FAC518-Ab, Delcroix, LSD33

mattinapoleon wilsonlike this

We talk about the Fredricton shooting #HRDPAR

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fredericton-brookside-shooting-police-four-dead-1.4780578…

No tags for this post.

27 thoughts on “FAC518-Ab, Delcroix, LSD33

  1. Vespadouglas

    im sure anyone here who knows my real id , could ,with a quick googly search , verify that……..i have been on trial , in a sheriff court ,accused of threatening and intimidating behaviour against a SHERIFF …….after being advised by two partnerships of criminal law firms to plead guilty , i chose to represent myself and kicked the sheriffs arse …….no jury at that bottom level of the court theatre but the whole thing is a scam……even the ” real ” stuff ………ergo the shit at the top is also , more than likely ,a scam

  2. UnrealUnreal

    The FAC518 is an enjoyable discussion.

    Regarding trials, it is really very intriguing to assess what the proportion of factual cases are against the number of factice trials.

    There is a huge difference of course between criminal* law and civil* law as it in my view are the criminal cases that are most publicized in the Mainstream Media. Matters of civil law are less popular in the media but represents a larger part of total court cases.

    From the number of Fakeologists that claim to have been called upon, there are many more members here that have been in criminal court than what i have encountered in my brick-and-mortar social circles.

    The fact several Fakeologists have been in criminal trials should really be an opportunity to explore as they have inside knowledge and that some type of press and official documents would exist (even non leathal shootings are covered in local news and papers).

    As far as i know, nothing should prevent all Fakeologists that have been jurors to research the cases they have been involved with anew, even invite other Fakeologists to participate or at the least reference and inform their experience/case.

    It’s really a pity how most of those who can testify to having been part of a criminal trial do not purvey references of the actual case(s) they have been involved with. In a way, proving and referencing such criminal court experience could be useful, while merely saying so… not really.

    *criminal law concerns crimes and their punishments (i.e. homicide, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, assault, drug charges)

    *civil law deals with civil or private rights (i.e. custody disputes, bankruptcy, defamation, breach of contract, property damage)

    *in the USA there were 10K federal criminal appeals in 2017, and respectively 28K federal civil appeals (link)

    1. xileffilex

      UNreal – the cases I was involved with were in a smaller court and involved silly events which would not even have made local newspapers. Indeed, one wonders how on earth these purported criminal events even reached the higher court, unless the taxpayer were funding both sides [win win] Rather like how our fake terrorists are run in parallel with the police and intelligence services.

      In the UK, show trials are often staged in the Old Bailey in London – or in some major cities outside the capital – for maximum media publicity, for instance, the trial of Thomas Mair accused of the “killing ” of Jo Cox MP. As we will all have grasped, the “stabbing” was a piece of theatre and NDNGH, so the real jurors had to sit through the recounting, no doubt involving paid actors/liars, of a simulation of a crime for which the perpetrator was given a simulated life sentence in prison.
      www.theguardian.com…
      The jury took just over 90 minutes to reach its verdicts.

      Clearly, all the 12 jurors swallowed the nonsense.

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Yes, Thomas Mair, I’d agree, this is one way trials can be staged. A ‘real’ jury – screened and with a non controversial profile, probably – fed the fake narrative via actors , and what was all over the papers, anyway. What else were they gonna do ? That would seem to be the best way there.

        The system itself,in general, is obviously controllable on all levels. You can have the Judge in your pocket, you can have plants in the Jury, you can provide false witnesses and you can bring in crooked evidence. Totally fixable. If you’ve got the power.

        That’s the Legal System, isn’t it ? Like every other institution in Society, it’s totally fixable, if you’ve got the power. That’s why all these systems exist in a ‘power’ structure; they do have a real, day-to-day, working practical function for society (and are generally run by ‘honest’, ‘well meaning’ people most of the time) but, If you’ve got the power, ultimately, you can just fix them when you want.

    2. UnrealUnreal

      From your response Xileffilex, i’m not sure to understand if you have been in a jury trial or not in the UK. The only jury trials in the UK would be cases of criminal law. Not that many criminal cases goes to trial with a jury as i understand, and when they do it is likely some coverage will exist even though you have not found such material yourself.

      Any violence or ill-doing is bound to be somewhat newsworthy – at least in local press. Any murder, robbery or attempted murder clearly get some type of media coverage and attention. And if the offence is fake, then the crime was actually conceived in the very goal to go public…

      Providing necessary information about what type of crime was tried in your jury trial, when and where would help make what you say credible*, otherwise it is not. Lack of any referenced information makes any “real life” experience hard to accept.

