampered by protection of suspects by people in the government. “Rarely … has so much energy been spent opposing an inquiry.”

When the judge was allowed to testify in March 2004 The Telegraph reported that he described: “… the bullet-proof vehicles and armed guards needed to protect him against the shadowy figures determined to stop the full truth coming out. Never before in Belgium has an investigating judge at the service of the kind been subjected to such pressure. We were told by police that [murder] contracts had been taken out against the magistrates.” [11]

Long before the trial began on March 1st, 2004, in the town of Arlon, Dutroux had told the media that he was just a pawn in a network of paedophiles and Michel Nihoul was the brains behind the network. Even the prosecutor, Michel Bourlet, agreed that it was likely Dutroux was not an “isolated predator” and that both he, Nihoul, Lelievre and Michelle Martin were part of a network. However, he fell short of implying that the network extended beyond the confines of the group itself and into a mafia-controlled child porn network with ties to the European and American Establishment even though the rumours had been circulating since the arrest of Dutroux seven years before.

 


* In July 18, 1991, Belgian politician André Cools who had been investigating the murder of arms dealer Gerald Bull a year earlier became the next high profile assassination. Two Tunisian men who carried out the murder were thought to have been employed by a Gladio group which in turn led back to the CIA and MOSSAD. André Cools had not only met and interviewed MOSSAD agent and corporate big-wig Shaul Eisenberg as part of his investigations into the case, but the Iraqi banker Abdullah Zilka. Foolishly, he announced that he would shortly be providing evidence on Belgian, Canadian and American corruption in the arms industry, the latter of which extended to some very elevated names within the British arms industry and the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney, Neil Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and certainly the elusive and enigmatic Frank Carlucci. His interviews with the two men were never published. Jean-Marc Connerotte, the Belgian judge presiding over the murder case issued arrest warrants for mafia bosses connected to Toto Riina, the head of the Italian mafia. He soon found himself dismissed from the Cools murder case before he could issue indictments on leading politicians. His removal was to be repeated several years later in the Dutroux case, when another similar list of high-profile names would appear, only to disappear into the night from whence they came. Alain Van der Biest, and a one-time political ally of Andre Cools and a shareholder in Poudrieres Reunies de Belgique, along with several associates, was accused of the murder by an anonymous informer. By March 2002, while waiting to hear if he would go on trial in connection with the murder, Van der Biest was found dead from a “drug overdose” and with a suicide letter to his wife. In October 2003 only five of the nine accused stood trial, the others choosing to remain in various countries in Europe rather than to take the rap. It is not hard to see why.

Finally, by January 2004 two had been acquitted and six men sentenced to 20 years in prison. They included his former aide, Richard Taxquet, chauffeur Giuseppe di Mauro, and two men tried in their absence, Cosimo Solazzo, Domenico Castellino. A “former aide” and his “chauffeur” with Italian mafia connections. Hardly a resounding victory.

André Cool’s murder had thrown the Walloon socialist party into chaos and the subsequent investigation revealed not only several minor league sexual scandals but the payment of more than £2 Billion in bribes made by French aerospace manufacturer Dassault and Italian helicopter firm Agusta to secure equipment orders from the Belgian armed forces, via socialist politicians. This bought down the Belgian Secretary-General to NATO and certainly put the spotlight on Belgian weapons manufacturing and the vested interests involved. But has anything changed? As in the Dutroux case, those on the outer ring of corruption took the rap and those who had a little more pertinent information were taken care of. And thus the world of arms, sexploitation and paedophilia continues to spin.

As we have explored, the manufactured nature of Belgium not dissimilar to Israel (though less bloody) it is obvious that Brussels and all its military agencies enjoys a disproportionate amount of power within the European Union. The 1970s and 1980s was particularly favourable for the development of institutional corruption. After the decision to set up the European headquarters of NATO otherwise known as Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) the CIA – along with the stay behind Gladio network – became concerned by the geo-political “prostitution” of Belgium to all and sundry, including Soviet spies. Gladio has all but been merged into the Zionist mafia consortiums that sub-contract assassins and various brokers within their respective fields. With the collapse of the USSR the underworld is flowing freely into the Balkans; into Belgian’s military-industrial Establishment and fanning out across Europe. It seems that Brussels is a nexus or crossroads in the transferring and brokering of a major number of shadowy deals which extend far beyond the daily abuse of market capitalism. Israel’s MOSSAD and its extensive networks of Zionist sayanim are central to this trade.

 


Notes

[1] Dossier de Pedophillie Le scandale de d’affaire de Dutroux Jean Nicolas, Frederic Lavachery, published by Flammarion, 2001.
[2] ‘Belgium defends king against ‘assault’’ BBC News, 18 September, 2001.
[3] ‘Belgium’s trial of shame’ By Alexandra Fouché, BBC News, 17 June, 2004.
[4] New Allegations of Murders Of Young Girls’ By Craig S. Smith, New York Times, July 1, 2004: “The Frenchman, Michel Fourniret, was arrested in Belgium a year ago after a girl he is accused of trying to kidnap got away and led the police to him. He has been in custody since and is now believed to be responsible for the deaths of as many as a dozen girls, prosecutors say. Mr. Fourniret, 62, had previously served a prison sentence for raping children, and his confession is likely to reopen a debate over the competence of the Belgian police in pursuing cases of missing children.”
[5] ‘Belgian Molester Charged In Death of Missing Girl’ The Telegraph, March 8, 1997.
[6] ‘Accused ‘not a classic paedophile,’ The Irish Examiner, March 02, 2004.
[7] ‘Media condemns Dutroux senator’ BBC News, Tuesday, 22 January, 2002,
[8] ‘Dutroux charged with notorious crime’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV program transcript: Broadcast: 01/03/2004 Reporter: Philip Williams, with Paul Marchall, Yves Desnet.
[9]  Letter from Magistrate J.M. Connerotte to King Albert II (in André Rogge, les Egoûts du Royaume, Albin Michel, 1996).
[10] Ibid.
[11]  ‘Pedophile case judge breaks down in court’ By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Telegraph, March 6, 2004.

The Old Boys’ Club III: The Dunblane Massacre and Freemason Speculation

hamilton_001

Thomas Hamilton

Yet another tragedy made worse by a botched investigation and countless unanswered questions was the Dunblane school massacre on March 13 1996. More allegations of serial paedophilia, and masonic interference were present, the flames of which were continuously fanned on the internet and in the tabloids. This time, the Scottish Establishment was under the microscope focusing on two senior politicians and a lawyer.

Not known for its whistle-blowing of secret societies or Old Boys Clubs, a report courtesy of the Daily Telegraph drew attention to the fact that Thomas Hamilton, who shot and murdered 16 children and their teacher: “… was a major provider of pornographic photographs and videos to a ring of men prominent in Central Scotland, including police officers who protected him from numerous allegations of physical abuse at boys’ camps and clubs he ran.” And with startling regularity in such cases: ‘They protected themselves after the massacre which conveniently ended in his suicide’.  Last year on-the-scene paramedic Sandra Uttley’s former partner, Mick North, whose five-year-old daughter Sophie was killed, initially said he was ‘convinced’ of a cover-up. Detective Chief Superintendent John Ogg, who headed the Dunblane investigation, has said of criticism in the past: ‘I can reassure you that the investigation was absolutely thorough and we covered every angle’. [1]

Given the record of the police investigating paedophile rings, and Establishment crimes this “reassurance” was hardly convincing. Enter senior member of the Scottish Judiciary Baron Cullen of Whitekirk, East Lothian, otherwise known as Lord Cullen who was conveniently chosen to chair an inquiry into the many issues surrounding the tragedy. One of the questions first posed included how it was that Hamilton had been able to secure a firearms certificate while having a history of paedophilia and mental instability.

3395320896Lord Cullen

After years of stone-walling, bureaucratic delays and an initial hue and cry from a few media tabloids which added to the rumours of conspiratorial machinations, a 100 year old secrecy rule which had been imposed on some documents seen by the inquiry was finally overturned in October 2005, close to ten years after the tragedy. Almost 3,000 letters and reports were finally open to inspection. The crown office claimed the decision to impose the rule was made to protect the identity of children who may have been abused by Hamilton, and their families, yet many of the documents had nothing to do with children nor was it seen as a genuine reason to withhold vital information to the public when a simple “black marker” approach would have been sufficient. What amounted to an effective gagging order was underscored by the Lord Advocate’s words from March 2003: “There is no statutory basis for the closure of records created by Scottish public bodies.”[2]  It seems Scottish law is not tied by the 30 year closure limit existing in England.

One report which was under the 100-year rule umbrella ban was compiled by Paul Hughes, then a detective sergeant with Central Scotland police. The detective’s investigations into Hamilton’s activities at a summer camp in Loch Lomond in 1991 took place five years before the shootings and further strengthened general accusations of police inaction and complacency. The report further “… recommended that Hamilton should be prosecuted for his activities at the summer camp and that he should have his gun licence revoked.” [3] Although Lord Cullen referred to it in his inquiry it was largely ignored and did not feature in the index or appendices to his final report.

In 1998 Lord Burton asked a House of Commons Parliamentary inquiry on the issue: “… whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Report by Sergeant, now Inspector, Hughes, of Central Police, into Thomas Hamilton; to list all the charges to which he recommended consideration for prosecution and whether they will state why the Report is not listed in the index or appendix to Lord Cullen’s Report into the Dunblane tragedy.” [4]  Under Secretary of State to the Scottish Office, Lord Sewel, only made matters worse by responding in rather diluted terms. He failed to answer the above questions posed by Lord Burton and merely reiterated past statements with no explanations. A general unease and suspicion as to why a ban was imposed continued to grow. (We will return to Lord Burton shortly).

Sandra Uttley, the paramedic who dealt with the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre went to the European Court of Human Rights to demand a new inquiry into the tragedy. “There are glaring anomalies in the inquiry, inconsistencies in witness testimony,” she said, “incorrect information given on oath and the absence of vital witnesses.” [5] Her partner Mick North also fought for the right to access essential documents for the sake of the public’s right to know and for his daughter Sophie whom he lost in the massacre. However, once more documents became available, he stated: “I do realise that some might feel I’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the official version of events. […] I realise that some questions do remain, but I am satisfied that nothing untoward contributed to that. There seems little point in continuing to bang our heads off a brick wall. It is time to put the matter to rest.” [6]

No evidence of paedophilia rings was present in the documents according to North. Such a position is understandable from a parent who has lost his child in such a horrific way. However, it is surely naive to assume that putting “the matter to rest” when unanswered questions still remain, is somehow allowing justice to be done. Indeed, justice appears to have been done with the lifting of the ban and other questions having been answered, but this fails to allay the concerns raised about information that was not addressed in the inquiry and remains pertinent to this day.

The Key reports originally sealed and now made public included:

  • ‘comparative analysis of Thomas Hamilton’ by Central Scotland Police;
  • Information about Hamilton’s ‘use and possession of firearms,’
  • pathology reports,
  • Hamilton’s autopsy report, and analysis by Glasgow University’s forensic science lab on blood, urine and liver samples from Hamilton’s body;
  • details on firearms licensing policies;
  • a review by Alfred Vannet, regional procurator fiscal of Grampian, Highland and Islands, of ‘reports and information in respect of Thomas Hamilton submitted to the procurator fiscals of Dumbarton and Stirling by Strathclyde Police and Central Police;
  • a psychological report on Hamilton;
  • guidance from the British Medical Association on granting firearms licences;
  • transcript of and correspondence relating to answering-machine tape which accidentally recorded conversation between police officers at the scene of the Dunblane incident;
  • correspondence and witness statements ‘relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against Hamilton.’ [7]

This is an extensive set of documents that would leave most of us satisfied. The final judgment of the report attributed blame to serious police flaws and apathy on the part of the courts. Yet, the findings proved that witness statements and prior investigations concerning Hamilton’s increasingly deviant behaviour were ignored. Even as far back as 1988, 1991, 1992 and 1993 complaints were made about Hamilton’s youth camps and detectives investigated. On each occasion no action was taken by prosecutors.

Forewarnings of an impending tragedy were raised a full year before in a letter from the Children’s Reporter to Fife Regional Council and Fife Constabulary after another incident where two boys ran away from one of Hamilton’s summer camps. The letter read: “I feel that the events of 29.6.92 in Dunblane in a sense serve as a warning. If the kind of circumstances as described are allowed to continue without some kind of intervention, I consider that other children may be placed at risk. In like situations arising unchecked I fear that a tragedy to a child or children is almost waiting to happen.” [8]  The police had prior warnings from children, parents and associates over nine years before concerning Hamilton’s preoccupation with firearms, his mental instability and at the very least, his obvious  paedophilia. Social workers also failed to follow up on these consistent reports.

Why is it that the same exact pattern is revealed after each glimpse into paedophile rings?

As in other cases of a similar nature where a slice of reality that was ordinarily hidden from the public is finally seen, blaming it on simple incompetence and shoddy work on the part of police and social services is not enough. There was widespread inaction and gross negligence following the line of damage limitation by courts and police. The presence of widespread paedophile activity in government, law and police – not forgetting large sections of Hamilton’s history – was omitted from the inquiry. As a result, there is was and is no reason to assume that organised child abuse has suddenly disappeared from the Establishment, and as recent events have clearly demonstrated.

freemasons

Are you wrinkling your nose at the prospect of alluding to freemasonic conspiracies? Understandably perhaps. But let’s remember that any institution that is secretive by nature is inevitably wide open to ponerisation. There is no need to indulge in woo-woo shadows under every stone. It is merely the nature of our societies to be hollowed out from inside by psychological pathogens, given half the chance. Once we are aware of that then “conspiracies” take on a different hue. Freemasonry is probably the oldest occult fraternity on earth, where codes of silence and secrecy include the clear assistance of its members outside the purview of the law. In relation to the Dunblane Massacre, the Freemasons’ role also required investigation, if only for achieving a balanced rendering of the law. This wasn’t to be. Yet, even if such an investigation were to have taken place, one could have predicted the results with 99.9% accuracy.

The lifting of the documents ban showed correspondence dated 11 April 1996, (less than a month after the shootings) between Lord Cullen and a member of the public whose name was concealed. A vocal petitioner raised the issue of freemasonry and the possibility of impartiality in the proceedings. William Burns thought that anyone involved in the inquiry who turned out to be a Freemason should be forced to resign including, Lord Cullen. The letter began: “It is in the public interest that Lord Cullen be asked if he is a Freemason, given the widely held view by the public that Thomas Hamilton’s Masonic affiliation was probably the reason that the Ombudsman overturned an earlier decision by Central Regional Council in 1983 to prevent Hamilton from running youth clubs, and that his Masonic affiliation probably facilitated his application for a gun licence.” The letter went on: “It is far too important to allow the Masonic implication to be whitewashed by furtive operations in the Freemasons, intent only in ‘diverting a discourse’ – a Masonic ruse – from the involvement of Freemasons and Freemasonry.” [9]

After consultation with Lord Cullen, a court staff, handwritten note was marked as a “verbal response” and dated 18 April. It said: “taken aback by the letter” and “not a Freemason, never has been”. [10] It seems rather odd that Lord Cullen would be “taken aback” by such a question in light of the following information.

