Pope Francis, Ratzinger, Welby, Prince Phillip "sued" for satanic ritual abuse

[Craig B]

Prince Philip? Why are they always picking on him? Yeah, he's not all that tactful at times, but that's about the extent of his evilness. Plus, he's 172 years old and he's had to walk two steps behind his wife for the last 90 years. Leave the poor lackey alone.

He's walking proof that a "do nothing" constitutional monarchy is the best kind, if you have monarchs at all. Imagine if that fool had any real power. Unfortunately we have to pay to listen to his drivel; but at least he keeps us amused.

His son is not so amusing, though. I wonder how the monarchy will fare on Charles's watch. Older monarchs acceding after long reigns sometimes fare rather badly, as the ghost of George IV would probably tell you.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Kevin Annett hasn't been so busy with his "court case" that he didn't have time to bring down the Vatican:

http://iclcj.com/?p=271

Today, at sunrise on Easter, April 20, 2014, ceremonies in Rome, London, Maastricht and at the key energy centers of the earth proclaimed and invoked the spiritual disestablishment of the church of Rome and the entity governing it. The Maastricht Proclamation was made by Rev. Kevin Annett at the oldest catholic church outside of Italy.

The Proclamation was preceded by sunrise exorcism ceremonies at the Vatican and dozens of other locations under the authority of spiritual elders.

 

[ddt]

Kevin Annett hasn't been so busy with his "court case" that he didn't have time to bring down the Vatican:

http://iclcj.com/?p=271

[qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/hehe.gif[/qimg]

LOL. The guy certainly took the trouble to go to Maastricht. The blue/white shield you see in the still of the second movie on that page, is the official sign of a Dutch monument. I presume he's standing there outside the Basilica of St. Servatius. Apparently, he took more trouble in the trip than in researching his claims about it.

In the first video, he mentions the church dates back to 392AD. Tradition has it, however, that St. Servatius died in 384AD and a chapel was erected over his grave. Only around 550AD, a real church was built by his successor Melfonius.

Tradition has it furthermore that St. Servatius moved his bishop seat from Tongeren, Belgium, to Maastricht, Netherlands; later this bishop seat was moved to its current city, Liège in Belgium. All three cities are quite close: Tongeren is about 20 miles west of Maastricht, Liège about 20 miles south of it, upstream the Maas/Meuse.

That same tradition says that St. Servatius founded two churches himself: the Basilica of our Lady in Tongeren (Dutch wiki link), and the Basilica of Our Lady Star of the Sea in Maastricht. There have been no archaeological excavations in/around the Our Lady in Maastricht, so it's not sure whether that part of the story is right. There have been excavations in Tongeren, though, and the wiki page I linked to says (my translation):

During recent excavations in 2008, remains of a Roman basilica, with an apsis, from the 4th Century were found. It is certain this building was used as a "prayer room". This was the period that St. Servatius was mentioned as "bishop of Tongeren" on the attendance lists of the Councils of Cologne (346) and Rimini (359).

So there we have one Catholic church that is provably older than the St. Servatius in Maastricht.

And if you turn to wiki's list of oldest church buildings, you'll find some more. First of all St. Peter, which is not in Italy but in Vatican City. Thirdly, the St. Pierre in Metz, though that one only became a church in the 7th Century. But most importantly, Trier Cathedral, which dates back to 340AD. The place is not surprising: Trier was at the time one of the biggest cities in the Roman Empire, and one of its capital cities.

From his picking of Maastricht, I begin to suspect that Mr. Arnett has some beef with the European Union: the main reputation the city has outside the Netherlands is from the 1992 EU treaty. But by all means, if you're near, visit Maastricht, it's a nice picturesque city and the churches mentioned are beautiful.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not part of any legal system. It's a court made up by crazy people.

Are you sure you are not referring to the ICC?

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

LOL. The guy certainly took the trouble to go to Maastricht. The blue/white shield you see in the still of the second movie on that page, is the official sign of a Dutch monument.

That blue/white shield is actually a widely used international symbol for a protected monument (whatever "protected" means legally in the place where you happen to be.)

From his picking of Maastricht, I begin to suspect that Mr. Arnett has some beef with the European Union: the main reputation the city has outside the Netherlands is from the 1992 EU treaty. But by all means, if you're near, visit Maastricht, it's a nice picturesque city and the churches mentioned are beautiful.

