Al Jazeera Memo Trial, Redux

Leaked, no I don't think so. The claim that it would have a serious impact on international relations is probably a legitimate one and likely to be upheld as far as is possible. Of course for it to be that significant it has to be that significant and not, as Mr-in-waiting Blair would have us believe, the product of a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that given the responses of the government have been so secretive, and the source so credible that indeed the contents of the memo must be pretty damaging and outside of the range of  "he may have said it but we all had a laugh about it" and more in line with "we knew it was a war crime but Hell, these people were telling the world the truth"

Found this court report

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article1505997.ece

no idea what it means

any lawyers out there?

Will Pollard

some stories for OhmyNews
http://english.ohmynews.com
also blogging as a fansite for Dan Froomkin
http://froomkinfan.blogspot.com/

Unless there's another angle on this; it must be presumed that non-disclosure of the contents of the memo is in order to protect the Bush administration.  Which is odd really, because Blunkett's  "lets bomb everybody" advice to Blair was never silenced. Even stranger though is for the government not to use Blair's advice against bombing Al-Jazeera as an humanitarian publicity stunt; thereby showing Tone in a favourable light when ever possible.

Would the disclosure of this memo reveal Bush as a "warmongering fiend" any more than we already known? I don't think so!

Therefore, there must be some deeply incriminating evidence within this memo....

Or it that they're trying to protect their own propaganda machine from potential reprisals?

Dear Willpollard, This may well explain the court report you refer to. I have been trying to disclose the fact that he MoD(UK) has been deliberately RIGGING courts against civilian employees in Germany, with the consent of the German legal system. This was blatantly obvious, because in my hearing I was set-up in such a crude manner that anyone could see it. I was represented by a lawyer who was a stand-in, he said precisely nothing, except to say his name. I had never met this lawyer before the hearing and, apparently, my original lawyer had suddenly decided to go on leave.

The judge allowed this stand-in lawyer to remain silent, and she ignored me when I asked a question. She paused the recordiing and wound it back to tape over what I had said. I was basically wiped out of the hearing and allowed no voice to put my case, which would have been won within seconds, had I been fairly treated, hence, the reason for my question being ignored and wiped off the record.

The person doing all the speaking on behalf of the MoD(UK) was employed by them, and he was grinning throughout almost all of the hearing, at my predicament. 

The judgment was so ridiculous that even the MoD(UK) had to contradict it, when asked to explain a simple point within the judges decision, even though the verdict was binding on them.

As a result of the judgment, the MoD(UK) were asked how an employee who lived 91kms from work was denied the right to shift payments, because he could, apparently, walk to work from this distance, then do a 12hr shift, and then presumably, walk home 91kms. This came about because I had lost, due to the fact that I could walk to work some 300mtrs and I lived in the territory of the base, I was, consequently, denied the right to shift payments. My colleague, on the other hand dis not live inside the base and he could not possibly walk to work from that distance.

The appeal was also blocked because I knew too much about the case. I later discovered that the solicitor I tried to lodge the appeal with who, incidentally, deliberately obstructed me from furthering the case worked in co-operation with the firm of lawyers who represent the MoD(UK) at the court of appeal. This is why the MoD(UK) would not name their solicitors, even when directly asked. They knew I would discover the connection on the letter heading of the lawyer I tried to appeal with.    

 The judgment had basically nothing in it that was correct and vital sentences within the contract, in my favour, were deliberately left out of the verdict. This even amounted to a complete section that was not even mentioned but which the MoD(UK) had said defined how we qualified for shift payments.

  Due to the fact that I would not accept being set-up in a RIGGED court ,the MoD(UK) were forced to resort to threats, and the issuing of illegal written warnings, to try to scare me off, hence, the reason for the major who was tasked with scaring me, visibly shaking uncontrollably, whilst he was insulting me.

 The case had to be RIGGED because the MoD(UK) was liable to pay out a lot of money to employees who had been fiddled out of shift payments for numerous years.

Even though the evidence is so convincing, I have not been able to find a media organisation willing to take up the story.

Could it possibly be due to the effect of this law and the fact my case is a matter of DEMOCRACY, and somewhat embarrassing to both governments' ?        

Spam deleted