From the same report an unnamed Grand Lodge of Scotland leader did not think Hamilton could have been a mason as, in his opinion, it “… would have come to light immediately after the Dunblane incident.” Either this man is hopelessly naive or he is choosing to rely on the same sanctity of the law that has consistently shown to be lacking in all prior cases of abuse. This led to a perfectly reasonable petition submitted by Thomas Minogue to the Scottish Parliament calling for “members of the Judiciary to declare and register membership of organisations such as the Freemasons, and for new members of the Judiciary to make a similar declaration. The Petition also calls for a register to record such interests and that this register be available to litigants on request.” [11]

Minogue affirmed the relevancy of his petition regarding the membership of freemasonry in the judiciary by drawing attention to clear impartiality which may exist from members sworn to secrecy. In other words, an Old Boys Club of the highest order. No action was taken following Minogue’s petition, nor were his requests addressed. It was also used as a referral petition erroneously based on the committee’s decision to ignore it entirely. Thus it was that William Burn’s petition in October of 2003 ran into similar difficulties.

After a series of letters sent by Burn to Cullen and which were sealed into the closure, he submitted the petition to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament regarding the Cullen Inquiry and the 100-year Closure Order where he presented a case that reinforced the possibility that there had been a cover-up with distinctly Masonic overtones. [12] However, this was given little media play due to so called defamation issues, though one is tempted to see that this may well have been other ruse to delay and obfuscate.

Burns proceeded to provide ample evidence of Cullen’s membership of “The Speculative Society” an offshoot of freemasonry formed by masons in the Canongate, Kilwinning lodge in Edinburgh. At the time of writing, members included not only Lord Cullen but a number of other judges, sheriffs and advocates. It was an issue that former Grand Lodge freemason Lord Burton also raised in his petition in the House of Commons which led to the Parliamentary inquiry in 1998. He was roundly bullied and threatened by other peers before and after his investigations due to his belief that information was suppressed by Cullen to protect high-profile legal figures.

The Speculative Society just happens to have Former NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson as a member who enjoyed a peculiarly close personal relationship with Thomas Hamilton. After subsequently failing to sue the Sunday Herald for libel, though accepting a five figure some for slander, the media has kept Lord Robertson out of the spotlight.  It is noteworthy that Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Secretary at the time, had a friend that was Chairman of his constituency party at Edinburgh Pentlands, Robert Bell. The party Chairman had allegedly “sold guns and ammunition to Thomas Hamilton only a few weeks before the Dunblane massacre, and it was reported he said he would sell him guns again.” [13]

What was important about Cullen’s involvement in a branch of freemasonry was not simply the fact he may have been  economical with the truth but the implications regarding Hamilton and his alleged “protection.” Some reports have affirmed that Hamilton himself had enrolled as a member of Garrowhill Freemasons Lodge (Lanarkshire Middle Ward) listed as: No. 1413, Garrowhill Drive, Garrowhill, Glasgow, in 1977, the same year he was granted a firearms certificate. Yet files connecting him to Freemasonry are alleged to have been destroyed after the atrocities on 13 March 1996. With no remaining evidence, they remain speculations. [14]

Further evidence of widespread paedophilia came from reports that allegations of physical and sexual abuse of pupils took place at Queen Victoria School Dunblane, between 1989 and 1992 which were not investigated or substantiated. The school is an expensive, high society, private institution for schoolchildren of the military services with the Duke of Edinburgh as its patron and Hamilton frequented the school on many occasions. Former housemaster Glenn Harrison, told a UK newspaper how he had “found Hamilton, 43, creeping around the dormitories at night. He said further: ‘I was one of the people who were making a fuss about Hamilton long before he killed those children, but no one wanted to listen.’  [15]

The report continued:

Glenn Harrison had kept dozens of files from pupils alleging bullying and abuse while he was at the QVS and wrote to parents warning of the dangers in 1991. It led to him being ousted from the school and just days before he left, police raided his home and confiscated the files. […]

‘Hamilton ran camps in the school grounds and he used the shooting range freely. He came and went as he pleased, almost as if he owned the place, and no one has ever tried to explain why he had such freedom. I am still haunted by the memory of picking up my newspaper on March 14 1996 and reading about what had occurred at Dunblane Primary School the day before. I just knew the killer had to be Thomas Hamilton. He should have been stopped.’

From previously confidential correspondence between William Burns and Harrison it was stated that: “QVS was a perfect cover for institutional physical and sexual abuse.   At first it was orphan boys. On and off, over decades, QVS has supplied children (with sealed lips) for abuse: “Where the carcass is, there the eagles gather.” They were accessible to “eagles” like top brass military, politicians, police officials, sheriffs, fiscals and successful business people in Perthshire. And fools like me could be squashed, swallowed up or sent to some island somewhere.  They all gather at the water hole.”  [16]

Harrison is now living in the remote Islands of Shetland.  He is an embittered man with no interest in pursuing the case any further, convinced that a masonic cover-up was at play.

The House of Commons Committee continued to dance around the issues raised by Burn’s and others’ petitions, though in part, with some considerable justification in that the evidence of concrete and provable links were missing. They were after all, according to Burns “embargoed” under the closure order. Once the closure was finally overturned in early 2005, Burn’s allegations of a masonic cover-up persisted.

The good news came in the form of the Freedom of Information Act that came into force on 1st January 2005. The bad news was that this provided only a partial answer to the question of the closed files. On orders from the Scottish Executive on October 3 2005 Lord Advocate Colin Boyd released only half of the secret documents but illegally refused to release the rest. To make matters worse Burns claims the files “were redacted to such an extent that they were largely illegible.” [17] The fact that a Lord Advocate refused to give up files and remains above the law is disturbing in itself, but there exist endless questions surrounding the Dunblane massacre that remain unanswered, primarily it seems, due to the intransigence of those in power, a faction of which may be sourced from the extraordinary omnipresence of freemasonry.

Sandra Uttley’s letters to Lord Cullen and Lord Advocate Colin Boyd pertaining to the suicide of Thomas Hamilton characteristically received no response. Uttley’s simple questions highlighted serious discrepancies which leads us to conclude that not only was something seriously miss in the inquiry as a whole, but at the crime scene itself, listed as follows:

  • Why there were serious contradictions in the way Hamilton was dressed at the scene suggesting that clothes were removed after his death and replaced with others?
  • Why was the off-duty police officer not called to give evidence especially after clear contradictions made by Cullen and those on the ground?
  • Did the Crown Office deliberately withhold this statement because it clearly stated [in the police officer witness statement] that the witness did not see a revolver, only 2 pistols?
  • Why did Hamilton only have one holster, not 4 as was originally claimed?
  • If Hamilton did not have a revolver with him, how was he able to kill himself with a Smith & Wesson revolver?
  • Did the Crown Office deliberately select the head teacher Ron Taylor to give evidence at the Inquiry, and not this police officer, because Ron Taylor didn’t know a pistol from a revolver?
  • Why did Mr. Taylor refer to 2 guns – rather than 4 as mentioned in the Cullen inquiry?
  • Why did the Janitor John Currie who found Hamilton’s body not mention 4 guns either?
  • Why were the CCTV sightings altered?
  • Who was driving a grey car at the scene of the crime which Boyd claims was Hamilton’s neighbour when witness statements contradict such claims? [18]

Many of the documents under the initial ban included the correspondence between George Robertson (who was bustled off into the post of tenth NATO Secretary General) to Michael Forsyth, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland. The letters focused on Hamilton and a ‘submission to Lord James Douglas Hamilton, MP, Minister of State at the Scottish Office, concerning government evidence to the Inquiry.’ [19]  It is evident to anyone paying attention that there is an unhealthy presence of freemasonry in police, civil service, military and government in general. It seems when members are threatened then they close ranks and protect their own. Just how far organised child abuse has infected  freemasonry one need only look at the glimpses of networks occurring across Western institutions.

While it is true that much of this occult fraternity may well be altruistic and well-meaning, the nature of its secrecy and influence over societies in Europe we must assume that a) there are at the very least, “bad apples” which deform the aims of freemasonry. Further, those paedophiles / psychopaths are attracted to the protective structure of freemasonry secrecy for which the finer points of freemasonic ritual and its occult beliefs are merely used as convenient cover; b) That the hierarchical structure of freemasonry itself is not only prone to abuse but is in fact, the essential core of its existence where only those who ascend the pyramidal tier systems know the truth, but by then it is too late. Or, it may be that only partial decay has set in from the edges to the centre. The latter hope is unlikely as the nature of ponerisation tends to infect its host from within and work its way out following the natural course of pathogenic “disease” the process of which can be a decade or hundreds of years depending on the entity in question. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that freemasonry as a whole went this way many moons ago.

When initiatory pieces of truth and wisdom are given to the elect based around an obvious elitism, these “pennies from heaven” can only foster imbalance and attract those for whom notions of power for powers sake and becomes the only reason for membership. Transparency from the higher levels must be forthcoming where the public good is valued more highly than the structure of freemasonry itself. If it is not, then proclamations of bettering human kind become increasingly insubstantial.

Although freemasons in Britain recently employed the services of a Public Relations (PR) company to repair their battered image stemming largely from their complete lack of transparency regarding the issue of paedophilia and protection, it will fail. No amount of PR can dissolve the very great blocks of distrust concerning secret societies of all shapes and forms. Though a full and thorough investigation of freemasonry is not within the remit of this book, it is clear that there are many decent and honest persons within its auspices. Unfortunately, as in the case of our governments and even charitable organisations, this does not preclude the ponerisation of the initial impetus behind the founding of a movement or grouping.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Dunblane killer in child sex ring’ by Fidelma Cook, Daily Telegraph, June 6, 2005.
[2] ‘Dunblane police reports released’ Scottish Executive, NewsOnline, 18 March 2003.
[3] ‘Call to lift veil of secrecy over Dunblane’ by Gerard Seenan, The Guardian, February 14, 2003.
[4] House of Lords Official Report Vol. 589 – No. 151 – 12 May, 1998.
[5] ‘Police, Dunblane killer in child sex ring’ by Fidelma Cook, Daily Telegraph, June 6, 2005.
[6] ‘Dunblane: files show police flaws’ by Marcello Mega, Scotland on Sunday, 2 October, 2005.
[7] ‘Dunblane secret documents contain letters by Tory and Labour ministers’ By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor March 2003, Sunday Herald.
[8] ‘Revealed: the fatal failures behind Dunblane children’s massacre’ By Michael Howie The Scotsman, 4 October, 2005.
[9] ‘Question on Masonic links left Dunblane inquiry chief stunned’ by Michael Howie, The Scotsman, 5 Oct, 2005.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ‘Judiciary should declare membership of the Freemasons’ – Submissions to the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament by Thomas Minogue, Petitioner. Petition to Scottish Parliament [PE 306] February 2003.
[12] Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament Cullen Inquiry (100-year Closure Order membership by the Scottish judiciary of the Freemasons, the Speculative Society) (PE652) Wednesday, 29 October 2003 Convenor Michael McMahon MSP Ms Jackie Baillie MSP, Helen Eadie MSP, Ms Linda Fabiani MSP, Carolyn Leckie MSP, John Farquhar Munro MSP, Mr John Scott MSP (Deputy Convener) Mike Watson MSP, Sandra White MSP.
[13] Edinburgh Evening News on 23 March 1996 / Public Petitions PE652.
[14] Regarding submission of Public Petitions PE652 & PE685 Support material submitted by William Burns to Bryan McConachie Public Petitions Team Support, Public Petitions Committee, 6 January 2004.
[15] ‘The Dunblane Massacre,’ by Marcello Mega, News of the World Investigates 28 December , 2003.
[16] The ex-housemaster Glenn Harrison’s synopsis of events as related to a journalist in 2003. Personal and in confidence to Davy R about QVS. “I am convinced it was a Masonic conspiracy, Ministry Of Defence (MoD), Her Majesty’s Shools Inspectorate (HMI), and Her Majesty’s Commissioners (HMCs), military top brass and others. The matter was a cover-up to protect people in high office in Government.” Article from William Burn’s website ‘Dublane abandoned.’ (no longer available on the internet).
[17] Ibid.
[18] ‘Lord Cullen refuses to comment’ Article from William Burn’s ‘Dunblane abandoned.’
[19] ‘Dunblane secret documents contain letters by Tory and Labour ministers’ Investigation: Scottish Herald, By Neil Mackay, 2002, March 2003.

The Old Boys’ Club II: Waterhouse and Whitewash

“There is no doubt about it now, from what we know, that she [Margaret Thatcher] turned a blind eye to people who were quite clearly paedophiles. That is absolutely clear.”

– Simon Danczuk MP for Rochdale, regarding the Westminster paedophile ring


Margaret Thatcher wasn’t the only one of course. She was simply a Prime Minister amongst many who toed the Establishment line in the same way that BBC executives chose to ignore the obvious to the point of complicity. As children were being abused right under her very nose she chose to place her trust in fear, money, prestige and power the very tools by which Official Culture stays on top. She acted as protector of evil and thus became its tool.

Let’s return to Richard Webster’s important book, briefly explored in the last post.

Trying to do the right thing in such a highly sensitive domain is fraught with insurmountable problems of a subjective and emotional nature, dealing as it does with the emotive question of child abuse. In one sense, Webster’s explorations are sorely needed, yet worryingly, for such a wide-ranging exploration of child care abuse – which he maintains is largely false – there were key elements and evidence that he did not include but were vital to the argument. It is clear that he knew of the information yet he chose to exclude it, suggesting clear bias on the part of the author.

Richard Scorer, of Partner, Pannone & Partners, a lawyers firm specialising in child abuse cases and who represented clients at the tribunal level, commented in a review: “I would put a stark health warning on the front of the book. This is a very unbalanced book, and in some instances Webster is economical with the facts.” He believes Webster’s bias in favour of those accused of child abuse may have: “… blunt[ed] his critical faculties and balanced assessment of the evidence.” He also maintained that the author “… excluded or downplayed information which contradicts his case” most particularly that the idea Peter Howarth was not a paedophile. According to Scorer, several of his witnesses had no interest in compensation and made no claims. They verified Howarth’s orientation as a paedophile by direct experience. Nor did they have contact with Alison Taylor the primary whistleblower.

