GUILTY - Pope, Jesuit General, Queen of England, Tarcisio Bertone and more...Crimes Against Humanity

Originally posted by Crakeur
I do believe y'all misunderstood me. This mock trial was meant to raise awareness to the perceived crimes of the people they tried. It has no bearing anywhere and deserves about as much attention as one needs whilst relieving himself of last night's dinner.

I do, however, agree that there are issues that the church is faced with, that are going unpunished, and should be dealt with. In a real court. In the real world where the actual trial means something and the actual results mean something.

what these clowns did, by telling the people to make citizens arrest is to potentially put someone in harm's way and that is very dangerous. Some dope sees the so called trial and decides to strap a bomb to his chest to take out the criminal pope and then what?

actual trials can mean nothing, I know that big time as a one time juror. A citizens's arrest is just that, and legal.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


how disgusting to see so many ATS'ers laughing at people trying to raise

the awareness & take a stand against institutionalized, generational pedophilia.

if everyone who says they are against these monsters in a "respected" position of

the church taking sexual advantage of children & the Vatican authorities actively covering

these crimes for decades (as the current Pope, in fact, did) instead of laughing as you all are.... maybe more &

more would stand up in each country, demanding trials, and finally convict these criminals.

Originally posted by smurfy

actual trials can mean nothing, I know that big time as a one time juror. A citizens's arrest is just that, and legal.

Actual trials have actual consequences. I was a juror once too. What does that prove?

Best of luck trying to make a citizens arrest where no crime has been proven in a court of law. You will wind being arrested by real police, tried in a real court and wind up in real jail.

reply to post by reeferman

how disgusting to see so many ATS'ers laughing at people trying to raise
the awareness & take a stand against institutionalized, generational pedophilia.

ITCCS is a one man "tribunal" that stands against the Catholic Church and some governments.
They He operates on an agenda, which causes him to lose a big chunk of his credibility.

If he was focused on going after child abusers, he would be going after child abusers EVERYWHERE... especially the child sex tourism....

...not just focus narrowly on the Catholic Church.

reply to post by reeferman


See again, someone correlating that we don't care about exploitation of children just because we are holding this guy who runs this fake court with contempt. The two simply do not go together.

Personally, I think the Vatican has a lot to answer for, and not just with regards to children. I fear, however, that since the Vatican is a nation unto it's own, until that status is revoked (and it never will be) we won't have all the answers we so desperately want.

But mob mentality is NOT the way to go...

Originally posted by ajay59
As a court of the human species, I give them MY authority as a human being! If you wish to allow the wholesale slaughter and sexual abuse of children then I guess that is what YOU are made of. To any out there who consider yourself to be humane and who wish to put an end to these atrocities, you can and should lend your authority as well. To those of you out there who laugh and joke about how these despicable creatures are above reproach, and wish to see these acts against children continue, hopefully, someday you will be included on a list as well!

edit on 26-2-2013 by ajay59 because: to correct

I really wasn't going to post but I can't resist. Why do you come out with such statements that you have no actual evidence for? I'm talking specific evidence relating to each of the individuals listed that can be verified and isn't some crap you've pulled from an internet blog with no validation?

You are acting as though you are just looking for an argument and just make yourself look very naive and gullible, sorry.

Originally posted by ajay59

itccs.org Roman Church admits the Pope’s Guilt: Joseph Ratzinger to Evade Justice and Hide out in the Vatican for his own legal immunity and “protection”

Vatican officials announced that Joseph Ratzinger will remain a permanent resident of Vatican City after his resignation. Doing so will offer him legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources said today "His continued presence in the Vatican is necessary, otherwise he might be defenseless".

Judging by things like this, the Pope sure looks guilty! It also seems that the Vatican does not want Ratzinger to be available for interview of any sort.

itccs.org... ty-and-protection/

The link would not take, for some unknown reason.

What is the point going to a link that is basically nothing but gossip and innuendo? The Pope (as is until later) is retiring and will live within the Vatican. He will actually be staying in Rome for around six weeks first while the place has some building work done. The quote you have provided is basically BS, and I think you know that really but for some reason you just aren't happy if you have nothing to be irate about.

