Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:30 pm
Smashing neocons
Joined: Jan 9th, 2007 Posts: 1921
Saturday, January 30, 2010 Proof that the Australian Government Is Mirroring Nazi Racism, Which in Turn Has Its Roots in Judaism Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Proof that the Australian Government is mirroring Nazi racism, and that the Jews are racists as a religious group, comes from the Nuremberg trials, where Julius Streicher affirmed that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were patterned after racist religious Jewish Law which is the basis of Nazism,
"Yes, I believe I had a part in it insofar as for years I have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for themselves—the law of Moses, which says, 'If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.' And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished."--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 315.
Dr. Marx asked Julius Streicher,
"Were you of the opinion that the 1935 legislation represented the final solution of the Jewish question by the State?"--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.
Streicher responded that Zionism was the final solution of the Jewish question,
"With reservations, yes. I was convinced that if the Party program was carried out, the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews became German citizens in 1848. Their rights as citizens were taken from them by these laws. Sexual intercourse was prohibited. For me, this represented the solution of the Jewish problem in Germany. But I believed that another international solution would still be found, and that some day discussions would take place between the various states with regard to the demands made by Zionism. These demands aimed at a Jewish state."--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.
The full text is available on many reputable websites, including:
I can easily demonstrate the absurdity and illegality of the charges against Brendon O'Connell with a simple analogy.
Assume that a person X is charged with plotting to commit "battery" against another person Y, because X was recorded saying to a third person Z,
"Let's give Y a battery for the flashlight he took from me."
Assume that the government then charged X with conspiring to beat Y, in retaliation for the fact that Y took X's flashlight, and the prosecution then asked the court to determine that the definition of "battery" is the statutory definition,
"To beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm."
Imagine then that the prosecuting officials rejected the fact that "battery" can also mean,
"An electrical device to store charge."
And that the government charged X even though the plain meaning of X's statement depends upon the definition that "battery" mean "an electrical device to store charge" and X always maintained that is what he meant by the word "battery".
Can you imagine what would happen to X if the court ruled that "battery" cannot be a term used to describe an electrical device for storing charge, and barred X from employing that definition at trial, limiting all parties and the jury to defining "battery" as if exclusively, "to beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm"? Such would be plain error, and a gross abuse of X's due process rights to raise a legitimate defense and argue his case.
posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 11:06 AM
_________________ Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.
Drew J
Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:32 pm
Smashing neocons
Joined: Jan 9th, 2007 Posts: 1921
Tuesday, February 02, 2010 The Brendon O'Connell Case: Sentenced to Death for Chewing Gum? Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In order for an indictment to be a legal accusation based upon probable cause and made in good faith, it must at a minimum allege that an offense has occurred, specify the alleged offense with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to prepare and assert a defense, and establish each and every element of the alleged offense. Consider the following quotation of jury instructions which names the four elements of first degree murder:
"Murder in the first degree is the wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing of a human being. Malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation, these four things, must co-exist before a defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree. And the burden is upon the State of Alabama in this case to convince you gentlemen of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that these four elements did co-exist before the defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree, the highest degree of unlawful homicide."--Ala. Code, tit. 14, §§ 314-20 (1958 recomp.) (repealed): http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain ... urymur.htm
An indictment alleging murder in the first degree must, at a minimum, allege that a human being has been killed, that the accused caused the death, and that the accused did so with malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation. An allegation which fails to allege each and every one of these elements, fails to allege the crime of murder in the first degree.
Not only must the government allege each and every element of the offense being alleged, the government must also prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the accusation. However, where no elements are alleged, the jury will not be asked to determine if the elements which were not alleged in fact occurred. Therein lies the danger of an insubstantial accusation. A person can be convicted and sentenced based upon conduct that is entirely legal.
Assume that the government issued an indictment which stated,
"Person X commited murder in the first degree in violation of Statute 10001 of the Looneyland Criminal Code; in that he chewed bubble gum."
The government could issue such an indictment despite the fact that it is obviously fatally defective on its face due to its failure to allege that a crime has been committed. Nevertheless, if defendant X failed to object to the indictment and demand that it be dismissed on the grounds that it failed to allege an offense and all of the elements of the offense, the defendant could be tried, and the government would need only prove what it had alleged, that the defendant chewed bubble gum, in order for the defendant to be found guilty and sentenced to death. An innocent man who fails to defend himself from an illegal charge that fails to state that a crime has been committed can conceivably be executed if the government simply proves what it has alleged.
