MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

The Killing of The Sovereign

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 6:14 am Tue 16th February 2016

The Killing of the Sovereign – too much of a spoiler? You knew where I was going with this didn’t you?

This is the third post on this topic. To catch up on the story you need to read, England – A Terrorist State of Law then Prosecution of the Fantasy, and also the comments on both.

These two posts are about an English court case where a poor commoner, Mark Pearson stood accused of the sexual assault of an actress, but proved his innocence.

There is a fourth post A Woman’s Allegation now outweighs Hard Evidence, which discusses the ‘allegation’ and suggests that the actress made up this ‘allegation’ because Mr Pearson did not move aside for her when they passed each other on a railway platform.

The first two posts take a different approach and suggest that there was no ‘allegation’; and that there was a claim that the actress was sexually assaulted, and there was no identification of ‘a defendant’ and it was the Crown’s Prosecutors who accused Mr Pearson.

There is a different theory floating around in my head, and it is my unproven assertion, that there was a conspiracy in the Office of Crown Prosecutors, to legally go where no woman has gone before and kill the Legal Sovereign of England in the name of Feminism.

What I am suggesting is that the Crown Prosecutors used this 60 year old actress, to act out their plot, and that Mr Pearson was an innocent victim caught up in this act of terrorism.

The judge in this trial was obviously uncomfortable about what was unfolding in front of him, and suggested the prosecutors withdraw, but no, ‘they insisted’ on finishing what they came to do, and ‘ they persisted’ in bringing this court case to a conclusion.

It will be interesting to see if anyone in England makes the same allegation, and whether or not there is an inquiry – a good aspect of the Westminster System which helps preserve the system; when you suspect that someone is trying to Scotch the system.

If the Sovereign wasn’t killed and it came to light that Mr Pearson was actually the hero, the man on the spot, that foiled this plot; and it was only through what became a determined, painstaking, and drawn out battle to defend his innocence, that we ‘could see’ what these traitors were up to and that they may be hiding evidence of their crime in the mind of the woman concerned, gosh, if that were the case, there might be a financial reward for Mr Pearson, or even a knighthood for such an honourable and courageous defence of the realm.

Surely this question would have been asked in the actual court case. No, Mr Pearson was not there to question the motives of the accuser/s, but to defend his innocence.

Let’s not forget too, that reinforcements arrived just in the nick of time. If it were not for the jury and their 90 minute battle for truth and justice, the hero in this story may have died alongside the Sovereign.

It could have been a greater tragedy if our hero had died during the proceedings.

8 Responses to “The Killing of The Sovereign”

  1. Man X Norton says:

    Oh right, now I get it! Various reincarnations of Guy Fawkes conspired with Martians to overthrow England’s government. The Martians implanted evidence in the mind of the poor unfortunate actress that made her agree that she was responsible for the allegation that the conspirators actually made up as a smokescreen for their true intention, to pollute all the world’s cabbages except their own so they could dominate the world’s trade in diamonds! Yes, it all makes sense now.

  2. Downunder says:

    Did you get a bit pissed off with me when I said you shouldn’t make assumptions?

  3. Jed says:

    Man X – your cynical comments show how dismissive you are and how you like to out down anyone who doesn’t repeat the memes. I imagine you are really in favour of censorship

  4. Downunder says:

    I don’t think Man X Norton and myself are on the same page.

    I recall in recent history the Commonwealth signed an agreement making the first born of the Royal Family, male or female, heir to the throne.

    The Sovereign of Equality.

    What I think has happened here is the Crown Prosecutor’s have run a legal fiction to prove that the Living Sovereign and the Constitutional Monarchy of the English State are different, i.e. the authority of the State is not obligated to the agreement of equality.

    True or not, and for whatever reason, the process was an incredible abuse of Mr Pearson’s GOOD NAME.

    It’s the sort of abuse men are all too familiar with in New Zealand, when it is hidden behind the secrecy of the Family Court.

    This is very public, and I was simply asking the question, what is happening in England, but it almost got high-jacked by a which hunt.

    It is not the first time the Female Warrior of Britain argument has surfaced in politics, but I don’t know if it has ever been a legal challenge before.

  5. Downunder says:

    What I read from this in a legal sense is; if a woman believes she has been raped and claims she has been raped, she has to be believed.

    Is that quietly redefining the meaning of rape outside of parliament, and by legal activism?

    Then, if that is the case, a man may not assert his defence of innocence but must prove his innocence.

    Then, if that is the case, it is not only a lowering of the standard of proof to ‘on the balance of probability’ but also, a transfer of the onus to prove an outcome, from the prosecution to the defence.

    The main reason I see this as civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the Crown, but the process.

    The Judge said, let’s not go down this track, but the prosecutors said, oh yes we are and kept going.

    There are too many unanswered questions in this one, for me anyway.

    This, I see, would be a very bad situation for men in England.

    I don’t live in England, so I don’t know but I do live in an English speaking Commonwealth Country and I don’t like what ‘I see’ happening here.

  6. Downunder says:

    I’m not a lawyer or politician, I’m a writer.

    So, I wrote a story in which I canvased these questions.

    Maybe I’m a ‘slow’ writer?

    Who is the Legal Sovereign of England?

    Is their Constitutional Monarchy the Warrior Queen of Britain, or the Sovereign of Equality.

    Surely any English man could answer that question for me, couldn’t he?

    Every Englishman is entitled to know what State he is a citizen of, isn’t he?

  7. Man X Norton says:

    ‘Jed’ (#3): Imagine whatever you want. The context here is that ‘Downunder’ has repeatedly accused others of making incorrect statements that were undoubtedly correct. He has accused others of ‘missing the point’ when they claimed Souad Faress made up an allegation against this man. He has accused others of ‘not thinking about what they are writing’ and of helping to excuse Ms Faress’ actions, then elsewhere he accused them of blaming her unfairly. He claimed that saying she made up an allegation was somehow wrong and instead she MADE AN ALLEGATION which according to ‘Downunder’ means the opposite. He claimed that the case was heard in Civil proceedings and that others were wrong in stating that the case was heard in a Criminal Court when clearly it was.

    If anyone can make much sense of all this then that person is smarter than I. Personally I resent having my time wasted reading unintelligible stuff and seeing someone doggedly disagree with everyone else’s perfectly reasonable and factual statements, to whatever end.

    Respect goes both ways and in this case so did disrespect.

  8. Downunder says:

    The burden of proof being on the accuser is central to Western Justice. This case stretches that issue past breaking point, to the point I have suggested, where we are not looking at a broken Western Justice System, but an evolution to a different form of justice.

    I’ve asked, because this is so incredible, are we missing the point here? Were there other intentions.

    I’ve asked the question who is responsible?

    What would we do if this happened in New Zealand?

    For whatever reason the complaint was made, it was a false complaint which to me, did not meet the standards of an allegation in the criminal justice system and should never have been brought to court.

    I’ve also asked why the protection of the Sovereign against legal aggression was not provided by the Judge – his court room with the Sovereign at his shoulder – that’s a Constitutional Monarchy, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar