Just popping in. Its been lovely whether and my budget allows me almost unlimited cider. So I have been sipping some elegantly while I ponder what graet discoveries await me tomorrow.
But what I need to do today is to tell you what is and isnt libel.
The truth isnt libelous. Fact. Facts arent libelllous either. So thats' another fact in my favour. Keep up.
So when I say that PC Weinert is corrupt or that Colin Brooker is an incompetent thug I am not atall risk of libel proceedings. When I say that the so called judge who judged me was not competent to try me - or even a gerbil - then I am all right. When I say that she was a man I am merely misinformed by my useless lawyers. Anything derogatory I say about those incompetent fatheads is true. My complaints against my socalled lawyers are not actually being investigated, I have concluded, because it is BLATANT true what I say about them. No need for further enquiry- therefore.
But most importantly it is therefore vicious libel when other people say that I was found guilty in a court of law of an offence on the current statute book then that is libel. Vicious libel. And the fact that they are all known criminals proves that it is libel.
And when I call the Oxford Mail a libelling psycho mag ALL I am doing is expressing a valid opinion which is true and also in defence of myself. It really is that clear and the simple.
When I say that Rachel is a mentally ill psychopath who by implication has perjured herself in evidence over a bogus rape claim I am merely stating known facts, backed up solidily by my own opinions, which anyone with half a brain can check becaise they are all over the internet by now..
And when I say that the editor of the Oxford Mail is a psychopath woth menatl health issues and a criminal record this is not actionable because I really believe it and I know things.
Now conversely and by the opposite, I can sue everybody because I have NEVER APPEARED in a Court of Law and therefore anyone saying I am guilty of anything is mentally ill. Which is no defence in libel law anyway. Being me is a defence but that is for another post tomorrow, when I expose some bad people of something.
Everybody knows that when you are found guilty of something, then that guilty verdict does not apply until all appeals are lodged and heard and have produced the expected acquittal of me. Jeffrey Archer and Rosemary West and Jonathan Aitken only went to jail first becuse they had useless lawyers, unlike my present firm who are whoopy doo ace in ya face soopa doopa, free gratis and they love me and my stand for free speech for anyone wanting to trash the reputatioins of individuals, policemen, lawyers or judicial systems. Sentences don’t start till you are in jail. I am not in jail. What part of that dont you desperate loonbats grasp.
So - saying I am innocent actually proves that I am innocent and you all, all of you, are guilty.
I am very good at this legal stuff you must admit, and I will be rewriting the laws of England as my next project. After I have made cider bottle tops legal tender. Dilly dilly.
It would have been quite enough having to deal with the Special Branch PR Unit on it's own. But of course I wouldn't have had to. Exactly what Special Branch officials opposed to my research needed, was for a small pack of stalking abusers to make false allegations about me which they could massively use as a lever to discredit me. In fact, they were fairly desperate for anything to use. And The Met are attempting to do exactly this.
Research Archive
Important Questions
Still Here
Time since my stalker threatened to delete this blog 'in an instant':
|