Plus, it has a mayor who has a Grindr account, a succession of much younger boyfriends, and is married to the most prominent celebrity gossip columnist queen of the Netherlands.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

He's walking proof that a "do nothing" constitutional monarchy is the best kind, if you have monarchs at all. Imagine if that fool had any real power. Unfortunately we have to pay to listen to his drivel; but at least he keeps us amused.

His son is not so amusing, though. I wonder how the monarchy will fare on Charles's watch. Older monarchs acceding after long reigns sometimes fare rather badly, as the ghost of George IV would probably tell you.

But then, as the ghosts of Edward VIII of Britain and Leopold III of Belgium can tell you, constitutional monarchies also usually manage to remove unsuitable monarchs who seriously go off the rails and forget their "do nothing" role, even if there are no written-down rules for removing them.

 

[ddt]

That blue/white shield is actually a widely used international symbol for a protected monument (whatever "protected" means legally in the place where you happen to be.)

I stand corrected. But the smaller shield next to it looks like the Dutch Coat of Arms. And then there's the bike.

Plus, it has a mayor who has a Grindr account, a succession of much younger boyfriends, and is married to the most prominent celebrity gossip columnist queen of the Netherlands.

Oh yes, hilarious episode. Pictures surfaced showing Onno Hoes, the mayor of Maastricht, kissing with a tomboy half his age, in a hotel lobby. Then people questioned why RTL Boulevard, the TV gossip show, hadn't paid attention to this. Albert Verlinde, presenter of RTL Boulevard and husband of Onno Hoes, was annoyed: why would people be interested in his private life. WTF? The Maastricht city council spent a meeting on the question whether Hoes was still suitable as mayor. Half of the political parties (admittedly, the smaller ones) think Hoes should not get a second term as mayor. And according to the Telegraaf, the largest newspaper in the Netherlands, Hoes is still seeing the same tomboy.

Exceptionally, I can only agree with the commentary from weblog GeenStijl on an interview with Onno Hoes in HP/De Tijd, a serious magazine. In said interview, it becomes apparent that Hoes' cultural knowledge does not extend beyond schlager singers like Jan Smit and, on the literary front, Donald Duck. GeenStijl about that:

If we were Maastricht, we would find this level of art appreciation worse than that Onno puts his dick in every tomboy.

The kicker, though, is this quote:

I still don't get why people photograph others against their will. I would never do that. And I'm not interested if a Dutch celebrity is somewhere else than with their spouse. I don't understand why people find that interesting, and why they would make a photo of it.

Maybe he should have a serious conversation with his own spouse, and ask him how he earns his living.

 

[ddt]

Prince Philip? Why are they always picking on him? Yeah, he's not all that tactful at times, but that's about the extent of his evilness. Plus, he's 172 years old and he's had to walk two steps behind his wife for the last 90 years. Leave the poor lackey alone.

The tigers, and other game, might disagree. He even shot a tiger after he founded the WWF. According to the Independent, his total tally of killing animals exceeds 30,000.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Kevin Annett hasn't been so busy with his "court case" that he didn't have time to bring down the Vatican:

http://iclcj.com/?p=271

That is priceless. I especially love the translation of the proclamation into what is supposedly Dutch, which was obviously made by someone who not only has Dutch as a badly-mastered second language (or is a borderline-illiterate native speaker of Dutch, he or she doesn't even master primary-school level spelling rules), but can't even come up with a somewhat plausible Dutch translation for a term like "Common Law". One cannot really blame the poor bastard for that. Common Law is unique to the English-speaking world, and as such the term is indeed untranslatable. But still, if you actually believed in the cause, you could at least try, and not just drop the English phrase "Common Law", without further explanation, into a text that's supposedly in Dutch.

 

[Craig B]

Common Law is unique to the English-speaking world, and as such the term is indeed untranslatable. But still, if you actually believed in the cause, you could at least try, and not just drop the English phrase "Common Law", without further explanation, into a text that's supposedly in Dutch.

Things unique to the English speaking world are untranslatable into other languages? Perhaps. But perhaps the French expression "droit coutumier" might be used as a translation. Or "droit commun". For this see French wiki. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

 

[ddt]

That is priceless. I especially love the translation of the proclamation into what is supposedly Dutch, which was obviously made by someone who not only has Dutch as a badly-mastered second language (or is a borderline-illiterate native speaker of Dutch, he or she doesn't even master primary-school level spelling rules), but can't even come up with a somewhat plausible Dutch translation for a term like "Common Law". One cannot really blame the poor bastard for that. Common Law is unique to the English-speaking world, and as such the term is indeed untranslatable. But still, if you actually believed in the cause, you could at least try, and not just drop the English phrase "Common Law", without further explanation, into a text that's supposedly in Dutch.

