Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 55553 times)

call in

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #120 on: April 01, 2008, 01:42:40 AM »

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?


Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.


The Queen of England is a real female dog indeed. The day after the death of Princess Diana, as a result of an "accident" at the Pont de L'Alma tunnel, a caller on the radio said that the royal family had ordered the hit out of fear that Diana's companion, the Arab Dodi Fayed might wield undue influence over the royal family of England. This scenario with variations and additions, not surprisingly, appears in most of the conspiracy theories about Di's death.


Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.

MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, had not mounted any operation directed at Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed including surveillance or bugging, said Dearlove. He would know, he said, because as director of special operations from 1994 to 1999 he had to approve every such operation, which required the further approval of the foreign secretary. In addition, all such approvals were subject to an annual independent review by a senior judge. An operation mounted by rogue agents was "impossible," Dearlove said, and so was an independent action by agents in Paris.

"Out of the question. It is just not conceivable," he said, referring to his previous testimony about the management structure of the agency. "There is nothing, not a bit that acts independently or goes off and does its own thing. This does not exist," he said. His appearance before the inquest was an extraordinary exception to agency policy of neither publicly confirming nor denying any allegations about its activities. Just 20 years ago, the government refused to acknowledge the existence of the MI6 spy agency or MI5, its domestic counterpart. Dearlove, who fidgeted with a pen for much of his testimony, answered most questions calmly but showed occasional signs of irritation. He denied that MI6 had a file on Al Fayed whose son died in the crash or on driver Henri Paul, or the Ritz hotel in Paris.

Dearlove rebuffed a suggestion by Al Fayed's lawyer, Michael Mansfield, that someone might have regarded an alliance between Diana and the Fayed family as a threat to national security. He said the agency took no interest in their romance. "I am sorry to disappoint you," he said to Mansfield, "but no interest whatsoever." Al Fayed disputes the conclusion by French and British police that the crash on Aug. 31, 1997 in a Paris road tunnel was an accident. Testifying Monday, Al Fayed asserted his belief that the couple were victims of a complex conspiracy including Philip, Prince Charles, Diana's sister, the U.S. Central Intelligence agency and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others.

Dearlove, who headed the spy agency from 1999 to 2004, also denied a claim by former agent Richard Tomlinson about an alleged plan in the early 1990s to assassinate the late Slobodan Milosevic, then president of Serbia. He confirmed that one agent suggested the possible assassination of another Balkan leader, and that the idea was quickly "killed stone dead" at a low level. Dearlove appeared exasperated by Mansfield's persistent questions about Tomlinson's allegations, commenting at one point that "it seems to me we are a huge distance away from the subject of this inquest." Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker responded that he had deliberately allowed the lawyers much latitude. "These inquests have been very wide-ranging and many aspects of the evidence, many would say, have only marginal, if any, relevance to the issues that have to be decided," Baker said. "But the one matter that I have had very much in mind throughout is that one of the purposes of the inquests, perhaps particularly pertinent to this one, is to confirm or allay public suspicion."

Dearlove acknowledged that the "no assassination" policy was not put down in writing in training manuals during his time, but would have been communicated orally. Mansfield suggested that the incident raised questions about the effectiveness of MI6 management and whether all agents embraced the "no assassination" rule. Mansfield said he was asking the jury "to consider ... the possibility that elements within the security services in 1997 were responsible, not just for drawing up a plan, but the possibility that one or more of them may have been responsible for what happened."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Diana.php
I am a {metaphor}. Actually, I am an {extended metaphor}.

C S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #121 on: April 01, 2008, 03:19:31 AM »

Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.

MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, had not mounted any operation directed at Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed including surveillance or bugging, said Dearlove. He would know, he said, because as director of special operations from 1994 to 1999 he had to approve every such operation, which required the further approval of the foreign secretary. In addition, all such approvals were subject to an annual independent review by a senior judge. An operation mounted by rogue agents was "impossible," Dearlove said, and so was an independent action by agents in Paris.

"Out of the question. It is just not conceivable," he said, referring to his previous testimony about the management structure of the agency. "There is nothing, not a bit that acts independently or goes off and does its own thing. This does not exist," he said. His appearance before the inquest was an extraordinary exception to agency policy of neither publicly confirming nor denying any allegations about its activities. Just 20 years ago, the government refused to acknowledge the existence of the MI6 spy agency or MI5, its domestic counterpart. Dearlove, who fidgeted with a pen for much of his testimony, answered most questions calmly but showed occasional signs of irritation. He denied that MI6 had a file on Al Fayed whose son died in the crash or on driver Henri Paul, or the Ritz hotel in Paris.