      Furthermore, regarding the court system it is fair to suspect we deal with a full masonic crew, and that when we presume juries are picked out randomly – it clearly could be very misleading as it seems a perfect occasion to “vet” new freemasons and their families for ascension within the system etc. So the very concept of a “fair trial” is what seems at stake, which is not a mute point. With so many masons around – why would any legal procedure call upon anyone that escape mason influence (or “genuine”) ?

      There is no control outside of total control…

      *in conspiracy research there is an abundacy of poorly supported claims that are made incessantly that has become a nuisance really as information is traded with hearsay. I for one do not believe what most “researchers” claim they experience less they offer proof and references – what do we make of what Adams tells us about his bullet factory job, what Markuc Allen’s wife says or have done ? All empty words, no substance and most probably just lies until proven otherwise.

      1. xileffilex

        Sorry UNreal, you don’t seem to understand the UK legal system, you have the right to be suspicious of me, but this one time I was a juror [two cases] was in a court where there were about 10 – yes TEN – separate trials going on at one time, and this was not the major criminal court in the area. All were criminal trials, some very short, some long. I can only relate, having had my eyes opened here at Fakeologist, and several other websites, CF, and from YT videos, how deep the lie system goes, these cases struck me as totally unreal. They were presented like i was in a cheap soap opera. I doubt if any of these 10 simultaneous trials, rolling with another starting as one finished, would get any news coverage. There were no reporters there, and only one weird visitor, who was well known as a local who would pop in for amusement every so often.
        I don’t think jurors need screening, as Tom suggests. If I had been, in my awake state, been called to the trial of Tommy Mair, what do you really think I would have realistically done, UNreal? Tell the other jurors it was a big hoax, perhaps collapse the trial [since it had already been all over the MSM for 5 months or so….so no need to stop us doing internet searches] You’d probably collapse the expensive trial and got locked up yourself for contempt of court.

        Going back to run of the mill crime, I’d suggest that when crimes are reported, and one must doubt whether those which reach the newspapers are all real, then hoax management has to be carried through, which might involves a trial if the accused [with the help of public money] pleads not guilty [which is excellent for the legal profession if a publicly funded trial ensues, rather than simple sentencing after a guilty plea] A fake stabbing or killing will require a fake funeral, fake inquest, lying hospitals, doctors, pathologists, coroners, so a staged trial with a revolving door prison sentence, must occur, perhaps followed by identity change for the actor/participant/victim.

        Let me put it simply – the evidence I was presented with as a juror to show that the purported crimes had occurred didn’t show anything – it was as laughable as the evidence we’re shown on TV for any high profile media event which will have been dissected here. One had to take it to be real. It was a joke.

        1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

          He, he. So UNreal is suspicious of you Felix. Not very nice , is it ?

          Yeah, I think he’s lying UNreal. Definitely. Always seemed shifty.

          May I say, at this point, I am trying to joke and I do trust you xileffilex ( unlike you, who seem to distrust me! ). I trust you because I’ve known you for a while. I trust you’re honest and I also trust you to get it both right and wrong (sometimes) actually, just like all of us.

          Anyway, it saves a lot of time trusting people as I can take your personal experience as true and be informed by it and move on rather than get sidetracked by the completely false idea ( i think ) that you’re lying! We’re beyond that, aren’t we? That was really my point with the case I was witness at.

          Your court experience doesn’t surprise me at all. Sounds about right. What it seems to reveal to me is the totally controllable nature of the situation – the bullshit of bureaucracy, democracy and judiciary.

          Just back on Thomas Mair, and my thought about screening Jurors. Really, they are screened anyway, aren’t they ?
          Further, for a fake case as high profile and important as the Jo Cox murder , it would seem to me foolish not to ensure that all the jurors were carefully picked.
          You can bung in anyone there as a juror, if you like Felix, but wouldn’t it be very simple to be careful ?

          1. xileffilex

            I guess some undesirables might be flagged up as unsuitable jurors, Tom.
            Perhaps in a very high profile case. But in the fish and chippers, I doubt it. There are hundreds of them going on at any one time in the country, keeping our legal graduates in work, law seemingly taking the place of manufacturing industry. And having documented my own experiences of the court, whether people like them, trust them or disbelieve them, I will now say, case closed!