Other witnesses provided similar statements but none of this evidence was mentioned in Webster’s research. Richard Scorer described his concerns thusly: “In the context of Webster’s argument this evidence is important, particularly because none of it has the features which Webster alleges contaminated the criminal prosecution of Howarth, i.e., the involvement of Alison Taylor and the so-called compensation motive. All three of these witnesses also defy Webster’s stereotype of the typical Bryn Estyn complainant as a drug-addled criminal (L is a successful businessman, C an advanced systems analyst and member of MENSA).”

Scorer raises the problem of severe bias in evaluating evidence which does not fit his line of inquiry and thus discarded:

“Webster is claiming to have demolished the case against Howarth, so you’d expect that he would have something to say about these allegations, particularly where, as in the case of my clients (and other Tribunal witnesses), the contaminating factors he claims to have identified elsewhere were absent. However Webster simply ignores this adverse evidence, and only mentions in passing at the very end of the book that there are, in fact, 30 other sets of allegations which he has neglected to consider. […] Who knows what other inconvenient details have been left out of the picture?” [1]

The portrayal of the whistleblower Alison Taylor as pathological appears to be disingenuous insofar as other players in the case are not given a similarly rigorous analysis; the individual members of the North Wales Police, for instance, being extremely deserving of further scrutiny. Taylor is deemed to be unstable and to have a financial axe to grind and no more.

The late Peter Howarth, jailed in 1994 for his part in the Bryn Estyn abuse scandal.

However, it was due to Taylor and her subsequent sacking that the abuse gradually came to light, though it was through Stephen Norris a self-confessed paedophile and home manager who once worked at Bryn Estyn, which finally got the investigative ball rolling. Quite apart from the fact that the Waterhouse inquiry, however toothless, proved the existence of a paedophile ring which targeted young boys, and concluded that whilst “the evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care … such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches”. [2] Yet in his 700 page book, Webster gave only a few lines to this salient fact.

Keeping in mind the central tenet of his claims, that Bryn Estyn was a witch hunt with no evidence of any cover-up or conspiracy, we would do well to remember that children at the home and other institutions were easily intimidated into silence. As with the many victims of Catholic Church’s paedophile priests and pederasts, it often took the passage of many years for the victims to have the courage of their convictions to admit it to themselves, let alone face a court trial. While the tragedy of some innocent men and women serving time for something they did not do seems beyond doubt, the sequence of events that led to this “witch hunt” does not necessarily mean that these were the only dynamics on display. And what of the overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn and beyond, which was ignored by the local Clwyd County Council because the council insurers advised against any action?

Webster, in his “forensic analysis” and blanket access to witness and police files, still neglected to include evidence provided by The Andy Sutton case. The full Public Interest Report by Andy Sutton can be found on the Freedom to Care internet website which detailed how key files were held back from the Waterhouse Enquiry by Flintshire County Council, who acted on behalf of North Wales Councils as a whole. Sutton was further warned not to pursue his inquiries by the then head of the North Wales Fraud Squad with the cryptic injunction to “beware of the Brotherhood.” [3] 

For all Webster’s excellent research, at no time does he seriously address the facts regarding freemasonic involvement in North Wales. Rather, he ironically falls into the very assumptions against which he rails and draws from the sensationalism of tabloid newspapers. A long list of names provided by the Crown Prosecution Service affirmed those who were not practicing freemasons were proof enough that no measure of control was operating. Yet surely, where high levels of masons do exist in both the law and the police force nationally, not forgetting the high membership in North Wales alone, is this not an area worthy of investigative digging? It does make one wonder if such denials of masonic influence, naturally bound by secrecy, can ever claim to be mere “observers.”

Impartiality of the law enforcement and judiciary will remain in these cases when so many freemasons are in positions to exert undue influence. Remember, Child molesters / psychopaths gravitate to places where they can be protected by those who are ostensibly serving the greater good.

The late investigative journalist Simon Regan in his now defunct Scallywag magazine made some investigations of his own that merit consideration.

Regan described how he had interviewed twelve young men, former inmates of Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring. The interviews were conducted in the informal setting of pub lunches with a view to obtaining sworn affidavits which were to be used as added clout for a series of paedophile articles Regan later published. Regan believed that two of the men who would have been 14 years old at the time were introduced on a few occasions to an abuser at a Pimlico address, the building of which they later identified:

“… turned out to be the private flat of a well-known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. […] At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales. There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names. [4]

Regan also related how the deputy head of Research at Conservative party Central Office purchased the contents – including all files – of the Scallywag offices through a court order and the exploitation of a legal loophole in the renting conditions of the premises. During the court case however, Regan requested to see the purloined files and permission was granted in lieu of his defence. The paedophile documents were missing.  As Regan mentioned: “This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.” [5]


baghestani20121117111552253

Former Lib-Dem MP Cyril Smith (centre) in 1987 an alleged serial paedophile

“Fears of an establishment cover-up of sex abuse allegations have grown after claims that a special branch officer tried to prevent detectives from interviewing a man who alleged that a British MP abused children.”- Press TV.

(See: Politics of Entrapment I)


Like other cases where accusations of organised child abuse networks have occurred, the tribunal, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, heard how more than a dozen people who had complained of abuse had met suspicious deaths. John Allen, a convicted paedophile, ran homes in London and North Wales that supplied children to wealthy outsiders. Two young brothers who were abused by Allen were trying to blackmail him. In April 1992 one of them died in a house fire in Brighton and the other was found dead soon afterwards in mysterious circumstances. This may be one reason Mr. Waterhouse imposed strict reporting restrictions which prevented any names entering the public domain, and quashed hopes that the press would be able to report proceedings using the laws of privilege. Such a process would have allowed them to name names in court proceedings without fear of defamation actions. Waterhouse decided that the press could not report the name of any of the accused unless they had previously been convicted of similar offences, which, on the face of it was a prudent measure keeping in mind Richard Webster’s analysis. Unfortunately, this would also allow already protected paedophiles to remain in a hermetically sealed state of immunity.

At least one high level member of another political party was also implicated. William Hague, then Welsh Secretary who had ordered the inquiry discussed it with ministers at the time and it was believed that the individual’s name would likely be revealed during the hearings. Prime Minister John Major was known to have loathed the politician in question and was not overly concerned at this possibility. Although names of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum were also named, one public figure was given immunity by Waterhouse in the final report and not found “culpable of any crimes, even though he ha[d] been identified by six victims.” [5]

One report by Tony Hyland of the International Worker had this to say about Conservative party, government paedophiles:

The most revealing evidence is that regarding one of the paedophiles, who it was hinted at was one of Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent supporters. When the police finally arrested 17 suspects during an inquiry in 1991 the victim claims, ‘For some unknown reason, he was not arrested like anybody else. He was allowed to walk round the North Wales Police headquarters and he was allowed to vindicate himself from anything, as if he was the boss… I tried to tell the police of many instances not just relating to him and I was told at the time, and I will never forget it as long as I live, that they were not interested in that.’ The tribunal was informed that the North Wales police had in fact recommended that the man be prosecuted, but this was blocked by the Crown Prosecution Service in London — which took over the case from its local branch. [6]

Keeping in mind the wily ways of political expediency, it might be said that an inquiry of this nature which was designed to allow full public scrutiny, would have had built-in protections for the politicians, policemen, clergy and freemasons who were rumoured to be part of the North Wales paedophile ring and who would have been liable for prosecution. Perhaps it would be foolish to have thought that such an inquiry on abuse, the first of its kind, would have been allowed to expose the rot in Establishment circles. No doubt many senior politicians and policemen breathed a sigh of relief when the case was closed in 1998 but over 650 abused young adults had meantime, been raped and battered, had turned to petty crime or ended up living on the streets. All those who had not committed suicide were dealing with psychological scars that would remain with them for life. Those individuals who were innocent of wrongdoing were sent to jail and those that perpetrated the crimes laid low and continued their otherwise normal lives.

What was also astonishing is that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Social Services at the Welsh Office, responsible for establishing the mandate for the Waterhouse inquiry was himself sentenced and jailed for 14 years in 1999 for serious sexual offences and for physical abuse of children. One need not take the greatest leap in logic to see that such an inquiry may have been compromised from the beginning. In the end, the same policy of apathy and incompetence from police and council officials dogged the inquiry, to the extent that papers went missing and statements were changed or witnesses become afraid for their lives. Once again, the trail led to some of the highest levels of the then Conservative government.

***

In the United Kingdom, the serious lack of social provision and the fragmentation of the family unit create fertile grounds for child victims. The crumbling social infrastructure coupled with inadequate support social service workers inevitably leads to malpractice and corruption and from within. As one writer notes following the University of Bristol’s  The Widening Gap report of 1999: “If Britain were divided into two nations, one containing the richer regions and the other the poorer ones, there would be nearly 80,000 more deaths every year in the poorer nation because of inequality. Epidemiologists would normally call this a plague.” The author further comments that “… researchers state[d] that the gap between rich and poor has widened more rapidly in Britain and levels of poverty are higher than in the vast majority of mainland Europe.” And poverty means a resource for child exploitation. Chronic underpayment of residential care staff, a demoralized work force, the highest working hours in Europe and a drop in social work applications by 50 percent from 1999 all increase the likelihood of family and institutional child abuse. [7]

Fifteen years later thanks to the legacies of Thatcher and Blair almost a third of all UK children live in poverty with 1.6 million of these children enduring severe poverty with a large spike in 2015 thanks to the bailout of the banking industry which meant austerity measures for rest of us, hitting the already poor and vulnerable the hardest.  According to Children’s charity Dr. Barnados: “63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .”  What does that say about the success of an economic framework which consistently favours an iniquitous banking system maintained by these cyclic austerity measures? And since the Westminster paedophile ring was also drawn from one of the highest child poverty demographics it is little wonder that they drew from a wellspring of victims. Where there is poverty there is always a ready supply.

eh

a

_70546180_childpoverty_v2

When the Waterhouse report was published it provided a snapshot of the state of child care in the UK, not least the rapid dismantling of the welfare state with nothing but the American model of social exclusion to replace it. With over two decades of serious underfunding in child care and social service in general, this becomes a significant factor in the manifestation of abuse. The Inquiry found a serious lack of financial resources for children’s services, a lack of suitable staffing and generally inadequate provision at all levels. Like education, the return to authoritarian and antiquated ideals has led to retribution rather than rehabilitation and sees children facing Crown Court trials for murder, sexual assault and rape and their placement on the sex offenders register. This means that children as young as 10 are subject to punishment by the courts if their behaviour is deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or “distress to others”. It means a child of 12 years old can now be imprisoned or sent to a “secure accommodation” – a euphemism for prison. With these kinds of draconian measures, we are encouraging a new generation of emotionally damaged children who are indeed, “lost in care” indicative of a justice system in Britain that is becoming a reflection of the more advanced stages of an American ponerogenesis. [8]

We are now living in what George Monbiot calls a: “Captive State” [9] where hundreds of children in young offenders’ institutions are being held in solitary confinement, often for weeks at a time, in what prison reform campaigners claim is a ‘medieval’ form of punishment. Rather than being subjected to a form of torture, the boys should be given the mental health support they so badly need yet are being purposely denied. [10] Indeed, Blair and subsequent politicians believe that we should now target children that are “a menace to society.”   The former Prime Minister turned global tycoon received a rightly cool reception to his statements with suggestions that he was advocating “genetic determinism.” One response derided him as exacting “empty threats to pregnant mothers” which would: “… do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years.” [11]

The abuse of boys and girls still remains in the bastions of a decaying Empire that has left only the residue of an out-of-date adherence to an old, class-based ethos of control. Or as George Monbiot once described it within the hallowed halls of preparatory schools for the rich: “new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.” [12]  It is this in-bred, all pervading, upper class prerogative of abuse that is in the very walls of our so called respected British institutions. These historical traditions allow the abuse to live on through the pathological clusters that promote the structural dominance of their kind and a steady supply of victims. The only difference is degree within such a blighted structure. Whether we focus on political parties of New Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative – the elite differences are irrelevant when it comes to the sodomy of a 10 year-old child or the frightened street urchin delivered to the bed of a priest or politician.

Paedophiles and child rapists have no dividing line or loyalties when it comes to finding their cover whether that be within secret fraternity – political, occult or religious.

 


Notes

[1] Partner, Pannone & Partners, childabuselawyers.com/
[2] pp.58-59 ‘Lost in Care’ The Waterhouse Report 2000 Stationery Office.
[3] The Sutton Report at freedomtocare.co.uk/
[4] ‘Child Abuse – The Waterhouse Report’ By Simon Regan, 20 February 2000, http://www.scallywag.org.[now defunct]
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘State Cover-Up of High-Level Paedophile Ring’ By Tony Hyland, International Worker No 241, November 8, 1997.
[7] ‘Growing social divide in Britain’ Blair seeks to refute new study on the widening gap between rich and poor, Simon Wheelan, 11 December 1999, World Socialist Website.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Captive StateThe Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot Published by Pan Books, 2000. |ISBN 0-330-36943-1.
[10] ‘Children caged alone for weeks’ by Jamie Doward, The Observer, February 12, 2006.
[11] ‘We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair, Intervention ‘could prevent later problems’ Package of proposals courts controversy by Lee Glendinning,  The Guardian, September 1, 2006.
[12] ‘Acceptable Cruelty’ by George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 26th, 1998.

The Politics of Entrapment IV: Peverted Justice and Porn Bombing

“We are the Perverted-Justice Foundation. Of course, those new to our foundation likely have no idea what that means. This is a foundation unlike most, if any, other foundations you’ll ever run across. We’re a foundation that does not simply thunder about a problem, we don’t merely advocate or preach against an issue from a distance. No, our foundation is a pro-active endeavor. We’re aggressive. We’re confrontational. We believe you have to be to make a difference in the fight against predators and pedophiles. We don’t wring our hands and say “they’re so evil, what can be done!” We find a way to get things done.”

pervertedjustice.com


Whether that “aggression”, “confrontation” and “getting things done” amounts to truly improving the situation or perpetuating the crimes is a question at least some who can still think attempting to ask amid all the gnashing of teeth. History tells us that vigilantism – whether in the street on the internet – is a cathartic experience for the ones doing the perceived purging, but less objective when it comes to targeting who is innocent and who is guilty. Indeed, with this kind of mindset it seldom seems to matter. It is the same ruinous, neo-conservative reflex to cleanse the world of complicated issues by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The internet has already spawned its own version of reflexive and ill-informed initiatives which serve to increase the peripheral ability for psychopaths to extort and control. The distortion of facts, the suppression of real issues and possible solutions are thus kept out of reach. Seemingly with the help of the public, those that are willing to seek retributive justice and project their own fears into the emotional maelstrom can find all they need with Perverted Justice.com. This particular website is but one example of vigilantism and police entrapment American style. It has formed a “gateway” for recruiting “volunteer contributors who pose as underage children in chat rooms. Posing from a variety of ages (standard ages are 10-15), these contributors simply go into chat rooms with fake online screen names and wait for predators to instigate conversation with them.”