Why did Trevor Rees-Jones put on his seat belt just prior to the accident when Princess Diana, a devoted user of seat belts, did not? Why were two motorcycle policemen told to leave an ambulance taking one hour to reach a hospital, when 10 surgeons and an army of medical specialists were awaiting Diana's arrival? Is Henri Paul's behavior prior to the accident significantly inconsistent with published intoxication results? Why was there misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated, supporting the further false assertion that it took emergency crews 1 hour to extract Diana from the car? Why did the French government reject the aid of Daimler Benz? Why didn't the Fiat stop and the driver and its occupants, if any, join the line of those seeking to file suit against the Ritz hotel? Why wasn't Diana put on a heart-lung bypass machine? The entire focus of the media has been and continues to center on the intoxication of Henri Paul. This shifts the attention of the world away from the car and motorcycle adjacent to the Mercedes Benz at the time of the accident. The best indication of Henri Paul's true level of intoxication is his behavior prior to the accident. During an accident, contents of the esophagus and stomach can be traumatically mixed with blood, to result in a false reading. A false reading is usually indicated where behavior is not in line with test results.

Henri Paul parked his car at 10:00 PM without incident. He walked without wavering or staggering. He spent the time before leaving the Ritz with Trevor Rees-Jones who when able to speak as the sole survivor of the accident remembered Henri Paul fit to have driven. Also do not discount the fact that Rees-Jones would not have allowed Henri Paul to drive if he saw Paul intoxicated, not to say "highly intoxicated." The Ritz hotel, owned by Dodi Fayed's father, has videos of Henri Paul immediately prior to leaving with Diana, Dodi and Rees-Jones. Not only is he seen walking and talking normally, he is face to face with both Dodi Fayed and Diana, both of whom independently would never have allowed him to drive if they smelled alcohol or noticed any glaze in his eyes. Dodi Fayed had a known fetish for professional qualified drivers. Couple this with the fact that Princess Diana, who had a similar fetish for wearing seat belts, did not find Henri Paul's driving or speed as one signaling danger; in which circumstance she surely would have put her seat belt on. If Trevor Rees-Jones first put on his seatbelt after entering the tunnel, one would certainly have to ask Trevor Rees-Jones why, if Princess Diana didn't do it too (for bodyguards won't do it unless they visualize immediate vehicular danger).

First reports after the accident had the Mercedes traveling at 60 mph and then that speed was moved to 80 mph then 100 mph and finally 120 mph. Was the purpose of such misinformation to support the assertion that Henri Paul was highly intoxicated? Again, there is lack of focus on the critical issues and questions. Was the Mercedes traveling at such a high rate of speed prior to entering the tunnel? Was the Mercedes Benz wavering? Did the Mercedes Benz strike any other car, person, motorcycle prior to entering the tunnel? Did the Mercedes Benz show any other evidences consistent with the driver's claimed high intoxication due to the reported blood tests? Why did the French government blatantly reject the immediate offer of Daimler Benz to send engineers to assess the accident? Why did it take so long to bring forward the evidence that parts of another car, which seemingly struck the Mercedes, were found? If Henri Paul struck the other car, wouldn't the car and its occupants have stayed around to file a police report so they could join the line of those ready willing and able to sue the Ritz hotel? The Mercedes Benz struck the concrete pillar in such a fashion that one would have to conclude that Paul was so intoxicated he was oblivious to causing severe injury to himself and others in the car. If such was the case, as stated, his driving would have been openly erratic and irregular prior to entering the tunnel. Would a blown tire cause the Mercedes to swerve in such a fashion as to suddenly strike the pillar as the car did? What role did the Fiat and motorcycle have in the accident? Isn't the fact that both are in hiding suggest that they had a material role in the accident?

Why the misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated? Was it to support an inordinate time to get her out of the car? Why were there misleading original claims that it took 1 hour to extract her from the car? Was this claimed inordinate time to get her out of the car a mask for the malfeasance connective to the inordinate time to get her to the hospital due to the crawling ambulance ride - one so slow that it "lost" its police motorcycle escort? Did Diana require constant blood transfusions? Did the ambulance have enough blood for its 1-hour 6-mile 6-km journey? Did it have the right type of blood? Who made the decision to crawl to the hospital? Who on the outside from the awaiting team of 20-25 doctors including 10 surgeons was in contact with the ambulance? Did anyone convey the importance of getting Diana to the hospital quickly? Since the team of 20-25 doctors had so much time on their hands, didn't but one of them determine that Diana might benefit from placing her, on her arrival, on a heart-lung bypass machine that stands in for those organs during heart surgery. That would have helped save her particularly if Diana was gotten to the hospital immediately after the accident.
 
Any fair minded investigator would not have his or her focus on Henri Paul. His behavior and driving until the moment of the accident was normal. The focus should be on the car whose paint is on the Mercedes and the reports that it was accompanied by a motorcycle swerving in front of the Mercedes. These vehicles obviously had a culpable role since in normal circumstances, assuming Paul intoxicated, they would have stopped (and reported the haphazard driving of Henri Paul). That the car, its driver, occupants, if any, and the motorcyclist are no where to be found speaks clearly and convincingly of their role in the accident. Moreover, we would think that Daimler Benz could have offered valuable information and everyone would have benefited from their investigation and report. We would particularly think the front tires of the Mercedes Benz ought to have been immediately and carefully scrutinized. Couple this with the horrendous state of affairs regarding Diana's medical needs and care and you have a long line of people to be carefully questioned. Why is there no report of who was in the ambulance. How in the world could the ambulance's police motorcycle escort, two of them, lose a crawling ambulance? What type of blood did Diana need and what type and how much of it was in the ambulance? Who made the decisions? With billions of people throughout the world emotionally responsive to Diana's death, it would be the greatest sign of respect to the deceased for the world to compel the truth regarding those involved in her accident and death. Leaving important questions unresolved would dishonor her memory and as a consequence diminish the world tribute given her.