      2. UnrealUnreal

        I do not find your argument (Xileffilex) about the UK legal system particularly well made*, and you were yourself called in for duty in a UK jury as layman – not as an expert. Regardless, my point was merely to ask you to be precise about your experience as a juror in a criminal case (well, two).

        From your answer you do not provide any further references or information that can be verified, nor that educate me and other Fakeologists about the particular cases you assisted, or the UK legal system* you succinctly imply to know well. My question was rather simple – what were the crimes and cases you were asked to review in criminal court, and what were the sentences ?

        *there is no good reason to trust personal accounts one can not verify – and i do not. It is unreasonable to consider personal, unreferenced narrative as information. This is why anyone who claim knowledge or authority on any subject (explicitly or implicitly) should be careful to reference and document their claims. Neither Tom Dalpra (no surprise) nor Xileffilex reference their trial experience and require trust. This is not to say they invent their criminal court stories, but to fail give any referenced details when asked is not reasonable behavior

        *it would be interesting to know how many total cases are heard with jurys present in the UK, and how many are not (criminal & civil). As a general observation, jury trials seem to be target of new legislature in the UK with the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the 2008 trial (jury-less ) of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport (2004)

        1. xileffilex

          I don’t give a flying fuck what you think, Unreal You don’t know jack shit about the UK courts. Juries, in addition, play no part in the sentencing. They are gone in these fish and chip cases. Period. You have shown yourself up to be ignorant.

        2. UnrealUnreal

          Thank you Xileffilex for providing no verifiable details about your jury duties in UK criminal court – making your trial testimony nothing but empty words, now uppdated with (new) foul language and keyboard emotion. As you say – case closed.
          .

          1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

            Bollocks to that – case re-opened, Your Honour !

            UNreal, why on Earth are you being so unreasonable ? xileffilex has joined you in some of your forum research here and has been something of an ally to you, as far as I can tell. Why are you attacking him for no real reason ?

            Certainly, over the years he’s tirelessly referenced his extensive research and it’s completely inappropriate to pull him up here, on a small personal experience he shared conversationally, in the comments.

            If you actually understood the experience Felix related, you’d realise that he was talking about some petty, insignificant, forgettable, cases which would have barely left a mark. What sort of evidence are you expecting him to provide?

            You’ve no right to demand names and numbers and no right to distrust Felix on any evidence, or lack of it, here.

            It’s fairly silly UNreal and it doesn’t make you look good.

            You can apologise, we all make mistakes.

            And that, Your Honour, is the case for the defence.

            1. ab Post author

              I don’t know if Unreal is justified in his confrontational attitude but he may well consider the phrase “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”.

              1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

                🙂 thank you, Your Honour

                (I’m enjoying this analogy! ).

                Come on Unreal, lighten up. Bring the wit, we know you have to the courtroom of Fakeologist and answer my counter-claim.

            2. UnrealUnreal

              I cannot see how asking for information about the legal criminal cases that Xileffilex brings up as exemples qualify as being confrontational – my questions were delivered with intelligible, inoffensive language.

              That Xileffilex avoids to address straightforward, relevant questions and instead choses to label me as ignorant, using crude language to belittle me is what i find offensive in the above discussion.

              With recent research of the Truther scene (here, here, here, here, here) it is evident that we all need to raise our standards of fact checking and verifying information in a more thorough way than before.

              Providing verifiable information is an important part of contributing meaningfully to alternative research, and when researchers avoid to address such evident issues as facts and tries to label those who ask relevant questions, i’m surprised to be accused of being unreasonable (well, confrontational to be literally correct).

              As to catching flies with friendly behavior, i’ve posted more than 45 free, researched and referenced articles to my blog (allunreal) of which just one has been featured on the Fakeologist blog so far, Ab – so i’m not sure how sweet efforts has brought any significant attention my way thus far.

  3. rickyricky

    I don’t have any court stories but came across some local court info that may be of interest. I live in a small town, (1200,) in a small county, (under 100,000.) I haven’t been aware of any local events that may have been staged however we live three hours drive from Portland OR, which does all the heavy lifting in the fakery Dept. My neighbor whom I’ve known for ten years is what I’d describe as a “Super-Believer.” I would imagine all of us has some in our lives, nice guy, trustworthy, participates in local govt. (former mayor,) also volunteers once a week at a local Air and “Space”‘ museum, a 90 min. drive one way. He also sits on the county “Grand Jury.” They hear cases the local D.A. is going to go to trial with and either accept or reject cases based on the “evidence” presented. I asked him how many cases they’ve rejected, his answer; NONE! So basically they act as a rubber-stamp and lend a faux air of “oversight” to the machinations of the “Justice System.” So you have pillars of the community who are not actors, they’re better than actors because they’re not faking anything, participating in the justice and space myths.