There are, of course, remedies and rights to prevent such an occurrence. The defendant has the right to have the indictment dismissed before trial. The defendant has the right to demand specific jury instructions which require the jury to find as fact that all of the elements of the offense in fact occurred. The defendant has the right to claim innocence at trial that despite the fact that the allegation is factually correct, it fails to allege that a crime has occurred. After the trial, if convicted, the defendant has the right to move to quash the conviction on the basis that no crime was proven. Then, the defendant has the right to appeal.
However, how many Pro Se defendants know these rights and requirements under the law and know how to exercise them? Very, very, few, I suspect. So it is possible that a man could be sentenced to death for chewing bubble gum.
An indictment for "racial vilification" must allege all of the elements of the alleged offense and in so doing: specify the exact language of the alleged "vilification" and explain how it constitutes "vilification" and how it constitutes the "vilification" of a "racial" trait; allege that the accused believed the "vilification" to be false statements; allege that the defendant did not intend to forward the public interest by making the alleged "vilification"; allege that the defendant believed the group allegedly "vilified" is a "race" as defined by the statute; demonstrate that the group allegedly "vilified" is a racial group under the letter of the law; allege that the law provided the defendant with notice that the "vilified" group is a "race"; allege that the defendant intended to "vilify" what the defendant believed to be a "race"; allege that the defendant had no legal right to make the statements he is accused of having made; allege that the alleged "vilification" in fact plainly vilified the "race", was heard in public and was meant to be heard in public; allege that the "vilification" was unambiguous and could only be interpreted by a reasonable man as the "vilification" of a "race"; etc. etc. etc.
Of course, no such lawful indictment could be had alleging that a person, believing his statements to be true and in the public interest, made a valid and accurate critique of religious beliefs; because such conduct violates no laws, is not an offense and does not constitute a crime. Any such fatally flawed indictment must be dismissed at the earliest possible date so as to end the illegal harassment of the wrongfully accused; and, where the court refuses to dismiss such a fatally defective indictment, and society suffers the suppression of public debate on a matter of public interest as a result, the denial of the motion to dismiss ought to be appealable directly and immediately to the highest court as a matter of substantial, pressing and urgent public interest.
posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 1:41 PM
_________________ Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.
Drew J
Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:37 pm
Smashing neocons
Joined: Jan 9th, 2007 Posts: 1921
Three blog entries in one day folks.
Monday, February 15, 2010 On the Free Exercise of a Defendant's Rights Without Any Fear of Retaliation By the State
In America, a defendant charged with a crime is free to exercise his rights without any fear that the State will retaliate against him by filing additional and/or more serious charges against him. Should the defendant exercise a right, such as filing a motion to dismiss, and the State then subsequently files additional and/or more serious charges against the defendant, then the State will be guilty of illegal "vindictive prosecution" and all the charges must be dismissed due to the violation of the defendant's due process right to exercise all of his rights without fear of retaliation by the State.
This is a fundamental principle of law, for when the exercise of one's rights carries with it the threat of retaliation, then there are no rights, only invitations to disaster.
posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 8:44 AM
On the Jurisdiction of the Trial Court Over Evidence to Be Used at Trial
In America, the trial court has the jurisdiction to order subpoenas and other orders necessary to the defense so that the defendant can acquire and/or secure the integrity and preservation of evidence he intends to use in his defense at trial. Any denial of its jurisdiction over such matters by the court so as to deny the defendant his rights to obtain and/or secure evidence in his favor is a violation of the defendant's due process rights which prevents him from obtaining a fair trial and which obstructs justice and which contributes to the obstruction of justice, such that it is grounds for the dismissal of the indictment against the defendant.
The Brendon O'Connell case involves two separate issues, one of which must be determined by the Judge, and one of which comes solely under the discretion of the Jury.
Pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it fails to allege an offense, the Judge must determine whether or not the LAW states that the Jews are a race, and only a race, with sufficient clarity to inform the public, and provide the public with legal notice, that the LAW considers the Jews to be race and only a race.
The question of whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race, and can only be considered a race, and cannot be considered a religious group, and whether or not Brendon O'Connell intended the term "Jews" to mean a race, or instead a religious group, are questions of FACT which must be, and which can only be determined by the Jury.
There is an all important distinction between determining whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race, and only a race, for the purposes of the determining the sufficiency of the indictment pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss; and the entirely separate question of determining whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race and/or can be considered a religious group for the purposes of determining O'Connell's guilt or innocence at trial.