Xavier Von Erck, the website owner, claims to target and expose “wannabe pedos” from online chats which have been recorded after the fact and where many have been arrested, convicted and placed on the California sex register. You are able to send the target an email (assuming he still has an account which is unlikely) and: “… If no police agency expresses interest in prosecuting those adults, we post them publicly on our website … Regardless of past interaction with police, we make an effort to present each case to police so that there is an opportunity to prosecute before the log is posted on this site.” [1]

images

Xavier Von Erck, 2006

Once the wannabe predator has been sufficiently stimulated and worked up into a frenzy of deviancy, phone numbers are taken and addresses given, ready for the police show down. The chat room dialogue is then posted on the website with a photo for all to see. Votes are then offered on how “slimy” the person is considered to be. Though this kind of puerile behaviour is the least of the problems on the site, it gives an indication of the intent of the website owner and the people he has employed to run it. Some believe that responses such as these, far from helping to address society’s problem of paedophilia and child rape crime, actually help to create it.

Von Erck provides an extensive FAQ section where all seems above order and meticulously thought out. There are a few problems with this set up however. It appears “Xavier Von Erck” or real name: Phillip Eide, a 26 year old computer gamer of Portland, Oregon, the owner and “director of operations” set up Perverted-Justice over 12 years ago with a strict “Rule of No First Contact” which was observed for the first 2 years. An immediate ban from the site would follow if any member contacted the police or news outlet regarding their ensnarement.

Several years ago the rule was “relaxed” largely due to pressure from ex-members who formed an alternative site corruptedjustice.com (which is no longer in existence) to alert the public that all was not rosy in the land of alleged paedophile busting. Since the PJ’s inception they have claimed to have “busted” over 600 men (as of 2005) with no police involvement. Since then, from the wikipedia listing we learn: “… online operations have led to 314 convictions as of March 28, 2009, with over 200 more currently awaiting trial, and an average of 25 arrests a month for the year of 2006.”

Corrupted Justice (CJ) raised some vital points when they asked:

“How many of those 600 were actual predators who were [allowed to] walk free because the vigilantes didn’t involve police? How many of those people were actually innocent and mistakenly ruined as a result of being targeted by untrained, anonymous Internet cop-wannabes?” The answers are less than encouraging.

Of the 15 plus “group media busts” in which they involve the television media in their stings is minimal at best, with the end result that the predators walk away suitably embarrassed and angry and no doubt still at large. According to CJ: “Out of 1106 men they have ‘busted’, only 42 convictions have resulted.” What is even more disturbing is that very few of the alleged ‘busts’ do not have much to do with child solicitation. On the CJ website it states: “The tiny percentage of their “busts” which have resulted in an arrest were virtually all a result of media reports, phone calls to police from neighbors, etc. after the fact. – The result – Mostly plea-bargains to minor charges because of a lack of usable evidence. Since the taping for February 3rd’s Dateline program, Perverted-Justice has resumed ‘busting’ people with absolutely no law enforcement involvement, preferring instead to let their anonymous members dish out their own form of ‘justice’ ”. [2]

True to form this has inevitably led once again to a number of recent cases since the Dateline taping which have: “… mistakenly begun anonymously threatening completely innocent, non-involved people by telephone and e-mail…”

This is akin to rattling a hornet’s nest and then running for cover. CJ asked in their editorial last year: “…what ever happened to the One Thousand and Sixty Four potential predators they busted but for which they didn’t contact the police? They are living in your community instead of sitting in jail where many of them may belong…”

medium_pj(Wikipedia)

Other substantiated claims against Perverted Justice include:

  • The employment of minors in explicit online sex chats.
  • Anonymous harassment and terrorization campaigns against those targeted.
  • Identity theft against critics of Perverted Justice.
  • Serious threats, defamation against journalists, attorneys and other child-protection organizations who have voiced concerns regarding the group’s vigilante tactics.
  • Classic psychopath tactics of denigrating critics by conversive thinking, paramoralisms and paralogical conclusions
  • No evidence of any actual recognized or legitimate law enforcement training for Perverted-Justice members has been made public other than the “extensive training” claimed by present members.

Though the intent may be to inform and defend children, the route taken to convictions are dangerously close to vigilantism dispensing with the “rule of law” however inadequate this may seem. Once “adult citizens” follow the already extremely suspect version of entrapment then the concept of law and justice becomes less than meaningless where a judge and jury are simultaneously acting as creators and instigators of crimes.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his tabloid news corporation MSNBC screened the “Dateline” show “To Catch a Predator” and paid Perverted Justice over $100,000 to participate in the programme. This is understandable, as the level of trashy voyeurism is matched by the other. However a “reputable” news corporation is not usually so up front about paying for stories and compensating sources, yet this is exactly what they did while watching the ratings climb, pandering to the same old propaganda which enraptured over 8 million viewers. It is tabloid T.V. at its worst yet remains a sure-fire winner for those seeking short-term profits from long-term misery.

In combination with PJ’s activities such exploitative programming merely make predators far more aware of legitimate police stings (a term to be used loosely) and to make the field of child molestation and paedophilia reduced down to nothing more than pop-corn entertainment. All this feeds into the overall impression that PJ and other sites and TV programmes are something other than an altruistic community protection. More likely it is part of a further operation to muddy the issues involved in sexual exploitation. Think War on Terror and we have the same programme – different channel.

Having originally wrote notes for this piece in 2005, it is perhaps most significant that no more than a year later a report from 2007 which gave a powerful indication that this was a police/FBI entrapment scam designed to create predators in much the same way that the FBI create terrorists. (See The Terror Industry). In an article by now defunct operationawareness.com it highlights reports filed to the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Cyber-tipline, that  members of PJ were possessing and disseminating images of child pornography. The article observed:

“NBC Universal, which airs the Dateline show is currently facing two lawsuits for numerous improprieties. The first lawsuit filed by a former NBC producer  is seeking $1 million in damages for the wrongful termination. The firing came after the producer questioned the shows ethics and legalities. The second lawsuit seeks $100 million in damages and is brought by the surviving family members of one of the shows “targets”, who committed suicide as the NBC Dateline and Perverted Justice crew descended upon his home when he failed to show up at the “sting house”. Initial reports are that there was no valid arrest warrant for the man and one police officer on the scene was quoted as saying “that’ll make some good tv” after the man took his life.

Trouble has been circulating around the Perverted-Justice group almost from the beginning for working in tandem with NBC. They have been accused as “staging the news” and NBC reportedly pays Perverted Justice $100,000 per episode. Critics worry that this is a big incentive to do whatever possible to create a sting scenario – anything from false accusations to manufacturing evidence. Perverted Justice, is the group responsible for baiting what they term “would be child molesters” online by posing as minors. Although it is also being reported that they use real minors to lure their targets- raising concerns that Perverted Justice is exploiting minors to achieve their goals.” [3]

Unfortunately, letting the authorities know about one of their pet entrapment projects is a little like alterting the wolf that one of his lambs has wriggled through the fence. Sure enough, the presence of Perverted Justice remains as strong as ever and is still mining the internet for innocent and guilty alike. The title of this website is of course extremely apt: a perversion of justice is most certainly taking place and which will boost the child porn entrapment industry whilst feeding into the worst forms of vigilantism buttressed by superficial training schemes. What hope can we have from amateur law enforcement wannabees when the law and justice itself is fully compromised? The upshot of this, yet again, is a public concentration on the effects rather than the root cause, and clever displacement of focus away from Establishment abuse. Moreover, it means real predators will go further underground while true paedophiles seeking help for their condition can be assured of a climate of demonisation and ostricisation from such outfits. You will seldom see a more egotistical, righteous and dangerous forum for self-appointed judge and jury than this entrapment model.

***

Way back in August 2004, KenoshaOnline, a news portal for Kenosha and Wisconsin was forced to shut down its anonymous forum due to repeated spamming from a Defence Department source with “links to incest, bestiality, gay sex and other inappropriate media.” [4] KenoshaOnline’s John Norquist contacted the Pentagon regarding the “porn bombs” but the Department of Defence refused to comment. The site’s traffic saw a significant fall once the forum was disconnected. Perhaps this has a connection the fact that our beloved government workers at the Pentagon were investigated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2006 concerning the purchase of child pornography online and discovered: “… more than 250 civilian and military employees of the Defense Department — including some with the highest available security clearance — who  used credit cards or PayPal to purchase images of children in sexual situations.” With assistance from the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) it was found that at least 30 Defence Department employees “… staffers for the secretary of defense, contractors for the ultra-secretive National Security Agency, and a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” were all in possession of child pornography.” However not only did the DCIS open investigations into just 20 percent of the individuals identified, it prosecuted “… just a handful.” [5]

According to John Cook of The Upshot:

“… new Project Flicker investigative reports obtained by The Upshot through the Freedom of Information Act, which you can read here, show that DCIS investigators identified 264 Defense employees or contractors who had purchased child pornography online. Astonishingly, nine of those had “Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information” security clearances, meaning they had access to the nation’s most sensitive secrets. All told, 76 of the individuals had Secret or higher clearances. But DCIS investigated only 52 of the suspects, and just 10 were ever charged with viewing or purchasing child pornography.” [6]

Meantime, the American public has 24 hr warrantless wire-tapping, intrusive searches at the airport, No knock SWAT raids, unlawful take-down of websites and numerous other unconstitutional actions, whilst government employees have a great deal of immunity from this encroaching police state.  Which brings us back once again, to the presence of blackmail and sexpionage as another reason why over 80% of cases were not investigated. While as of 2015, the case “remains open” it seems it hasn’t stopped Pentagon employees appetite for child porn, in whatever guise that maybe. Indeed, one individual attempted to do so 12,000 times. [7]

In 2013, the National Security Agency offers evidence that it had the same ultra-hypocrisy as the Pentagon in that it sees nothing wrong with accruing vast amounts of information from its citizens internet browsing history – most importantly, what pornography websites they visit – while their many of their employees enjoy viewing a deviant brand of the same. Indeed, targeting muslims in this context, is all part of the war on terror, they explain. But if you think that such practices are restricted to the terror industry, think again. This is surveillance which affects everyone. Using pornography and entrapment operations have multiple purposes to that end.

amateurThe pornography business can be used as a means of social control for a variety of purposes. Even Google has had to defend itself since August 2004 from the likes of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who had been pressing the search engine giant to release data about people’s searching habits on the internet. [8] The Justice Department was keen to view specific information, including the types of queries submitted by users and the websites in its index. Not one to be accused of worrying too much about the privacy of its users, Google believes the criteria is too broad and “threatens trade secrets.” It fell to privacy groups to warn that user identities could be indirectly revealed, especially with the government’s new drive to collect data for “fighting crime and terrorism.” Their justification was the enforcement of pornography laws with special attention to the 1998 Child Protection Act which was blocked by the Supreme Court due to legal challenges regarding how it was enforced. Gonzales sought a court order to force the company to part with the records. (This is strangely hypocritical since the search engine is already in bed with the CIA).[9]

Over eleven years later and things haven’t improved. Amid the scandal of illegal surveillance by the UK’s GCHQ and America’s NSA revealed by whistleblower Edward J. Snowden the public is getting an idea just how bad it really is under the well-marketed, Goldman Sacs-funded Presidency of Barack Obama. (Although whether this is just a sophisticated psychological operations pantomime is anyone’s guess). Care of his confidente Glenn Greenwald, Snowden’s Leaked documents have shown that porn still plays a part in mass surveillance and intelligence tools. The latest leak has the NSA targeting activists’ and dissidents’ web history in order to locate visits to pornography sites in order to launch a future smear campaign. The claimed target of the social engineering initiative were Muslim radicals but in actual fact were only those critical of government policies.

In an appendix to the leaked document published by the Huffington Post Mr. Greenwald and his fellow journalists describe these individuals stating:

One target’s offending argument is that ‘Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam,’ and a vulnerability listed against him is ‘online promiscuity.’ Another target, a foreign citizen the NSA describes as a ‘respected academic,’ holds the offending view that ‘offensive jihad is justified,” and his vulnerabilities are listed as ‘online promiscuity’ and ‘publishes articles without checking facts.’ A third targeted radical is described as a ‘well-known media celebrity’ based in the Middle East who argues that ‘the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack.’ Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead ‘a glamorous lifestyle.’ A fourth target, who argues that ‘the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself” is said to be vulnerable to accusations of ‘deceitful use of funds.’ The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about the individuals could undermine their perceived ‘devotion to the jihadist cause.’  [10]

When we know that mass surveillance has been in operation for decades, and there is a high probability that most sting operations on child pornography are police entrapments then this is merely confirmation that targets are compromised by monitoring and recording their browsing history. These operations successfully make the final case for blackmail and/or to discredit individuals by a sophisticated process of leakage via social networks and media.  Or as the appendix states: by “viewing sexually explicit material online or using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

As multiple agencies are cited in the memo it is obvious that they had full awareness of the program and supported its objectives. This should not be anything other than business as usual since US intelligence used the same tactics to discredit so-called members of Al-Qaeda and even Osama bin Laden himself. Recall the juvenile allegations of USB sticks “filled” with pornography and jars of vasoline found at Osama bin Laden’s compound, following the U.S. deathstrike on him in May 2011. This was all part of the same propaganda exercise to revitalise the mythos of Osama as a depraved pervert as well as an evil head of the War on Terror. It’s merely another example of a familiar tactic that is used to eliminate critics.

Keep in mind that if you use the internet then your personal data is up for grabs. If you have the temerity to speak out against the surveillance state and if you have a history of looking at pornographic websites then you can be sure that this is all logged, recorded and filed for future use. Just make sure you don’t become too vocal against your beloved government who only has your protection at heart …

The internet-based Inquisition21 group which we looked at briefly in a previous post were seeking to bring a class action law suit against UK police for the Landslide/Operation Ore scandal and were subsequently delisted by Google. They believed this was due to the nature of the evidence they were sharing concerning child porn police corruption. After refusing to comment on the action Google issued a general statement yet failed to confirm that the Inquisition21 website had breached any of the guidelines. The censorship came just as the site was about to make potentially damaging disclosures about the handling of the Operation Ore investigations. [11]

While a reform of sex laws are periodically needed for improvement on a variety of bills and clauses, the introduction of measures, in effect, hand over responsibility to government bit by bit and decreases our own response-ability, often without the relevant information as to why such laws are considered so essential for our children’s protection and safety. In reality, freedom and responsibility are deeply connected and if one is curtailed the other will inevitably follow. The end result (and purpose) is that governments leverage greater and greater control under the prextexts of child pornography, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, while its citizens scratch their heads and wonder how on earth it could have happened.