Thanks, I hadn't scrolled down the page. That Dutch translation is indeed hilarious. I wouldn't dare to claim, though, that it wasn't written by a native Dutch speaker.

I can't blame him for not translating "Common Law" - wikipedia doesn't do that either. It is stupid that he didn't translate "Holy See", for which there is a perfectly fine Dutch translation ("Heilige Stoel"). There are various translation errors, but I'd attribute them more to unfamiliarity with the substance, or trying to sound impressive, than with unfamiliarity with the Dutch language.

As regards the spelling errors, there are two main categories:
1) d/t spelling errors in verb conjugations
2) "English disease": writing compound nouns as two separate words instead of one.
Unfortunately, I see those errors all too often from Dutch people, also from educated people, even university-educated people. I think you're spoilt with Flemish education, which is far superior to Dutch education in this regard. See also how the Flemish routinely outsmart the Dutch in the yearly Grand Dictation.

 

[ddt]

(duplicate post)

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Things unique to the English speaking world are untranslatable into other languages? Perhaps. But perhaps the French expression "droit coutumier" might be used as a translation. Or "droit commun". For this see French wiki. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

How would subsituting a French term (and an inaccurate one at that) for a purely English legal concept be helpful for a translation into Dutch? If I had to translate something from English into Dutch that referenced Common Law as a concept, intended for an audience of non-lawyers, what I'd do is simply use "Common Law", quotes included, and add a succinct explanatory footnote to the first occurrence.

Take it from me, as a native speaker of Dutch: the supposed Dutch translation of Kevin Annett's kookery, on his own website, is borderline gibberish. It's not even just really badly spelled or really badly written Dutch. It simply isn't Dutch. At best, it looks like something run through Babblefish (or "Google Translate", as I believe they call it these days), but there are touches to it that sadly suggest it may actually have been made by a human being. A human being who either doesn't know Dutch very well, doesn't know English very well, or both.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Thanks, I hadn't scrolled down the page. That Dutch translation is indeed hilarious. I wouldn't dare to claim, though, that it wasn't written by a native Dutch speaker.

I can't blame him for not translating "Common Law" - wikipedia doesn't do that either. It is stupid that he didn't translate "Holy See", for which there is a perfectly fine Dutch translation ("Heilige Stoel"). There are various translation errors, but I'd attribute them more to unfamiliarity with the substance, or trying to sound impressive, than with unfamiliarity with the Dutch language.

As regards the spelling errors, there are two main categories:
1) d/t spelling errors in verb conjugations
2) "English disease": writing compound nouns as two separate words instead of one.
Unfortunately, I see those errors all too often from Dutch people, also from educated people, even university-educated people. I think you're spoilt with Flemish education, which is far superior to Dutch education in this regard. See also how the Flemish routinely outsmart the Dutch in the yearly Grand Dictation.

It seems we were both busy typing posts on the same subject at the same time. Just to make something clear: I'm not a spelling pedant, far from it, and I've always thought that Grand Dictation contest was nonsensical (although I'm aware the Flemish usually beat the Dutch, for much the same reasons many Dutch parents living close to the Belgian border, or just across it, send their children to Flemish schools.). But the problems with the suppposed Dutch translation on Annett's website go far beyond spelling errors. Whoever made it can't even get basics like grammatical gender (and Dutch only has neuter and non-neuter left) and singular/plural distinctions right. That's not something one has to be taught in school.

 

[ddt]

It seems we were both busy typing posts on the same subject at the same time. Just to make something clear: I'm not a spelling pedant, far from it, and I've always thought that Grand Dictation contest was nonsensical (although I'm aware the Flemish usually beat the Dutch, for much the same reasons many Dutch parents living close to the Belgian border, or just across it, send their children to Flemish schools.).

I agree about the Grand Dictation, insofar that it's silly to test people for exotic words like "cassowary" or "przewalski horse", or whether "product" is spelled with a "c" or "k" according to the spelling du jour (it's gone from c to k to c, I think, in the subsequent spelling revisions). I do think that d/t errors are severe, and I'd even call it illiteracy, as it betrays ignorance of the grammatical function of the word. But then, I'm more of a grammar pedant than a spelling pedant.