  4. davieb

    i think all us fakeologists all know this is a fake trial. but at the time we all thought this was real.
    and 99.9% of the public still think it is a real trial

    so there you go a fake trial

  5. davieb

    great discussion. I am at the 20 minute mark, will listen to the rest later.

    great point by the Delcroix about them being actors starting at the 11 minute mark

    I was watching global news the other night about Jeremiah Perry. he’s the kid that died on a school field trip.
    Ab talked about this story a week or two ago showing the sim kid at Niagara Falls.

    anyways on the news they had a bunch of people come on and talk about the kid.
    one was a woman say he was a great kid and he will be really missed
    another was 3 girls who were friends with Jermiah and they are so sad

    i thought how can this be fake when these people knew him, especially fellow students.
    I was going to ask Ab how is this a fake story if these students knew him??
    but then it hit me, I got my answer myself. I figured it out.
    all these people that knew Jeremiah are all ACTORS!!

    it’s the same for all the stories in the news. they are all actors!!

    globalnews.ca/news/4751451/family-canada-deported-christmas-eve/…

    this woman is an actor, your going to be kicked out of Canada in a week are she is talking about this so non chalantly, at the minute mark she is almost giddy about being deported.

    in the second video at the 2:19 you get the standard fake crying scene

  6. xileffilex

    Good discussion. It would be interesting to hear other members’ court stories. I can only recount being a juror once, and after I had woken up to some mainstream fakery But, as it turned out, I had no idea then that this kind of fakery extended to the courts routinely, beyond the obvious use of coroners and courts to pronounce over obvious [to us] fake crimes.

    In my case, I was one of a large pool of citizens, compensated for their time off work, of whom 12 would be chosen and sworn in at the start of a trial. There were several trials starting in various courts and some finished and others started within the two weeks. I have no idea how jurors were chosen for cases, it could be that you were in the pool but were never chosen.

    I had two trials – both criminal attacks. In one of them, the only evidence that something had happened [beyond the ridiculous, totally unbelievbable narrative, which didn’t even match the area with which I was familiar] was a poorly photocopied image of an injury, potato lens form, which wasn’t connected with any person, especially the alleged victim. It was laughable, but one had to swallow it.

    The other involved a piece of CCTV footage of a rumble in a sealed off joint, where, at the key moment, the camera was obscured [ho ho!] and we had to imagine what happened in the “cut”. It all looked so phoney, as again, was the narrative. This one also involved people who seemed not to be able to speak and understand English, so more drill work for the translators.

    Jurors are admonished not to consult the internet – which of course I didn’t – but perhaps an online search might indicate that the events portrayed by the barristers never happened.

    To discuss these events with the other jurors was. for me, akin to initiating a chat about 9/11 or the moon landings with them.
    It’s a huge step to realise that this huge state funded circus is just a drill and that these most trustworthy of people at the top of the tree of our “experts” viz our judges, are taking us for a ride. If the emergency services – police, fire, ambulance – have drills, involving fake deaths, staged crashes, why not have courtroom HRDPARs to train the lawyers?

    The police certainly employ actors, who are often unemployed so are grateful for any work, for their training, I know one who has been thus employed. So, with a non-disclosure agreement, it would seem sensible to employ actors in the courtroom as victims and witnesses, indeed, the police would be being trained and monitored at giving evidence in these staged trials.

    I’ll say it again, it’s impossible to assess what percentage of reported cases of serious crime [i.e. that which reaches the courts] are real. We can be certain that any trials and inquests involving anything discussed on this site are staged. Are any of these reported [in local of national press] shootings, abuse cases, stabbings, family murders real? Or do they involve recycling of fictims with new identities, most likely in other countries, through the witness protection/family liaison scheme to prove the narrative and to keep us scared/keep the emergency services/insurance/intelligence industries ticking over? Is the recycling industry one of the primary roles of police/intelligence?
    Is law a hoax?

    1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      ”Is law a hoax?”

      That would strike me as the wrong question. Obviously Law isn’t a ‘hoax’. It’s a functioning system of control with countless real people deemed criminals being legitimately (within that system) tried and sentenced on a daily basis.
      That there is hoaxery within the system, and there are some hoax trials, is obviously taken as read, but to ask if ‘law is a hoax’ seems a silly question.

