59 Comments
Mar 28Liked by Jim Davidson

Upchuck has no say in the judiciary of Britain, Australia or America. That is firmly under the control of the Temple B.A.R., conveniently situated in the independent City of London.

It is the power of Roman law which holds Assange in prison.

We hear a lot about the 'Rule of Law', don't we? But who actually knows what that phrase really means?

I attempted to unravel it and came across an alarming extract from a book which throws light on where the buck really stops.

https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean

I concluded that a Roman Empire Mk 2 rules the world via its grip on 5 slave colonies and I explained how that operates here:

https://francesleader.substack.com/p/five-slave-nations

The final paragraph of which is:

"We have no choice but to unite all 5 Eyes nations to DEMAND an end to the independence of the corporate Crown, the City of London, its Temple B.A.R. (British Accreditation Registry) and consequent parasitic corporate empire which destroys lives globally and gives the British people a very bad reputation by blatantly stealing our country, misusing our name and inciting hatred against us worldwide."

Hope that helps to shine a light on the exit.

Expand full comment
author

You are, of course, absolutely correct about the legal theory that pertains to the criminal usurpation of power throughout the kingdom in question. However, it is also true that the "king" has his own Coldstream Guards and other household troops and if he actually had a pair of testicles not residing in the formaldehyde potions of Camilla he could order his troops to remove Julian from Belmarsh prison and set him free in one of the palaces. Whether there would be questions in parliament or not, I don't actually care. It's meant as an exercise in hypotheticals, and since it would involve upChuck being an actual human male, we can dismiss it out of hand. But a person can dream. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp," noted a poet, "or what's a heaven for?"

Expand full comment

🤣😂 "testicles not residing in the formaldehyde potions of Camilla" ... oh no! Too funny an image! 🤣😂

Expand full comment
Mar 29·edited Mar 29

He not only "could," he has a constitutional duty under his Coronation Oath to govern in compliance with "the laws and customs of the people," which have their origins in the ancient Usages of Britain, which grew out of the laws of Troy and Ancient Greece. The Usages of Britain could not be altered by any act or edict of the Crown or National Con- vention. They were considered the inalienable rights to which every Briton was born and of which no human legislation could deprive him. It would not be difficult to argue that the detention of Assange is contrary to both law and custom; but our heritage has been hidden, subverted and largely forgotten. It's time for us to start remembering!

Expand full comment

Amen. How long, Oh lord ......

Free Julian Assange!

Far to long have the complacent

masses ignored the torture of an unconvicted innocent peoples champion, while far lesser men become insanely rich and are voted in rigged elections, luciferians that steal, destroy and murder roam the streets

Other great men like John McAfee have murdered in cold blood, without justice, for opposing these NWO satanists and the despotist agenda.

May God hear our hearts and prayers, and set this man free.

Justice for All.

Amen.

Expand full comment
author

Amen

Expand full comment

Time to free truth tellers so we can get back to enjoying our free country.

Expand full comment
author

Amen.

Expand full comment

God wants our attention! I concur. We must acknowledge GOD, and we must pray... "The Way of the Cross leads Home."

Expand full comment
author

Amen.

Expand full comment

I no longer trust Stella, formerly Sara Gonzalez Devant, or much about this awful spectacle.

God bless Julian :-(

Expand full comment

Assange has been an intelligence asset since 1991 when he was convicted of causing $100K of damage by hacking into Nortel. He was told he was looking at at least 10 years in jail. He was set free with a small fine.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/no-secrets

Expand full comment

Your smear has no foundation in reality. Certainly not in the wonderful article you chose to link here That would suggest that either YOU are an intelligence asset or you have been influenced by one

Expand full comment

The idea that the New York Times (CIA) or The Guardian (MI6) would publish material damaging to the United States is pretty much insane. That's why there's a large divide between researchers, none of whom believe in Wikileaks and petit bourgeois show offs like Craig Murray, Rodger Waters, Chris Hedges.

Expand full comment

Really? I am fond of those three gentlemen. Does that mean I am a substandard researcher? Or does it mean that I have respect for anyone who raises difficult issues?

Expand full comment

Craig Murray is a numpty who dumped his wife and two children for an Uzbek belly dancer he was paying to have sex with him. She was also being paid by an American. This was revealed in a play she wrote, staged in London.

Also a rabid English SNP supporter despite them rejecting him as a candidate. Now claiming to be a socialist in the Workers Party of Britain (George Galloway).

There's a lot more.

Expand full comment

lmfao! You mean to tell me that you don't recognise the sexual honey-trap event and subsequent exposure that the CIA and MI5 or MI6 pull to silence their critics? Sounds like Craig Murray was a good guy being given 'the treatment' - didn't he spend time in jail recently?

You are sounding more and more like the 'intelligence asset' here.... a lot more.

Expand full comment

There was no honey trap. Craig is a daft wee boy who married the belly dancer.

Expand full comment

Yes it literally reads more like a novel than an article and is almost as long.

"Assange, facing a potential sentence of ten years in prison, found the state’s reaction confounding"

"Ultimately, he pleaded guilty to twenty-five charges and six were dropped. But at his final sentencing the judge said, “There is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what’s the expression—surf through these various computers.” Assange’s only penalty was to pay the Australian state a small sum in damages".

Expand full comment

Exactly HOW do you presume that Assange has been some sort of 'asset' because of that leniency from a judge?

My son experienced something very similar when he was young too. Serious crime but first offence and soft punishment. He is definitely not an 'intelligence asset' either.

Expand full comment

This is what he did after he was sprung by American intelligence.

‘Julian told me his graduate work had been funded by a US government grant, specifically NSA and DARPA money, which was supposed to be used for fundamental security research’.

https://www.techdirt.com/2013/09/16/us-govt-funded-julian-assanges-crypto-research-then-pulled-plug/

Expand full comment

Another article which does not do what you think it should. Assange was good with encryption. It stands to reason that he might be funded to work on it. However, according to the article the funding was withdrawn on a number of research projects at the time.

Why is it so important to you to find dirt on Assange?

Expand full comment

No intelligent person believes in Wikileaks.

Expand full comment

It is a given that any leader of the West will be well versed in the Book of Corruption, the Book of Deception, but let's not blame it on Mao, or anyone else: we are the bad example in our portion of history, and that's all we are responsible for. "Christendom" is in some contexts, even Christian contexts, pejorative: it represents the letter of the law or the manipulation, distortion of concepts and labels in order to confuse what is wrong or bad with what is right or good. It is the appearance or hi-jacking of good in the interests of evil, and therefore the worse possible kind of theft.

Expand full comment

I wouldn't say Charles is a usurper. Parliament can appoint anyone it chooses to be the lawful monarch. They have so appointed Charles. There is no doubt that Charles does not have the strongest genetic claim to the throne. There are countless people in the UK who are of more direct genetic descent from Brutus of Troy, for example; but Charles has the right to the throne because parliament gave it to him, just like parliament decided to behead Charles I, and to invite The Elector of Hanover to become George I and so on, and so on. Who will be the lawful monarch is not decided by blood alone.

Expand full comment
author

The one who chooses who is king in heaven and in the earthly realm is God the Father Almighty. The only king is Jesus. Parliament has no say in the matter.

Expand full comment

Probably the dumbest comment I’ve ever read on Substack!

Expand full comment
deletedMar 29
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Perhaps you deserve what you are getting. You might also choose to pray. Or perhaps you are satisfied with current results?

Expand full comment

Wow! Jim, you put out a lot to digest. And you do it with such conviction. I've been in a decluttering of the mind, while seeking serenity, bracing for impact stage of my life. Your clarity and conciseness are welcome. I accidently muted and don't know how to unmute when I liked your writing. A shameless act of self promotion, I suppose, to get other stuff near the top. Other stuff pertinent to my story for a possibility I have only just considered. Forgive me.

Expand full comment

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: “I feed on your energy.”

Dune Messiah, Frank Herbert

I don’t see how one could want to free one and then imprison another.

If someone cannot be trusted to be a part of society we should do what is neceſsary; therefore, good.

Either we expel them or we end their life. It is a cruel and vampiric behavior to imprison anyone.

Expand full comment
deletedMar 28
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Amen.

Expand full comment

Yes! Expect a miracle! Or, at least a “Reality Shift” where we who care and dare - are no longer infested by those WHO desire harm to life. (Isn’t that what Anti-Christ is defined as? Anti-Life?)

Expand full comment
deletedMar 28·edited Mar 28
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

They happen ! I’ve experienced them.

Imagination knows no limits.

Expand full comment