 


Notes

[1] http://www.pervertedjustice.com
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20121102181540/http://www.operationawareness.com/custom3_1.html
[4] ‘Pentagon declined to investigate hundreds of purchases of child pornography’The Upshot By John Cook September 3, 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘Pentagon employee tried to access porn sites at work more than 12k times last year’ Russia Today,
January 07, 2015.
[7] See also: ‘Is Pentagon flooding Kenosha site with porn?’ By Rachel Campbell, The Journal Times , Racine WI, August 26, 2004.
[8] ‘Google defies US over search data’ BBC News, Friday, 20 January 2006.
[9] Former CIA agent and computer expert Robert David Steele, who has close connections with top Google directors, suggested that Google co-operated with the CIA. Steele is was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992 and a former clandestine services case officer for the CIA. His latest accusations against Google have raised the possibility that other accusations are now credible and that Google is truly censoring in places far from China and much nearer home. For example, Google has been caught censoring recent programmes and critiques critical of the Iraq war. On the October 2006 Alex Jones radio programme, Steele said, “I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government – that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off. Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development.”
[10] Document 3RA/501518-12 “Terrorism/Islamic Radicalization Global Radicalizers vulnerable in terms of Authority.” – ‘NSA spied on ‘radicalisers’ porn surfing so as to discredit them, reveals Snowden,’ By John Leyden, The Register, November 27th 20013.
[11] ‘Google erases Operation Ore campaign site’ by Lucy Sheriff, The Register, September 21, 2006.

The Rule of Law? III: Forensics and Impression Management

“Our educated guess is that many practitioners in the field of law and psychology have faced a situation … where they have experienced difficulties in identifying the “true nature” of the psychopathic interviewee, until the situation has proceeded to the point where they’ve been fooled or some ways misled.”

– Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, Psychopathy and Law, a Practioner’s Guide


The British justice system is still at odds with reality where fathers’ rights in custody battles are considered an irrelevance. The opinions of children in this matter are ignored as is basic psychology that a child grows and develops best when he or she has both parents present in their lives and access to respective family relatives. Although surprising to some, family law courts in the United Kingdom and in a significant number of cases in the United States, heavily favour the rights of the mother.

Many pressure groups on behalf of fathers’ rights as well as social justice organisations campaigned for a change in the law that would view the rights of both parents as a prerequisite for a just and equitable resolution in custody cases, while also addressing the “shocking delays” in custody battles in general. In the United Kingdom, several years ago the government family justice report chaired by David Norgrove made a review of these claims. Certain aspects of the family courts were marginally improved, cutting down the time where decisions must be taken to no more than six months rather than years, though this has been a sporadic rather than a consistent success.  Moreover, the issue of equal parenting rights – with special focus on fathers’ rights – was deemed unworkable. A spokesman for the Norgrove report said: “While is it usually in the child’s interest to have contact with both parents, seeking to enshrine that right in law would lead to greater conflict and confusion.” David Norgrove stated that: “Fundamentally, this is not about the rights of parents, it’s about the welfare of children and we should be focused entirely on that.” [1]

i-love-you-lets-fight© Infrakshun

Many campaigners believe that the issue of children being granted accessibility of both parents was crucial factor in addressing the welfare of the child and were at a loss to see how such a conclusion could have been reached. With one in three children in the UK without a father it does tend to stretch credibility that these decisions would help to alleviate such a sad statistic. The Centre for Social Justice a UK charity and campaigning organisation on issues of poverty, crime and family law stated in their 2009 family law review, Every Family Matters that “…legislation should acknowledge that children are most likely to benefit from the substantial involvement of both parents in their lives.” [2]

Ken Sanderson, of the campaign group Families Need Fathers, said: “The core failing of the current family justice system is that the rights of children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are not adequately supported or enforced. By choosing not to address this issue, any other proposals… will be merely superficial adjustments to a fundamentally broken system.” [3] And these superficial adjustments are a common theme through the legal and justice systems in both the UK and the United States. Tinkering around the edges allows just enough leeway to placate media and pressure groups for a short time whilst altering very little.

Fathers 4 Justice Campaign Director Nadine O’Connor was even more scathing of the report and revealed the corrupt background of the legal system as a whole. In a detailed response to Norgrove she outlined some of the reasons for what campaigners believed were unreasonable and unjust conclusions arrived at by report members and suggested an agenda on behalf of those taking part. A long list of grievances were listed including the belief that the:

  • The report’s primary function was to look at procedure, not principle;
  • The review panel was not impartial – it excluded parents and users of the system;
  • The rejection of a 10,000 parent testimony
  • The highlighting of the support given by the report of “secret courts”
  • The rejection of “transparency and public accountability;”
  • The rejection of a parents right in law to see their children;”
  • Claims of gender bias despite 93 percent of residencies being awarded to mothers;
  • The rejection of the principle of equality and shared parenting, stating it was ‘not in the bests interests of the child.’ [4]

O’Connor also drew the intention of the media and public to the fact that the report acknowledged that “no records have been kept on the outcomes for children,” and logically asked the question: “How can the Family Justice Review panel know what is in the ‘best interests of a child’ without empirical evidence?” [5]  Further attention was given to failure of the report to address: “… the number of warring parents going to court and the impact government cuts to legal aid will have in the increase in the number of unrepresented parents going to court; condemnation of the court system itself “…which is run by an ‘unelected, unaccountable and unsackable judiciary operating in complete secrecy;’ the inappropriate nature of courts originally intended for criminals rather than dealing with family cases. [6] The review also concluded that it was still necessary for “…grandparents… to go to court to demand access to their grandchildren when it is denied” which many believe dismisses the value of family and community. Which also means a division opens up between the rich and poor once again, and where only the wealthy can find justice to pursue their familial rights. [7]

The above report represents a classic example of the kinds of stone-walling within government and the judicial system which campaigners face year in and year out, not least the thousands of parents and their children who get caught in this iniquitous system.

According to Saga an insurance and investment company for senior citizens: “…the [court] process is extremely difficult and many grandparents simply can’t face a court fight that they feel may be unfairly stacked against them. They had hoped that the law would recognise the importance of their rights properly.” [8] Saga Director-General Dr Ros Altmann opines: “The relationship between a grandchild and a grandparent can be an extremely special one, and can provide consistency for a child when the family unit breaks down. “This Review rightly points out that decisions should be made in the best interests of the child, however to give one adult ‘rights’ to access that can be withdrawn by the courts, whilst all others have to fight for any right to maintain a relationship with their child or grandchild is surely wrong.” [9]

In the United States, the story is the same though with a greater State by State and case by case variation. This is illustrated with the following examples. Firstly, according to Anne P. Mitchell, fathers’ rights attorney and Founder of Dads’ Rights:

Men absolutely, and often, get the short end of the stick financially in divorce. There is a big myth out there that men make out like bandits in divorce, and women get left in poverty. This is completely untrue. Ironically, it is this myth that causes women to resist fathers having more parenting time, as the less time the child is with Dad, the more money Mom gets. So fathers get the shaft twice: their time with their children is limited, and they get to pay for being pushed out of their children’s lives.” [10]

Judge Michele Lowrance, child of divorce, divorced mother and author agrees that unfair treatment of men is borne out by the statistics:

For example, 85 percent of non-custodial or non-primary residential parents are men who typically see their children only two out of 14 days. In addition, 40 percent of America’s children will spend at least part of their childhood without their fathers living together with them. This translates to over 21 million children. There is definitely cultural paranoia about each side having an advantage. Women think men have the advantage because, for example, it is hard to support the average family on a small percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income. If Dad earns $2,500 net and there is one child, in many jurisdictions Mom would only get $500 for support. Understandably that feels unfair to her, as clearly she might need more to support a child. [11]

While on the other hand, Scott Hampton director of Ending Violence:

When I was presenting a workshop at a national judges’ conference I asked those judges whether there was bias in family courts during divorce. Their answer: Yes, but usually it’s against women, not men. Their reasoning makes perfect sense. Society expects mothers, not fathers, to be the natural nurturers. So, if Mom falls just a bit short of the ideal parent, we unconsciously penalize her. In contrast, if Dad changes a couple of poopy diapers, we unconsciously give him extra credit. So if that’s true, then why do mothers more often have custody? The judges explained that it’s not the court’s bias against fathers. It’s men’s bias against fatherhood and dads who run away from their responsibility. Those are the ones who are skewing the numbers. It’s the men who fight paternity or who are abusive who are making responsible fathers and husbands look bad. The fact of the matter is, when men actually want and ask for custody, they are much more successful than some would have us believe. [12]

Father’s running away from their responsibilities, uncaring of their children, mothers taking advantage of a biased system and financially milking their ex-husbands remorselessly; false accusations of child abuse alongside authentic cases that somehow pass through judicial loopholes and the many corrupt judges open to those with the right money.

The system is broken and quite obviously ponerised.

There are many other similar cases where the male-dominated courts and judicial system do not necessarily override the apparent bias against fathers. Nevertheless, while negative attributions are fielded on both sides of the fence the statistics paint a very bleak picture for the father in the majority of cases. Despite psychopathic predominance in the male (at least so far, data is still being collected) the female pathological narcissist and psychopath also exist. As awareness of the bias against diagnosing women with psychopathy becomes more widely known, statistic are likely to reveal even more of a prevalence that is not necessarily seated in criminal activity but within domestic and public institutional settings.

Disturbing statistics that seldom get any airplay in the media denote an inversion of the female attributes that collectively express a highly significant reaction to the mass pathology inflicted on Western societies. As to how custody battles are reflected in statistical analyses these figures are from the late 80s’ and early 90s’:

  • 79.6 % of custodial mothers receive a support award
  • 29.9 % of custodial fathers receive a support award
  • 46.9 % of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
  • 26.9 % of non-custodial fathers totally default on support
  • 20.0 % of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
  • 61.0  % of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
  • 66.2 % of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
  • 10.2  %  of single custodial fathers work less than full-time  [13]

By 2007, five of every six custodial parents are mothers, yet the number of custodial mothers in poverty is 27.7 percent in contrast to the percentage of custodial fathers in poverty at 11.1 percent [14]  With one in four divorced Americans yet to receive child support or alimony and of those who are supposed to receive spousal support, 49 percent are not receiving any of it, fighting to get it, or have completely given up, what does this say about the system of allocating benefits to each parent and the ability of fathers to find work over mothers? What of the prevalence of mental illness and undiagnosed pathology hidden from view? [15]

In custody and criminal trials prosecutors will have no compunction in using gender myths as a strategy to win their cases or “… packaging the myth for persuasive purposes” depending on which position they are advocating. [16]

5960558-lg© infrakshun

Impression Management

It might be an idea to revisit the Female Psychopath in a court setting.

The female psychopath’s own formula of “impression management” is especially effective yet we have no way of knowing how many take advantage of the criminal justice system except through reading between the lines of statistics. Is it simply self-presentation or cunning manipulation of the jury and all participants, from detectives to judges? Impression management is a crucial tool of the psychopath yet relatively unexplored in forensic psychology. If the overriding need to control and win is a primary driver of psychopathic behaviour this suggests a huge psychological loop-hole that takes advantage of the idealised image of feminine passivity which is then ruthlessly exploited.

Criminal trial attorney Frank S. Perri and clinical psychologist Terrance G. Lichtenwald see law enforcement and the criminal justice system facing a serious challenge in their ability to correctly perceive, diagnose and bring to justice female psychopaths. For instance: “Diane Downs, the woman who killed her two children by shooting them, came to her jury trial pregnant, projecting the image that a mother could not commit such an act. [Serial killers] Golay and Utterschmidt projected a disposition of two elderly, grandmotherly-like women, and Karla Homolka projected the image that she was under the control over her husband when she helped kill three young women.”  [1]

Other examples of possible misdiagnosis and leniency include one Marie Noe, who in 1999: “… admitted to killing her eight children [and] received probation. It had been suggested that her 72-year-old appearance, mannerisms and her gender affected the decision and because society is reluctant to believe that women kill serially, law and prosecutions lacked the motivation to investigate and vigorously prosecute these women.” Another female serialist received only 10 years in prison after admitting to killing her five children, but the jury felt sorry for her because she had lost all the children in her life.”  [2]

The courts, forensics and law enforcement are areas more likely to encounter male and female psychopaths than any other profession. The absence of courses in psychopathy awareness is still not forthcoming where it is needed most and where: “…the study of violent offenders is lumped together under the same umbrella that somehow criminals are from the same mold.” The authors therefore pose the following questions:

Does this individual understand that parents who kill may not be mentally ill but possess psychopathy traits that, in fact, make them more prone to planning their child’s death? Does this person have training on how to spot psychopathic traits or are does he harbor the view that a mother is incapable of intentionally killing her child because of her gender? If the parent did plan the murder, could this professional participate in the evaluation of such a case without resorting to myths to resolve the “shock” he or she experiences? […]

It can be particularly unnerving for professionals to realize that a female is capable of brutal violence, especially homicide, and project normalcy to those she encounters. Unfortunately, many in the law enforcement and behavioral field resort to the myth in order to resolve an uncomfortable inconsistency between what they observe and what they want to believe. […]

Professionals’ beliefs about female aggression influence their approach to inquiry, interviews, investigation, and their reactions to female disclosures about their criminal acts have an enormous impact on who is labeled a victim or an offender… [3]

Given the custodial, socio-economic statistics and those for female psychopathic traits that point to high incidence of biological mothers as perpetrators of some forms of child abuse and child deaths, a massive overhaul of gender stereotyping and target training for police and the law courts, social services and child care is long overdue. The authors recommend several changes that must take place if professionals – investigators or examiners – are to meet the challenge of psychopathy:

  • Self awareness of one’s own gender bias
  • Management of cognitive dissonance in the face of incongruous evidence: “female as care taker and female as abuser, female as peace maker and female as perpetrator.”
  • During evaluation, confidence borne from a strong data set ready to test for different gender myths regardless of the individual being evaluated.
  • Awareness that the examinee “has much to gain and little to lose by manipulating.
  • The evaluation of the deception but also the quality of the deception i.e. “How did the examinee respond when the deception was exposed?”
  • Awareness that the examinee may be wearing a “mask of sanity” thus he must be ready to examine his emotions for countertransference “…such as the feeling of disappointment that the individual is not what she first seemed.”
  • A willingness to excuse oneself from the case if these criteria cannot be met.  [4]

Finally, the authors conclude that: “Violence, especially murder, is a human issue and not a gender-specific phenomenon.” a conclusion that must extend across all societal domains when evaluating anti-social personality disorders such as psychopathy and narcissism whether in relationships, business, organisations or social movements.

