We have been privileged to have Matt Campbell contribute to this website, but, on the 23rd March, Matt will go to court against the BBC and claim that the organisation is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation.
Matt will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been willfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed in the North Tower, and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism (under Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by Section 117).
Therefore, according to Matt, to pay his TV Licence Fee to the BBC would in fact be a criminal act according to Section 15, Article 3 of the Terrorism Act. He believes that he has a situation of conflict of law whereby he is prepared to continue paying his TV Licence Fee, but not if it goes to the BBC, because to provide funds to the BBC would be to provide funds to an organisation that is supporting an act of terrorism.
He will put forward evidence (and expert witnesses) that allege the use of controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
Full story at DavidIcke.com here
He will keep us posted.
Love it.
Creative, legal, and to the point.
know who else is guilty of terrorism?
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/05/not-again-more-us-aid-missiles-shipped-to-al-qaeda-al-nusra-and-isis-in-syria-iraq/
the illegal immoral wars based on the lies of 911.. are nothing but terrorism.. our friends, the usa, uk, israel, and australia..
all guilty.
what chance to hold a media outlet to account, when they are covering up for the governments?
http://theaimn.com/complaint-john-howard-international-criminal-court/
This is brilliant. We should be using the rule of law to expose the perpetrators of 9/11. Not all judges are corrupt and most cops and even journalists intend to do the right thing. The problem is their bosses.
To explain this further for non Brits, everyone in the UK who owns a telly must pay a license fee of 145 pounds. This license fee is used to fund public broadcasting which in the UK means the BBC. However, section 15 of the anti terrorism law says that it is illegal to give any funds to any organisation if you SUSPECT that the organisation has any links to terrorist organisations.
For anyone with any knowledge of the events of 9/11, it is blatantly obvious that the BBC programmes, ‘conspiracy road trip’ and ‘conspiracy files’ are full of lies, untruths, strawman arguments and innuendo and are therefore covering up for the real perpetrators of the events of 9/11 which makes them complicit and they are therefore a terrorist organisation.
For example, they claim that it is more difficult to fly a small Cessna than a Boing 767. What nonsense.
After researching much of 9/11and finding it difficult to come to terms with the thought that it was an ‘inside job’ I turned to the BBC for their take on the events. The lies and rubbish I came across was actually a convincer that somebody or something has not only the power to carry out 9/11 but also has the power to control the main stream media which I used to think was independent.
This is actually chapter 2 in this endeavour. Tony Rooke, an ex BBC employee, has already tested this in court and the result was more or less a draw. This means that although the judge didn’t completely agree with Tony’s case, he could see that Tony had a valid argument and the judge did not disagree. He was let off without a fine but incurred minimal costs which were paid for through passing a hat around (including a donation from the prosecuting lawyer.) Hopefully, Matt has learned from Tony’s experience and can take this a stage further.
It is curious that since Tony’s court case, the British authorities have reduced the ‘crime’ of non payment of the license fee from a criminal act to a misdemeanour. Are they concerned at a host of other similar cases coming along.
For more on Tony’s case, see this:
http://www.killingauntiefilms.co.uk
His you tube movie on ‘what the judge saw’ has unfortunately had the sound removed to to a copyright violation.
Thanks for the reminder of Ch 1
there was also another court case in the UK…
http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html
he won as well, but sadly, doesnt seem to have made any difference at all…
another court case..
“The verdict of the High Court case on the 12th of March 2015, will be publihsed April 9, 2015”
[…] Matt Campbell vs BBC in Court […]
[…] it is an insult to try silence grieving family members like Bobby McIlvaine and Matt Campbell. I replied with a link to McIvaine’s moving […]