jeffislouie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #122 on: April 01, 2008, 12:03:10 PM »
Who gives a crap?
Diana died because she was being chased by the pap and her driver was a yutz.
Why on earth would the royal family put a hit out on her?
Nonsense.  And a massive waste of money, time, and focus.  Plus, it is disrespectful to her memory.
Justice is tangy....

see ya

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Diana was bugged by secret service in US
« Reply #123 on: April 02, 2008, 03:20:55 PM »
American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Evening Standard learned back in 2006. She was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts. Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too "dangerous" to take her sons there. Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash.



The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard came as it emerged that Princess Diana's phone was bugged by US intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services. Authoritative leaks say the extraordinary revelations were published by Lord Stevens and were bound to raise fresh questions about conspiracy theories. The US secret service was monitoring Diana's friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks. Mohamed Fayed has always insisted the princess and Dodi Fayed were murdered in a plot involving MI6 agents and US intelligence.

The Standard learned that Diana had agreed to a week's holiday with princes William and Harry in the US. She had accepted an invitation from her one-time American boyfriend Mr Forstmann to stay with him at his house in the Hamptons. But as she was travelling with the princes, she needed the trip to be cleared by the British security services. They surprisingly vetoed Diana's plans because of concerns about the security surrounding the billionaire's homes or perhaps a possible threat from elsewhere. The decision by the security services ultimately led to Diana striking up her friendship with Dodi and returning to the south of France to holiday with him. This led to her being in Paris on 31 August, the day of the crash. The Evening Standard also understood that US secret services had a number of secret files on Diana and her closest associates that are held by the national security agency. The files, which included reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - come under both top secret and secret categories. The reports could not be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security". The documents on the princess seemed to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her. Diana enjoyed an intimate friendship with Mr Forstmann after her relationship with Prince Charles had broken down.
P.S. I Love You.

hotel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #124 on: April 03, 2008, 09:08:43 AM »
In October 2003, the Daily Mirror published a letter from Princess Diana in which, 10 months before her death, she wrote about a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes of her car, that her husband was planning 'an accident' in her car, brake failure and the like. 

nolover

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #125 on: April 07, 2008, 04:12:52 PM »
During the five-month inquest witnesses were been questioned about a mysterious white Fiat Uno which some witnesses reported seeing shortly before the crash but which was never traced. Mohamed Al Fayed said the car belonged to paparazzo James Andanson, who did own a white Fiat Uno. Al Fayed said Andanson, who was found dead 2 years later in a burned-out car, was part of the murder plot and assassinated to cover up his role.


jeffislouie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #126 on: April 08, 2008, 01:20:53 PM »
In October 2003, the Daily Mirror published a letter from Princess Diana in which, 10 months before her death, she wrote about a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes of her car, that her husband was planning 'an accident' in her car, brake failure and the like. 

Fascinating.  Are we to use the ramblings of an increasingly paranoid woman as evidence to a grand conspiracy?
Tell me, would it be better to cut her brakes and kill her in a more private moment, or was the point to somehow implicate the pap?
This conspiracy is ridiculous.  The pap was chasing her.  There is no evidence that the brakes on the car were tampered with.  The fact of the matter is, having a pap following can be dangerous.  Britney Spears is also hounded by these people.  A quick glance at one of the TMZ videos showing brit being chased around town buying cigarettes should show that being chased by money hungry pap is dangerous.
Her driver was a moron.  The pap pursued too hard.
Done and done.
Isn't it a waste of time to create a conspiracy theory without direct access to evidence?
Justice is tangy....

self scripted star

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #127 on: April 09, 2008, 04:39:50 PM »

During the five-month inquest witnesses were been questioned about a mysterious white Fiat Uno which some witnesses reported seeing shortly before the crash but which was never traced. Mohamed Al Fayed said the car belonged to paparazzo James Andanson, who did own a white Fiat Uno. Al Fayed said Andanson, who was found dead 2 years later in a burned-out car, was part of the murder plot and assassinated to cover up his role.



accosta

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Al-Fayed: BBC working with MI6
« Reply #128 on: April 14, 2008, 02:54:34 PM »

Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPkeFu2PRE&feature=related

sheraton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #129 on: April 14, 2008, 04:12:58 PM »
Dodi's father Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of the Harrods luxury store in London, says Diana and his son were killed by British security services on the orders of Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband and father of Diana's ex-husband, Prince Charles. Al-Fayed alleges the killing was ordered because the couple were about to announce their engagement and Diana was pregnant. The royal family did not want the mother of the future king to have a child with his son.