The above examples are admittedly from criminal psychopaths. Garden variety psychopaths happily go about their business deep inside society assisting in the sometimes subtle and slow ponerogenesis of normal human behaviour.  Therefore, since we already have a problem that is highly advanced in Western societies in particular, then it does not necessarily mean employing specific models to be absorbed into already ponerised arms of the Establishment. It may be a bit late for current Western societies to incorporate large-scale change without systematic radical upheavals. What it does mean is offering the opportunity for all of us to be super-aware of the depth and nature of psychopathy so that we may give inoculate ourselves and our love ones from its destructive effects. Only then will we begin to loosen the grip of  the global predators in our midst.

 


Notes

[1] Nation of broken families: One in three children lives with a single-parent or with step mum or dad’ The Daily Mail, By Steve Doughty, 25 June 2010.
[2] ‘Norgrove Report fails children by not giving fathers access rights, says Centre for Social Justice’ Press Release, November 3, Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk
[3] ‘Dads should NOT be given right to equal access to children, says review’ The Daily Mirror, November 3, 2011.
[4] Fathers 4 Justice http://www.fathers4justice.co.uk
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Channel 4 News, F4J Respond to Norgrove Report, November 2011 | ‘Family justice review criticises ‘shocking delays’’ BBC News, November 3, 2011.
[8] ‘Norgrove review fails to grasp the nettle for grandparents’ By Dr Ros Altmann , Saga http://www.saga.co.uk  4 November 2011.
[9] Ibid.
[10] ‘Do Divorced Dads Get a Raw Deal?’ By Tom Matlack, Mens’ Health, March 12th, 2011.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] 1988 Census ‘Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report’ GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992.
[14] U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released August 2007 | Ibid.
[15] http://www.Divorce360.com, Child Support Poll Results, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2007 | Ibid.
[16]] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald (p.63)
[17] Ibid. (p.64)
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20  Ibid.

The Rule of Law? II: Slush Funds, Serial Judges and the SAP

“… it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed.”

– Robert Canup


The law is of course, about money rather than justice. Nothing new about that.

No-one but the rich can afford to go the whole nine yards in a highly contested custody case which requires thousands of dollars to see it through to the end. Child custody has become a huge money-making enterprise along with so many other forms of control. Money talks, the abuser walks. With an estimated 40 to 50 percent of all marriages ending in separation or divorce, this affects approximately one million children each year, [2] as well as the fall-out from a needless war in Iraq that fuelled a similar rise. [3]  The emotional cost to the child is also rising with higher incidences of stress related illnesses appearing in custody battle children. Judges receive a fat salary and job security. When the overflow of cases gets too much those in retirement are wheeled out with their accompanying prejudices and outdated beliefs intact. Appeal judges seldom reverse lower court rulings.

When funding is added to the equation it becomes a dangerous gamble. If you are unhappy with the ruling and you suspect foul play – which will happen at some point along the judicial line – you will have no chance for redress. Judges have total immunity which means suing is not an option. No surprise then that the Oversight Agency Commission for Judicial Performance spends over $3 million dollars per year, yet in a 3 year period, not a single judge was removed from the bench.

One victim who was corresponding with me several years ago (we’ll call her “Sandra”) is fighting depression as her hope wanes. She is wracked by guilt that she could not protect her child. She paints a bleak picture of the judicial system in America, describing the tight net of oppression and injustice that lies in wait for those who are unfortunate enough to arrive at a custody battle. Sandra also believes the law views men and women as a lucrative resource to exploit.

She writes:

“If you do something to try to protect an abused child,  you will be placed on a missing poster by the National Clearing House for Missing and Exploited Children, you also will have the FBI issue a warrant for your arrest even if you have custody, if you are caught (you most likely will) you and your children will be hunted by local police agencies if you are captured (which you will be) than these police will take your child , call the abusive parent and give your child to the abuser to with as he likes. Meantime, you will be handcuffed, held in a holding cell, you will not be read your rights nor will anyone offer the elusive phone call. After you repeatedly ask for an attorney (which you will not get) you will, in handcuffs be taken to a county jail. Now, depending on the size of the state you will be stripped searched and put in maximum security lockdown.

At this point, your crime is “noncustodial interference” even if you had custody (because you were not there to protect your rights so the court took this chance to strip you of them) Do not forget you will also be put on the 5 o’clock news on every channel in that area with the headline reading “parent abducts child – child returned safely to other parent.” Something like that. Your state has about 7 days to extradite you (which they will) most likely in chains (again your crime trying to protect your child being abused which you know about). You will be held in your county jail not able to pay bail, because this court has financially ruined you.  (That is to say, you spent your savings on all the court fees to protect your child). You will sit in jail not knowing if your children are safe. Everyone you trusted – this is to say the same people who testified in the civil action for you – will betray you – and believe me they will. No one will believe you because “this couldn’t happen” and even so ‘why to you?’ This, despite all the evidence, the pictures and stuff like that, you cannot see your child because you tried to save them. If you don’t have a nervous breakdown, if no one will give you a job because of the publicity and if you don’t harm yourself you get treated like you are crazy, or better yet, like you are a bad parent for not having your child. Now you are destitute and easy pickings for this corrupt court system.

You will more than likely not see your child but these officials will try to charge you money for every conceivable thing you can think of. If these officials take it all and make it impossible for you to get more, you will either watch any rights you had to your poor child terminated and given to the parent who is horrifically abusing them (you know this because you have the evidence, though what good it is I’ll never know) or get to be sent to jail again once these officials have drained you financially. You then get to be the lucky recipient of nightly nightmares regarding your child and how the evidence vividly details how the parent abuser is abusing your child.

The justice system and concept of law has been corrupted by officials who allow notions of equality and fair play to be used as chess pieces by psychologically compromised individuals. These in turn, allow psychopaths to rule the law rather than follow it.  Sandra and her daughter are two victims out of thousands who are suffering a similar fate, be they male or female. Such dynamics are predicated on what philosopher Robert Canup calls “a plausible lie” where the justice system and family courts are rooted in a written code of ethics that promote an inherently unethical profession. The reader might be getting some idea by now that such convincing lies propagated by those without conscience are the cause of all of our troubles, or as Canup terms it:

“If the legal system allows you to feel good about convicting someone when you KNOW they are innocent, and you KNOW that the case against them is a pack of lies; then the legal system is worse than useless.” [4]

 public-domain-images-free-stock-photos-high-quality-resolution-downloads-unsplash0071-1000x666© infrakshun

In Canup’s concept of theSocially adept Psychopath” (SAP) he introduces another angle as to why the legal system is inherently loaded against innocence and fair play, suggesting: “… it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed.” [5] It amounts to those who are cunning enough, ruthless enough and with an absence of scruples can ride on the crest of a filthy tide that leaves the label of justice as just that –  a label that disguises a host of negative anomalies that lead to the law loaded towards the criminal. It is in our culture to believe that the truth will out and bare-faced lying will not carry much power. In fact, the opposite is the case thanks to this particular legal foundation.

From this perspective, he explains the law in the following terms:

I think that there is little argument that the United States has the best legal system in the world. Unfortunately having the best legal system in the world is a lot like having the world’s biggest flea, or the world’s fastest snail; so what? If the US system is the best, then using the US system to show what is wrong with legal systems will also show what is wrong with legal systems around the world – all the rest are even more heavily influenced by evil than the US system is. […]

The State of Texas vs. Joe Blow. … A court of law is carefully designed to present the appearance of fairness, rather than being designed to actually be fair. I am sure that most people are familiar with things that look one way but are actually different from the way they appear on the surface. A court of law is one of those things.

In a court of law we have a very familiar structure: two opposing players, and an impartial referee. This is a structure which almost everyone can recognize: it is a contest. If we look a little closer we will realize that the structure is a sham.

Suppose that you were to go to play a football game only to discover:

The other team gets to make up the rules.

The referee plays for the other team.

One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score – the other team is at no risk – only you can be scored upon.

Guess who’s going to win most of those games? The best you could hope for is a 0 – 0 tie.

That is what is actually going on in a court of law. The ‘fair and impartial judge’ is employed by the state, as is the prosecutor; they are both on the same team. The state sets all the rules. The state is at zero risk – the best you can hope for is a scoreless tie.

Bottom line? You are going to lose. In fact you have lost before you ever get to court. Trials are not about whether the State of Texas gets to beat on Joe Blow, trials are about whether the State of Texas gets to CONTINUE beating on Joe Blow. [6]

The upshot is that the pathological liar has a huge advantage over the innocent, shackled by his conscience and sense of morality, the very precept that is encouraged in the justice system and the very same cause of his or her downfall. Swearing on the Bible might as well be swearing on a copy of Playboy for psychopaths and other psychological deviants. Putting aside the wholesale corruption that exists in the law courts and the prime mover of any claims that arrive in front of the judge…

What of the judges?


 “It should be against the law to break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In early 21st-century America, a dirty little secret still exists among public officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors, and the police. The government, federal, state, and local, is not bound to obey its own laws. I know this sounds crazy, but too many cases prove it true. It should be a matter of grave concern for every American who prizes personal liberty.”

– U.S. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano


The legal landscape has been infiltrated by the psychopath and sociopath where a psycho-subversion is elevated to be the primary arbiter of who lives and dies, who is guilty and who is innocent. The ponerological reality behind our concept of US Law is described by Canup in the following extract:

Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist – an inexplicable quirk in Bundy’s bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the Psychopaths of the world. I would estimate that about 10 percent of the prosecutors and judges in the United States are in fact, S.A.Ps. The ONLY difference between them and Ted Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. I will quote from my novel “Unsuspected” to show how a psychopath views the position of Judge. […] How brilliant of his predecessors to slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers – who sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease of royalty. There are, he reflected, no ‘Your Majesties’ or ‘Your Excellencies’ in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into accepting ‘Your Honors’. […]

It is difficult to believe that huge parts of society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic. [7] [Emphasis mine]

That’s it – in a nut-shell.

Except perhaps, many essential psychopaths may not be “mentally ill” but merely expressing their true nature.

Los Angeles Police Department BadgeIn May 1999, a magazine article reported on payoffs to judges through a slush fund in Los Angeles. The extensive article followed Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, California as he attempted to find justice for his daughter, who was enmeshed in the corruption of family courts and facing the prospect of losing custody of her 2-year-old son.[8]

After spending $100,000 on attorneys and research fees, Bryer has since “been campaigning for a probe of a system that he claims ‘purposefully profits off the conflict of the families in litigation.’ He says, ‘I felt violated, almost numb, when I learned that the judges were making money through the child-custody system. The judges have too much power, and nobody is monitoring these guys.’”

What he discovered were considerable sums of money being funnelled through inconspicuous and pedestrian sounding covers in order to accrue funds from the litigation process at great emotional and material cost to the payers.

The Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, The Judges Trust Fund, Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services, were able to efficiently disperse the cash and not being registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, to smoothly funnel the money without anyone knowing. What this represented was a private corporation run from the public sector that actually promoted and banked on lengthy custody cases. When Bryer took his evidence and pleas to the judges themselves: “the Los Angeles Police Department, or LAPD; the bunco and forgery unit of the LAPD; the county Sheriff’s Department; the district attorney; the city attorney for Los Angeles; the county of Los Angeles auditor and assistant auditor; the county treasurer; and the state attorney general. All failed to act.”

Attorneys arguing cases before the family courts were making payments to the Judges’ funds, as were court monitors – “appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.” This makes further sense concerning faulty psychological analyses and evaluations – perhaps they were never meant to serve the child or parents but only the slush fund and litigator that were offering the biggest and swiftest financial benefits. Extending the litigation means more money for all those involved in the court process. Mediators for example, have the authority to demand tests for one or both of the litigants with additional testing ordered at the discretion of the judge.

This article includes an example of what may be requested from those unfortunate enough to come up against the family courts of Los Angeles:

If a divorcing couple is unable to come to an agreement on the custody of their child, the court has the power to require the couple to attend mediation sessions with a court-appointed marriage counselor who attempts to resolve custody differences. A each step of the process, both litigants are forced to pay thousands of dollars for the services demanded by the court, not including the fees each side already is paying attorneys. But the child-custody cash register doesn’t stop ringing. The system continues to rake in money for its swarm of support personnel long after custody has been awarded. [9]

The Department of Social Services in 2001 investigated over 16,637 cases where suspected abuse or neglect was not substantiated. Far from being based on meticulous analysis and rigorous evaluations by professionals, the vast majority of these cases were representative of serious bureaucratic mismanagement and criminal referrals which led to motions and counter-motions. Evidence that should be admissible is denied under outdated laws – and “bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

Child support agencies are continually leaning towards incompetence, adding to the burden of divorce and family fragmentation. From a report in Michigan, over $7 billion of payments are owed to single parents which translates into “600,000 Michigan children not getting the court-ordered support they deserve” and with over 400,000 not getting anything at all. [10]  County agencies such as “Friend of the Court” are notoriously inefficient and indifferent. In the same Michigan County alone, the child support caseload has doubled in a decade which is being repeated in many states across America. This is partly the result of an economy currently in a nose dive and with over 12 trillion in national debt and rising. [11] It is then, hardly surprising that social costs are bearing the brunt and more custodial parents seeking support that isn’t there.

720px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Justice.svgBack in the UK, a similar story has come to an end with the Child Support Agency (CSA) being replaced by a “tougher agency” set to clear defaulting payments from parents unwilling, or unable to pay. An official report found that over 86 percent of cases had serious flaws and clerical errors with an all-party committee of MPs finding “a backlog of 30,000 cases that were building up each month and an estimated 170,000 waiting to be processed.” Private debt collectors have since been called in to clear £3.3bn arrears while some families are still enmeshed in the labyrinth of the old system with no end in sight. [12]

All this has contributed to cases of approximately 350,000 yearly. This consist predominantly of child abduction and kidnapping incidences by custodial, non-custodial parents and family members. Combined with the familiar entrenched bureaucracy, manipulations from paedophiles and psychopaths already play off the inherent failings of an equally prejudiced system of justice. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to think that the complexity of our social systems means that child abuse is an overblown fantasy. The key issue here is the creation of divisions, confusion and beliefs which are funnelled into the overworld of criminally flawed legal system where abusers get off scot-free in a multitude of ways.