      1. xileffilex

        I was being playful, Tom. Law sounds like War, which some assert is a hoax. Never mind.
        Have you done jury service, while wearing your fakeologist spectacles?

        1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

          Ah, being playful, that’ll throw me!
          What I would say again is that there are certainly plenty of real cases that make the courts and the newspapers and that these stories, understandably. often carry the same traits as faked reports do ( eg. CCTV footage is invariably vague, real event or not).

          I’ve never done jury service but I’ve been a witness at a murder trial and been in court facing charges at various times, myself (all stupid little unpaid fines ) . I’ve got a couple of friends who are barristers and I had quite a friendly relationship with a former Judge, a few years ago.

          I personally wouldn’t say that I now look at things through Fakeologist glasses. I know what you mean, but Fakeologist is ab, I’m me. My perspective has changed over the years for sure but I don’t now look at things with ‘fakeologist spectacles’ because I don’t really know what that means.

          1. xileffilex

            OK Tom, fair enough.
            Was there a real body in the murder trial?

            I tend to row in with Ab – I assume it’s fake until I see evidence to the contrary [which is rarely] when I inspect a suspicious event.

            Each to their own, there is no fakeologist template

            1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

              No, indeed.

              I’m compelled to challenge the idea that we should assume fakery first in any trial. That’s my point. As Ricky alluded to at the top of the comments – no actors required, as a rule. Just because we see the odd trial is fake, this should absolutely not inform us that the whole legal mechanism and all that reside in it, are. That’s nonsense and disinformative (is that a word?) as to the real workings of said system.

              I’m not saying you’re doing that exactly I’m just wary of the trend to see one fake and call fake on all.

              Now I’m being wary in replying to the dead body question at the murder trial I was a witness at.
              I’m not sure if you’re being dry, again. Ha.

              Did I see the dead body ? No thank god. Only in the photos. That was bad enough. Multiple stab wounds, blood everywhere. Nightmare.
              Being somewhat involved in the case as I was, suffice it to say, as much as i can be sure of anything. it was real. You can take it from me.
              And there’s cases like that tried every day and they make it to the newspapers.

              1. xileffilex

                OK, let me paraphrase, your murder case “looked real”.
                Oh, my inference from Ricky’s comment was that these “grand jurors” weren’t going to rock any boat fast, just as, for example, no straight paramedic or doctor or police officer or barrister or funeral director or firefighter or pathologist is going to come rushing to Cluesforum or a public blog, for example, to say how faaaake [with all their expertise in their fields] a major news story is and the narrative is total nonsense as presented….
                I’m a bit worried Tom that you are defending your position with the “it’s all faaaaake” mantra which I frequently encounter on forums like David Icke from defenders of the official narrative on every obvious [to us fakeologists wearing fakeologist spectacles, yourself excepted, naturally] hoax, HRDPAR, staged event, call them what you will.

                I guess we all have different levels of sensitivity for determining a media-reported event is suspicious and deserves further investigation with our fakeologist issue microscopes.

                1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

                  Sorry. I don’t really understand what you’re talking about. I wasn’t originally really defending any specific event (other than the one I was involved in ) so much as talking about general terms.

                  I originally commented after you threw in the trendy ‘joke’, of posing the question ”Is law a hoax?”

                  It does indeed sound like the term ”War is a hoax” which has been pushed by certain people. I wholly reject the use of that term and even delivered ‘ironically’ here ‘Law is a Hoax’ sounded similarly trite. Please excuse my sensitivity in jumping on it, to make my point driven by my pet peeve.

                  On the murder case I attended, yes Felix, ”it looked real”. It very sadly, looked very real.
                  I’ve already said that obviously fake trials and hoaxery exist within the legal system. Totally doable and doneable, of course !
                  If ‘they’ had wanted to fool me with that case, then I dare say they could have. How could I tell, for sure?Yeh, yeh, yeh.

                  The thing is Felix, we’ve known each other for a while now, since i remember welcoming you on thread those years back.
                  If you don’t trust me at this point, when I say I was involved in a real murder case, then I think, ”what’s the point really?” These ‘fakeologist spectacles’ seem to make people lose their trust in other human beings. Have those years of research together led to a point where I can’t talk about something that I can establish, all evidence assessed from quite close quarters, was, sadly, beyond any reasonable doubt, real ?
                  I don’t need to explain myself , any further on it.
                  I won’t waste your time.

Leave a Reply