But the problems with the suppposed Dutch translation on Annett's website go far beyond spelling errors. Whoever made it can't even get basics like grammatical gender (and Dutch only has neuter and non-neuter left) and singular/plural distinctions right. That's not something one has to be taught in school.

Are we looking at the same document? Because I don't see them, or at least, only in a few "complicated" cases.

Gender errors:

page 1, par. 1: "het instituut en commerciële entiteit, gekend als “De Kerk van Rome”, haar officieren". If you think of "haar" referring back to "het instituut", it's a gender error, but if you think it referring back to "de kerk", it's not.

Singular/plural errors:

page 1, par. 1: the verb is in the singular, and refers back to "the institute". The insertion of "its officers" would suggest the verb should be in plural. This grammatical gaffe is also in the original.

page 2, par. 1: "haar geestelijken". Does that refer back to "de kerken" (the churches) in the same sentence, or to the Church of Rome in the previous sentence? In the latter case, no error.

page 2, par. 4: "Ieder lid, werknemer [...] en zijn vrij". Yep, that's an error, and it's also in the original ("Every member, employee [...] and are freed". After such a summation, many people think of the subject as being plural, and well, when the subject and the verb are separated by a whole line, most people's attention span has run out.

That's all I got, after reading through a couple of times... What I get out of it, is that the translation is done by a native Dutch speaker, of moderate intelligence, with little knowledge of polysyllabic words and none whatsoever of legalese or church matters, and who uncritically replaces each English word of Latin or French origin uncritically with the Dutch cognate without consideration for idiom shift. But then, Arnett's original declaration suffers from much the same problems.

 

[Altus]

Our old friend Judy Byington has hitched her crazy wagon to Kevin Annett's conspiracy theory campaign train against, well, take your pick.

Well, I can't say for sure what motivated it, but after months of publishing, Judy Byington's stories appear to be gone from Examiner. Did someone over there finally read one of her stories? I'd like to think Orphia had something to do with this, but then again, maybe it was the Vatican or the Lizard Queen.

http://www.examiner.com/article/are-the-queen-and-global-elites-supporting-child-exploitation-rings

 

[Craig B]

How would subsituting a French term (and an inaccurate one at that) for a purely English legal concept be helpful for a translation into Dutch?

It wouldn't. I was commenting on your general statement that

Common Law is unique to the English-speaking world, and as such the term is indeed untranslatable.

If the French can presume to offer translations, then it's not "untranslatable" although my lack of knowledge of Dutch precludes me from attempting to render the expression into that tongue. A pity because I'll be in Flanders next week, and I'm sure that a discussion there of English Common Law would be good fun.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Well, I can't say for sure what motivated it, but after months of publishing, Judy Byington's stories appear to be gone from Examiner. Did someone over there finally read one of her stories? I'd like to think Orphia had something to do with this, but then again, maybe it was the Vatican or the Lizard Queen.

http://www.examiner.com/article/are-the-queen-and-global-elites-supporting-child-exploitation-rings

Who said it can't be all three?

Probably "yes" to your first question.

 

[Orphia Nay]

From Judy Byington's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/childabuserecovery

Judy Byington shared a link.
24 April
https://childabuserecovery.com/cour...firm-that-pope-francis-raped-killed-children/

DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS!!! The above Examiner article, plus my 54 Examiner articles were taken off the web on 4-23-2014 after I reported on Brussels International Court witnesses' testimony about the fate of 50,000 missing native Canadian children.

Although I have been writing for the Examiner for over a year and my articles were passed as "newsworthy" no reason was given for taking the articles down.

For news on the international Ninth Circle Satanic Cult go to: www.ChildAbuseRecovery.com


and please "like" and "befriend" our Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/childabuserecovery

 

[Craig B]

From Judy Byington's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/childabuserecovery

At least we now know why nobody can find the court in which these momentous proceedings were held.

Yesterday the five international magistrates adjourned court for two weeks and considered continuing in closed sessions. This week’s closed court was held in an undisclosed location due to notification that the Vatican had released a Jesuit “hit squad” to disrupt proceedings.

No wonder the Vatican wants to stifle evidence like this:

Two adolescent women claimed that Pope Francis raped them while participating in child sacrifices. Eight eyewitnesses confirmed the allegations

The pope raping two young girls and simultaneously murdering and eating babies in the presence of at least eight witnesses! I'm surprised none of these witnesses has succumbed to the temptation to sell the story to a tabloid newspaper. A pity the News of the World is defunct. It liked stories about naughty clerics, and would have paid well for this, I have no doubt.