The words of an experienced Texan attorney of thirty-years had this to say on a recent internet forum discussion thread:

“Once the word gets around that you are willing to stand up for a child and you might be amazed at who and how many, people disclose histories of abuse. Husbands reveal their wives screaming ‘No, Daddy, No!’ before they fully wake up when they awaken them with amorous intentions. Teachers and hospital personnel call about what they know and about which the authorities won’t act. Two girls in Juvenile Detention who told me of being molested by a guard weren’t there at the same time and didn’t know each other, but both knew things only his wife or urologist should have known.

A judge told me he was appointing me to represent the children in one case because a family member had long been reputed to ‘go after young girls’ during his several terms in elective office but nobody had ever investigated this. Where do you think kindergarten and eleven year old, etc., boys observed attempting rape of babies and younger children learned that behavior? Can you conceive of one plausible, non-criminal way in which a profoundly retarded ten year old child could catch an STD, much less the same ones her stepfather defendant was found to have?”

Despite signatories to UN conventions to combat and prevent corruption the Rule of Law is continually distorted and abused with threats of death and blackmail circumventing the good intentions of new corruption laws. When patronage, bureaucracy, bribery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement, and nepotism are so endemic within the judiciary it is difficult to address the core reasons for the deformation of law without addressing other key factors in the global set up. The underworld and its body politic keep pace with such reforms because they are naturally attached to their host, akin to parasites on a lumbering elephant.

As commentator Lee Sachs eloquently stated in his 2005 article America’s Corrupt Legal System with “rigged courts, bribed judges, phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag” – nothing much has changed in 2014. Back in the UK it has been reported that the UK’s key institutions have long been infiltrated by criminals  while using Freemasonry as a useful recruiting tool for bent coppers. (Mainstream media loves to state the obvious while independent journalists have been pointing this out for decades. We’ll look at this further in future posts).

Lawyers are making big money out of emotional anguish by selling their services to men and women who abuse and batter children. When those with the fattest pay checks can afford to buy off their guilt and assuage their conscience the ponerogenesis of the law strengthens itself by becoming a commercial interest administered by the criminal Elite. As the American poet Robert Frost once remarked:“A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” Social services and court bureaucracy are inextricably tied to systemic corruption regardless of the veracity of abuse.

While keeping in mind the ponerisation of the feminist movement, indeed, all movements that may start off with good intentions  to address victimisation, it is important to reiterate that both men and women are victims of the so-called justice system. Fathers are denied their rights as are mothers and this normalised conflict can only continue to bolster the leverage of the psychopaths in our midst if we do not open our eyes.

 


Notes

[1] The names have all been changed to protect the identities of those involved, not least the mother who is legally bound to silence. The content and facts of the case have not been changed, though I have placed these facts into a suitable narrative for ease of reading. I can fully vouch for the mother’s evidence and testimony during the course of my own correspondence.
[2] Generally, the global divorce rates are climbing (even among older couples) including separation between co-habiting couples. Europe has a slightly less rate while the US is highest in the world, though it has since leveled off from a leap in from 60s to the 80s. See: ‘Divorce Wars: Litigation as blood sport’ By Chris Francescani and Kristen Depowski, ABC News, July 11, 2006.
[3] ‘Soldiers’ divorce rates up sharply’ By Gregg Zoroya, USAToday, July 6, 2005.
[4] ‘The Greatest Problem Facing Mankind’ by Robert Canup, http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/problem.html
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘The Socially Adept Psychopath’ by Robert Canup, http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/index.html%5B1%5D ‘Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?’ By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 16- May 3, 1999, http://www.insightmag.com.
[8] op. cit. O’Meara.
[9] ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.
[10] $8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.) from the CIA World Fact Book. “The estimated population of the United States is 299,238,103 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $28,220.25.” from the US National Debt Clock at brillig.com.
[11] ‘The troubled history of the CSA,’ BBC News, 18 January 2006.
[12] ‘Private debt collectors called in to clear £3.3bn CSA arrears’ The Times, February 10, 2006.

The Rule of Law? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.”

Andrew Łobaczewski, “Political Ponerology


In the family courts of the US and Europe, fathers and mothers are routinely set against each other with children crushed in the ensuing fight. As always, there appear to be valid cases on both sides of the male-female divide, though judging from the carnage left after the numerous battle, you would never know it.

There legions of cases where families have been torn apart due to corruption, ineptitude and ignorance of psycho-social dynamics. For example, we have mothers who have discovered that their spouse has been molesting their child and have taken the appropriate action through the courts to grant them sole legal and physical custody, yet the child somehow happens to end up with the abuser. Similarly, we have individuals within the feminist movement and its breeding ground for covert narcissism and parental alienation syndrome victimising fathers and turning them against their children. The courts have turned justice into a tragi-farce with the alleged abusers  – male or female –  either getting unsupervised visitation rights and more frequently, full custody. In some countries fathers are also being denied access to their children based on out-of-date and unfair bureaucratic laws regardless of whether they have committed a crime. In effect, the laws are biased towards the mother in some courts and biased towards the father in others, according to the specifics of national law, cultural influences and widespread corruption. Indeed, family courts seem to be presenting the worst kinds of injustices in cases which are both complex and multifaceted.

In the US, by far the most reliable source of litigation is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver. A recent study surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Only two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges. Although this is certainly small it is known that the psychological footprint is very large indeed from those that do. Domestic physical abuse is highly likely to involve a percentage of sexual sadism which is often mistaken for a purely violent and aggressive display of anger. While physical abuse is still being reported in a greater number of cases, the sexual abuse taboo naturally restricts the number of cases that see the light of day. Even before they get to the courts they must be taken seriously by doctors or paediatricians, notwithstanding the likelihood of such charges sticking. Increasingly, many health professionals fear child abuse cases due to the complex nature of the claims and the potential labyrinth of litigation.

In the UK, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Professor Sir David Hall, told the Royal Society of Medicine that “recent high-profile cases in which doctors had been censured had undermined confidence in the regulatory authorities.” He believed that signs of abuse might go unreported until the indications were ‘all too obvious.’ Careers are apparently coming first. [1] Allegations of sexual abuse, paedophilia and child violence are more commonly made by mothers and can be voiced without challenge or a burden of proof. During the interim, access is denied and courts appear to accept accusations regardless of the possibility that this could be the product of hate and acrimony from an embattled relationship. If the father is innocent and when the claim is finally dropped, there is no penalty for making such a vindictive claim. By then the damage is done, which may partially account for the rise in father suicides relating to unfair agency payments and the ensuing custody battles. Unsurprisingly, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. [2] As one divorce consultant mentions: “It’s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.” [3]

vintage-man-woman-couple-conflict-black-and-white-photography

Back in the UK, each year, some 85,000 families with children younger than 16 undergo divorce. The standard aftermath includes disputes over how much the “non-resident parent” should see his children, which is generally the father. Though the cases are compelling, a range of societal factors could be involved, as the broader statistical picture suggests. America is not Britain (not quite yet anyway). In 1998, a Children First Government paper, indicated that 40 percent of separated mothers admit to thwarting contact, leaving fathers losing all contact with their children within two years of separation or divorce.[4] In 2015, nothing much has changed. According to one English solicitor I spoke to: “Some 80,000 parents issue proceedings a year, many of them fathers seeking reasonable contact with their children. A common outcome is permanent severance.”  With family Court welfare services providing under-trained personnel to evaluate and report on the welfare of children “Normal family men are routinely assessed as unfit to have significant contact with their children; normal children are routinely sentenced to years of ‘relationship-building programme[s]’ to condition them to withstand visits from ordinary Dads.” [5]

The patterns of bias vary from country to country with a trail of injustice due to poor judges, out-dated court procedures and corrupt agencies. Many fathers rightly cry foul and highlight the shared parenting concept that is constantly under attack by the blight of many in the feminist movement who consider fathers secondary to the mothering principle and inherently untrustworthy. At the same time, the shared parenting concept as well as parental alienation is of little value if one of those parents – male or female – is a closet molester or covert narcissist. The systems are not only ill-equipped to deal with the subtleties and nuances of lengthy custody battles and child abuse cases but bureaucratic delays mean that judges are often forced to speed up the process rather than let the case proceed in a measured way. In the words of one Colorado attorney: “If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today.” [6] However, there is much more to this than just a back-log of paper work. Fathers, mothers and children’s misery is being used as a means to make a lot of money. Breaking up families was never more lucractive.

In Kristen Lombardi’s award-winning article “Custodians of Abuse” she researched the background behind family court custody battles, interviewing almost 25 experts in custody litigation. Lombardi offered some enlightening reasons as to why these courts are failing children and parents, contributing to a further layer of what amounts to long-term, state-sponsored emotional abuse. [7] She found that family courts: “… do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims, but family advocates called guardians Ad Litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys.” [8]

Ad items they have their own individual areas of expertise which do not however, qualify them to act as evaluators of the highly sensitive problem of child abuse. With the spread of Kinseyian sexology and psychoanalysis as the platform for most evaluations, the interviews, assessments and judgments are routinely carried out without the necessary qualifications. What is more, cultural bias is frequently operating where the gender of the alleged victim – parent and/or child – is crucial to the final judgement.

public domain-girl-railroadtracks-walking-1Family courts are now a law unto themselves. Judges can operate as mini-dictators where their opinions, beliefs, and gender bias (towards male or female) take precedent over the evidence. This has shown to be true in case after case, including “judges…hold [ing] hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings violate basic constitutional rights of due process.” [9]  The courts do not have juries nor a mandated legal representation, so that the law for the rich imposes another law for the poor, reinforced by the inner circle of Establishment opinion that is intentionally set up to serve itself.

The American Judges Association confirmed findings from its 1996 report:  “Domestic Violence and the Courtroom,” which showed that “wife batterers and child molesters convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are ‘unfit’ or ‘undeserving’ of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles.” [10] What is seldom mentioned is the fact that when there was a fight over the children, “…fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse…” [11]

However, the data is sparse indeed on the presence of pathological narcissism and Munchausen By Proxy which is very much the province of the female. We can see how variable the data really is from country to country – even state to state. Statistics change for domestic violence as opposed to straight divorce cases.

Another study by respected social scientist Murray A. Straus, appears to show that “Family conflict studies, without exception, show about equal rates of assault by men and women.” (Keep in mind that there is considerable discrepancy as to what constitutes “violence.”) Straus mentions that though women score highly on physical violence: “Crime studies, without exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often 90 percent by men.”[12] This may account for the quote that “every 15 seconds a woman is battered by their [intimate] partner in the United States.”[13] The latter conclusion needs to be kept in mind that the crime of assault against women is overwhelmingly the province of the male.

Conversely, the extent of husband battery is thought to be hugely underestimated. Men do not usually report their violent wives to police; similarly, children do not report their violent mothers to police. Meantime, women are far more likely to report men to relevant authorities. Straus believes that: “…neither side can give up their position because it would be tantamount to giving up deeply held moral commitments and professional roles. I conclude that society needs both perspectives. Neither side should give up their perspective. Rather they should recognize the circumstances to which each applies.”[14]

Easy to say but how to apply?

predatorclouds2

The Predator’s System

A “medicalisation” of the law can also be personified in the form of “interactional assessment” which uses intense observation by experts who are trained to look for signs of abuse. While working well in a classroom for a variety of different criteria, it is still an entirely unproven method of evaluation. Despite this, it is still widely used in the courts.

Advocates of this method believe: “validation of the abuse does not depend on the verbal disclosure of the child, confession of the perpetrator, or the conviction of the other parent that abuse has occurred. It depends on gathering and sifting through information from multiple sources.” [15] This represents a massive oversimplification and assumption regarding assessments of this kind. There is no evidence either way that behaviour cues can be used to determine whether abuse happened. Subtle signs of anxiety can be attributed to a host of different reasons, not least being present at the interview itself and most certainly being present in a courtroom.

The existence of such psychiatric and legalistic onslaughts has caused countless children to become easy targets for further manipulations leading to another layer of emotional trauma. Why would the child molester – male or female – worry about going to court when s/he has so much confusion circulating? In his domain, he is the master actor and manipulator, leading a double life and relying on the trauma-induced child he abused to complete the proceedings. After all, if he can be in the same courtroom as the victim – all the better. He can intimidate the child further and induce yet more trauma, causing the testimony to be less than believable. This is the psychological legacy of the last 50 years – which children are simply fabricating, that they should indeed be “seen but not heard.”

One specific book singing the praises of interactional assessment illustrates techniques including anatomical dolls and drawings to use as useful tools with no data or evidence to suggest that these techniques are even helpful. There are several drawings which the authors interpret as “signs,” of abuse such as missing ears, the absence of feet, and phallic shapes. References are sparse. Case histories can be interpreted a multitude of ways serving as a perfect example of how easily evaluations, with no proven record of efficacy, can lead to catastrophe despite the best of intentions. Meanwhile, the abuser – along with his lawyer – is laughing all the way to the bank. With naive theories and Faustian bargains made by lawyers who routinely pimp their principles for whoever pays the most, the attorney client privilege takes up the slack and banishes any other compelling evidence that may be offered.

At the same time, psychotherapy as a once useful tool in the hands of responsible professionals is under attack from the US government. A colleague of psychiatrist Corey Hammond and co-author of Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, Professor Alan Scheflin of Santa Clara University Law School is an expert on clinical and experimental research on hypnosis, memory and trauma treatment and their applications to the law system. In a recent interview he talked about the changing climate of psychotherapy and trauma assessment, where therapists are clearly being used in ways that undermine children’s’ best interests.  Third party liability suits brought against therapists and the invasion of privacy and the autonomy of the therapist-patient relationship are some of the changes imposed by business and government.

Scheflin explains:

A scheme in which physicians exercise principal control over decisions about the use of facilities, choice of treatment and determining what information should be disseminated to patients, has given way to a system in which competition and cost containment have become dividing forces, driving forces. Insurers and other large business entities exert great impact over treatment choices and hospitalization as well as selection of providers. […]

Unfortunately other professions and the uninformed have now stepped in to determine the standard of care. The standard of care being a legal standard is informed by good medical practice, but by being a legal standard, it can be manipulated by lawyers and propagandists and other people, and that is what has happened.