The court has the authority to determine if the charges are legally sufficient to proceed, which will involve the question of whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race. However, the questions of whether or not the Jews can be considered a race, and whether or not the Jews can be considered a religious group, are also questions of FACT for the Jury to decide when considering guilt or innocence based upon the FACTS of the case.
The Judge only has the lawful authority to determine whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race and only a race with sufficient clarity to provide the public with notice that it is illegal to criticize the Jews. The Judge does not have the lawful authority to determine whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race.
The Jury has sole jurisdiction over questions of FACT, such that whatever the Judge rules regarding the LAW in relation to a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment for its failure to allege an offense, the Jury must still determine, and has the sole discretion to determine, whether or not Jews are IN FACT a race, and whether or not the term "Jews" can instead, exclusively or also refer to a religious group, and whether or not O'Connell intended to refer to a race or a religious group when making the alleged statements.
The Judge is only lawfully authorized to determine whether or not the LAW unequivocally states that Jews are a race and if the LAW states that the term can only be applied to a race. The question of FACT remains; and the LAW, if it states that the Jews are a race and only a race, is in error IN FACT and the Jury is entitled to rule on that issue, though I do not believe that the LAW anywhere states that the Jews are a race and only a race. Nor does the LAW anywhere define "race" with sufficient precision to unambiguously inform the public that the LAW states that Jews are a race and only a race.
posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 7:57 AM
_________________ Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.
Liszt
Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:06 pm
Smashing neocons
Joined: Jan 9th, 2007 Posts: 1921
Bjerknes is the only one in the blog world talking about this case. Not even Eric Hufschmid is talking about him. Hufschmid said BOC is either a plant or an idiot. Whatever. Hufschmid also said Zundel was a Zionist agent. Bullshit. But he was right about David Irving and Mark Weber being controlled opposition. Even the Jesuit bashers know about Jews infiltrating and running revisionist networks sometimes.
Sounds a lot like the matter will be dismissed due to the "adverse media publicity"
that this case has generated due to great people like yourselves keeping it a hot topic.
WHO is Brendon O Connell anyway?
The 'Friends of Palestine' Group in Western Australia who are the legitimate Protest group supporting Palestine distanced themselves when they realised he's not just exposing Judaism, he genuinely calls for mass slaughtering them.
Something a genuine Anti-Zionist would agree is just not a good way to protest. Something I CANNOT condone either.
With this in mind.... CONSIDER that O'Connell has also abused and threatened all the local other ACTIVE Anti Zionists in his hometown, including:
How do I know this? Because he has also personally threatened to pay me a visit with his video camera:
Does that HONESTLY sound like a genuine truthseeker?
He and his rent-a-clowns seem to have a fixation with calling EVERY zionist researcher whom questions his motives a JEW-SHILL.... including myself, James Linton and RabbitNexus. (Both of whom I have met and trust implicitly).
The rent-a-clowns whom are behind Brendon and supporting him all the way through this are 2 rejects calling themselves FugaziQuo.
THEY THEMSELVES have an interesting banner on their webpage:
THINK HARD ABOUT what Brendons' agenda really is when viewing this banner of his good friends and associates.
PRO-WAR??? PRO-DECEPTIOn??? 4th Reich of ZION?
These are the brainless twits currently running Brendons blogspot whilst he is in an undisclosed location keeping quiet during this trial period.
As far as Brendons concerned... I have asked him for an interview many times, yet he always declines. Instead calling me a Jew Shill all because I initially questioned his suspicious motives from day 1 from his first fruits video. Since then, I have often wondered WHAT EXACTLY is his motive. If his motive was honourable and for the benefit of exposing the criminal zionists he would NOT be behaving this way to all his fellow researchers.
In fact all the local researchers and Palestine protest groups have questioned his glory seeking attention whoring motive. Whilst it is indeed good to get this subject into mainstream media. Such outrageous calling for mass extermination of JEWS publicly WILL ONLY EVER get protest groups against Israel BANNED, and will harm the legitimate right to protest.
CONCLUSION:
I personally think he's not one of us. people.
Drew J
Post subject: Re: The Zionists in Australia Are Going After Brendon O Connell
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:58 am
Smashing neocons
Joined: Jan 9th, 2007 Posts: 1921
Takeourworldback is a Zionist operation. The owner is a Jew.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