Therefore it is necessary for the mental health profession to wrest back control of the standard of care from the avaricious lawyers that are in the process of changing it. [16]

Psychotherapy is either co-opted or the therapists themselves are seduced by payments and propaganda. The law was never about who is innocent or guilty but the profits that can be extracted from the bloody battles that follow. On many occasions the “discourse of disbelief” and from psychologists with poorly applied evaluation techniques or False Memory Syndrome advocates of psychiatry are enough to allow children to go home with their abuser. The following case study illustrates this point.

Picture a wealthy businessman, accused by his wife of committing sexual abuse against his four year old daughter. These become the grounds for a lengthy custody battle. Psychological evaluations of the man’s relationship towards his daughter show: “…a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.” A history of sexual abuse is known by the psychologist but dismissed as irrelevant in court due to the man’s obvious disposition; his charm, amiability and more importantly – his status.

predatorbuys

Power buys influence – truth is secondary | © infrakshun

While the court case is proceeding, the polygrapher with an excellent record enters the picture and is requested by the attorney defending the man, convinced as he is that his client is innocent. This highly professional and experienced polygrapher describes the details of the accuser’s confessions during the test:

She grabs his penis while he washes her in the shower and he has explained to her what a man does with it. When questioned further about how often this happens, he said about three or four times a week. When asked to give a high figure regarding the number of times that Julie has touched his penis he said about twenty times… […] He also acknowledges erections and masturbations in the showers while Julie is in the shower with him….Her father stated that he sleeps nude and stated that Julie likes to cuddle. He stated he likes to run her foot up and down his penis until he gets an erection and sometimes ‘things happen.’ […] He stated that she ‘loves’ to orgasm. ‘I’ll get her a vibrator. She’ll hold the handle against her peepee and giggle until she climaxes.’ [17]

Remember, this is a four year old girl.

The report by the polygrapher continues to relay the man’s inability to contain his excitement to the extent that he finally admits to severe child abuse. In fact, he can’t stop relating his exploits, confirming the pattern of the psychopath’s need for self-aggrandizement through communicating his “successes.” He knows his money and influence will protect him and that his self-assurance regarding the mechanisms of the law will allow him to get away with such audacious confessions such as the following: “She has licked and sucked his penis no more than five times, has given him two full ‘blow jobs.’ He has ‘69ed’ her. He has licked her vagina and has performed oral sex on her not more than ten times.” [18]

The polygrapher faxes the report to the attorney acting for the father but to no avail. The attorney-client privilege is enacted and the report suppressed.  The “audacity” is actually an utter self-confidence in the duplicity of the system. The custody battle ends in the man’s favour and an admitted child molester is recommended for full custody.

How could such a travesty take place?

The man was a wealthy businessman who used the exact same skills of manipulation and ruthlessness which allowed him to gain a substantial footing in the commercial world. A personification of our economic and corporate model. This afforded him the best attorney in town, supplanting the mother’s meagre attempts to find a similar worthy opponent to defend her child’s interests. Coupled with biased psychological evaluations and the ignorance of the nature of the psychopath, the child never had a chance. The spellbinding techniques of the man were so effective that the whole courtroom was captured in his thrall. This man could never have abused the child! The attorney reminded the judge and jury that there was a man of standing and impeccable character before them, and psychiatrists provided the pseudo-psychology for him to get away with it.

Now reverse the scenario with a feminine vampire/narcissist using the cultural advantage and female pity-me ploy which also works wonders with a jury. Both occur and the courts facilitate these manipulations. The possibilities for pathological narcissists, child rapists and paedophiles from each gender to pull the wool over the eyes of those with conscience has never been easier in a legal system that is loaded towards the desires of the psychopath.

The late psychiatrist Ralph Underwager was likely the leading US scholar on child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990’s. He wrote extensively about the over protection issue and anti-sexuality climate in the States. The essence of Underwager’s argument was however undermined by his actions. He represented an expensive resource for often high-level predators seeking to buy their way out of abuse, though courts have rejected his testimony on more than one occasion. This has been on the basis of the doctor’s unsubstantiated and clinically unproven sources and methods (such as learned memory) that serve to underline his belief that “90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong.”

While Underwager’s writings do have much validity in addressing the anti-sexuality present in Christian America, his defence of paedophiles undoubtedly acted against children. As discussed, there are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists present who continue to blur the lines. Jim Peters, a senior attorney for the National Centre for the Prosecution of Child Abuse who investigated Underwager in the late 1980s believes that such psychiatrists present themselves as scientific observers, when more often than they are advocates for abuse inside and outside the courtroom. [19]

In 2005, an appellate level court in New York was the first to recognize the debate within the mental health community over whether “it is ethically proper” to give opinions on the best interests of the child when there is no empirical base to support them.” So said Matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor, Timothy Tippins. The article continued:

 “Psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents. Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child’s best interest.” [20]

Psychopaths can attune to everyone’s ideal hero. The pervasive adulation which is afforded to the charismatic spellbinder in our societies allows the predator to slip between our shadows unnoticed. Children disappear in plain sight in exactly this way. There, behind closed doors they are abused and scarred for life with the blessing of family courts.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Doctors ‘fear child abuse cases’ BBC News, 5 January 2006.
[2] National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) – males actually commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group, yet the statistics suggest that losing a job and divorce are the most frequent cause.
[3] Quoted from ‘Distraught Father’s Courthouse Suicide Highlights America’s Male Suicide Epidemic.’ By Glenn Sacks, San Diego Union-Tribune, 11 January, 2002.
[4] Children First Dept. Of Social Security, UK Government, 1998.
[5] Public Eye.Website of Political Research Associates, June 1989.
[6] ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.
[7] ‘Custodians of Abuse’ by Kristen Lombardi’s The Boston Phoenix, Jan.9-16, 2003. This is required reading for anyone wishing to gain an insight into the nature of abuse, in this case from women’s perspective in the courts.
[8]  Ibid.
[9]  Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological Theoretical and Sociology of Science Analysis’ by Murray A. Straus. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 1998.
[13] United Nations State of the World Report, 2000.
[14] op. cit. Straus.
[15] Children Speak for Themselves: Using the Kempe Interactional Assessment to Evaluate Allegations of Parent-Child Sexual Abuse by Clare Haynes-Seman and David Baumgarten Published by Brunner/Mazel, Inc., 1994 (pp. 33-34) ISBN: 0876307454.
[16] From the Presentation entitled: Risk Management in Dissociative Disorder and Trauma Therapy by Professor Alan Scheflin given at the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD) and International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) conferences at a joint session in Montreal on November 9, 1997.
[17] op. cit. Salter (p. 18-19)
[18] Ibid.
[19] ‘Witness for Mr. Bubbles’ Transcribed from “Australia 60 Minutes,” Channel Nine Network (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia) produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro.
[20] ‘Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions’ By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, 2005.

Cartel Economics III

“They made a wasteland and called it peace.”

– Tacitus, Roman historian


So, where are we today?

As financial commentator Hans Schicht has described from his experiences of working with power-brokers in international commerce, he believes that the banking systems have become so centralised and concentrated that it is now under the control of “an inner circle of men.” He calls their financial warfare “spider webbing” where the concentration of wealth is made invisible; control is consolidated through “take-overs, mergers and chain share holdings where no companies hold shares of other companies” and where “conditions annexed to loans.” They also exercise: “tight personal management and control with a minimum of insiders of front men who themselves have only a partial knowledge of the game.” [1]

All this amounts to a vast system of unregulated and corrupt “shadow banking” which has no relationship to the kind of monetary system that is reported on mainstream news or the everyday lives of ordinary people. Its only relationship is to accrue maximum amounts of money at great qualitative cost – in all senses of the word – to societies.  A CNBC / Reuters report stated that such shadow banking “… grew to a new high of $67 trillion globally ” in 2011 and that it is “set to thrive” according to a study by a top regulatory group the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The study’s outlook was bleak and called for tighter regulatory measures on global banking.

It further observed:

“… shadow banking around the world more than doubled to $62 trillion in the five years to 2007 before the crisis struck. But the size of the total system had grown to $67 trillion in 2011 — more than the total economic output of all the countries in the study. The multitrillion-dollar activities of hedge funds and private equity companies are often cited as examples of shadow banking. But the term also covers investment funds, money market funds and even cash-rich firms that lend government bonds to banks, which in turn use them as security when taking credit from the European Central Bank. The United States had the largest shadow banking system, said the FSB, with assets of $23 trillion in 2011, followed by the euro area — with $22 trillion — and the United Kingdom — at $9 trillion.” [2]

That’s about $10,000 for every man, woman, and child on the planet.

The apex of those designs can be seen today in the disaster of deregulation and financial warfare that has characterised the last two decades culminating in the financial crash of 2008 the continuance of the same dynamic has been manipulated to achieve a greater global centralisation and concentration of power. The perceptions of the few remain the same today as they did in 1900. Innate pathology doesn’t change.

After the onset of the 2008 financial crisis European countries hit hardest saw an unprecedented upsurge in suicide rates and anti-depressant prescriptions. Greece’s health ministry recorded a 40 per cent rise in suicides in early 2010. By 2011, figures reached 25 per cent in Athens and 18 per cent nationwide. The New York Times reported that suicides caused by economic difficulties have increased by 52 per cent at 187 in 2010 up from 123 in 2005. Parallel to the misery of ordinary people, the Guardian reported that “… salaries of executives in FTSE 100 companies have risen by 4,000 % compared to 300 % for their employees” which means that: “An average pay rise of 50% in 2010 took the annual earnings of the directors of Britain’s FTSE 100 companies to £2.7 million each: over 100 times the national average.” [3]

If we are to address the Official Culture view of economics in the world and the cessation of endless cycles of boom and bust and all the social and psychological fallout from such financial terrorism mandated as “normal” we must begin to de-fang the institutions for whom debt slavery of the masses is vital to their continuing hold on a wide variety of power bases. Change the very concept of money and how it is channelled and you change the core of corruption.

As the aforementioned HSBC bank becomes the latest in a long line of international banks to be fined a record $1.9 billion dollars by regulators, this time for money laundering, a fine which amounted to 1 percent of its profits over ten years. [4] But again, there is something deeply unsettling for us all to realise that our present global banking system is entirely compromised and enmeshed with an overworld of institutional corruption that is ubiquitous as it is endemic. This was clearly illustrated when Senator Elizabeth Warren during Senate testimony in 2012 grilled the so-called “experts” in money laundering which included David Cohen, Sec. for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Treasury; Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Federal Reserve System. Their responses were less than edifying. In fact, they were so slippery that it does make one wonder if they didn’t have their hands in the HSBC cookie jar themselves.

Here’s what Ms. Warren asked them:

“… in December, HSBC admitted to money laundering. To laundering $881 million that we know of for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. And also admitted to violating our sanctions for Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma, the Sudan. And they didn’t do it just one time. It wasn’t like a mistake. They did it over and over and over again across a period of years. And they were caught doing it. Warned not to do it. And kept right on doing it. And evidently making profits doing it.

Now HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial. No individual was banned from banking. And there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States. So what I’d like is, you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like your opinion. What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”

A very reasonable question which remained unanswered amid obvious uncomfortable squirming from the panel. They gave no view and were clearly intent of covering their behinds which frustrated the Senator who was at loss to understand why.

Before her time was up she delivered this statement to the men and an analogy which all but the most dim-witted could understand:

So what you’re saying to me is you are responsible for these banks, and again, I read your testimony and you talk about the importance of vigorous enforcement here. But you’re telling me you have no view when it’s appropriate to consider even a hearing to raise the question of whether or not these banks should have to close their operations when they engage in money laundering for drug cartels?  I understand that I’m over my time.  And I’ll just say here, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail.  If it happens repeatedly you may go to jail for the rest of your life.  But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.  Every single individual associated with this.  I just, I think that’s fundamentally wrong.

And so do most people capable of thinking critically who value even the most basic idea of a moral code. That being so, with such “experts” overseeing corruption in plain sight and being incapable of taking the action needed, it seems unlikely that the financial architecture will change unless it is drastically dismantled by forces outside of the system.

The overworld of defence and weapons manufacturing is fully entwined with truly huge amounts of missing cash funnelled to deep black operations along a legion of outsourced agencies. The public record is bad enough. Author and peace activist David Swanson offered some research on US Dept. of Defence spending and found a total of $32 trillion since 1948; another $780 billion on war expenditure from 1946-7 along with extra funding for Nuclear weapons (DOE) reaching $1.7 – 3 trillion; V.A.: $1.3 to 2.5 trillion and other departments at $1 to 2 trillion…Let’s add the total amount of bailout money that has actually been spent, invested, or loaned to corporations, banks and bank-related companies in the United States. As of October 2013, the online watchdog journal propublica.org lists the “State of the Bailout” at the princely sum of $608 billion.[5]

You get some idea that truly gargantuan sums of cash have been devoted to the business of war and banking cartels that thrive on the continuance of death and suffering.

The rise of technocracy and financial computation is as experimentally challenging as the military technophilia that seeks new and ingenious ways to exploit the distorted panoply of human desire. Within the complex bed of global price-fixing HFT (high-frequency trading) systems are operating and evolving at faster speeds and according to one former HF trader writing for the Association for Computing Machinery: “… a big Wall Street trader is more likely to have a Ph.D from Caltech or MIT than an MBA from Harvard or Yale.” Automated trading is set to take the cartel capitalism into new levels of hyper-speculation as it continues to mine the gold out of the teeth of the poor. UK transactions have reached 77 percent while it is slightly lower at 73 percent in the U.S. market. Automation of the traders parallels the dissociation and disconnection from human values and responsibility as one finds with drone operators sitting behind their assigned lap top console.

Just as they click their way through the blurred line between civilian and insurgent deaths thousands of miles away, so too the speculator punches a key in his custom built software and executes a buy and sell in 740 nanoseconds (0.00074 milliseconds). This action contributes to the ebb and flow of poverty and corporate profit which has an equal dividend in the profit to poverty ratios.

 

See also: Why Real Reform Is Now Impossible By Charles Hugh-Smith

 


Notes

[1] Quoted from the introduction to Ellen Hodgson Brown’s The Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth about our Money and How We Can Break Free. Published by Third millennium Press 2007 updated 2008. | ISBN 978-0-19139795608-2-8.
[2] ‘’Shadow Banking’ Still Thrives, System Hits $67 Trillion’ November 18, 2012, CNBC/Reuters, http://www.cnbc.com/id/49877573
[3] ‘One-per-cent-wealth-destroyers’ By George Monbiot, The Guardian November 7, 2011.| ‘Britains fat cats get the cream as salaries surge by 4000 for top execs’ http://www.Metro.co.uk
[4] ‘HSBC to pay record $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money laundering case’ By Carrick Mollenkamp and Brett Wolf, Reuters Dec 11, 2012.
[5] comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY14_Green_Book.pdf