Ats is not what it seems,..it seems.

Just lately it seems to protect what many come here to expose. Leaves me real puzzled. Seems More like opinion swaying than open debate on hot topics. The more I see this, the less I want to contribute....

Having read through the article the following can be stated:

This is a hoax, and just wishful thinking on the part of who ever posted it. Here is the reasoning for that conclusion:

The International court is not in Brussels, Belgium, but is in the city of Hague, in the Netherlands. Any leader that would be tried by this court, would have it done at the actual court, in the Netherlands, as per the UN Charter.

If the court were to indite the mentioned people, it would be all over the news, especially when it came to the pope, who was not around when the crimes that he is being accused of, or even in a position of authority.

The queen of England, is another that one would have a hard time believing that she ordered anything, as she has no real power, nor has any monarch that has sat on the throne of England, not since 1649, when the monarchy of England was stripped of its power, in the civil war that resulted in the death of King Charles Stuart I. Nor does the person sitting on the throne of England have any sort of authority in the Church of England, even though they are the figure head of such, as it would require that permission to enter into the chruch itself.

This is a hoax and a badly written one.

reply to post by Wifibrains


ATS is as it's always been. The nonsense that comes through our doors has worsened and the members are aware of it and, therefore, are exposing it.

reply to post by Crakeur


Ok captain status quo.

Whatever you say

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
If he was focused on going after child abusers, he would be going after child abusers EVERYWHERE... especially the child sex tourism....

An excellent point, Skorp. I just saw something on the news the other night where they had some undercover operation in the Philippines, with concealed camera footage of some guy from Texas who had a bar, pimping out underage girls. Absolutely disgusting. (Video here)

As to the ITCCS, I would hope that the Canadian authorities have some awareness of Kevin Annett. When one thinks about what he claims, writes and projects, one can't help but see a deep seated mental illness -- what sane person would think that issuing a press release about confiscating churches across Canada would result in that actually happening?

With that in mind, how is he going to react when absolutely nothing comes from his "tribunals", "trials" and threats of confiscations? One would hope that he'd just scuttle off, but with the mentally ill, who's to say that he won't react violently and go shoot up a church during Mass?

reply to post by adjensen

With that in mind, how is he going to react when absolutely nothing comes from his "tribunals", "trials" and threats of confiscations? One would hope that he'd just scuttle off, but with the mentally ill, who's to say that he won't react violently and go shoot up a church during Mass?

Never thought about it from that angle. Sounds scary to be completely honest.

He is definitely an obsessive guy... trying to come across as an internet do-gooder... who's intentions are masked by personal agendas.

I guess he could have made his case against the Catholic church legitimetely.... if he had run a personal blog with his name on it. But the whole "The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State" is nothing but theatrics.... and gives him away.

Originally posted by ajay59
There are two very important points I can take away from this thread about the abuse and genocide of children.
1) Some people wish to maintain the status quo, so much that they are willing to overlook the safety of children to keep it that way.
2) That as long as we all buy in to the incessant droning that we are powerless, there is nothing we can do, these people will get their way!

I ask you, is humanity really so far gone that there is no hope for recovery?
Another thing I noticed, I could be wrong about this and may have to check but, it sure seems to me that some of these people who are ignoring these poor children are the same ones who were "using" the children over the Sandy Hook threads!

Actually, add a third to that - some people are swayed by anything they read on the internet. What crimes do you believe the Queen of Britain has actually committed - tell me that in black and white and submit proof. Please, please don't resort to the total and utter BS around her allegedly killing and eating children in the 1960's that often floats around ATS by members that don't have the intelligence to actually check any facts before posting.

Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, add a third to that - some people are swayed by anything they read on the internet.

Internet Rule #53: No matter how ridiculous the premise might be, if you post it on the internet, a frighteningly large group of people will believe it and a slightly smaller, somewhat more scary number of people will develop a cult around it.
(for examples see: NESARA, TOPPT, SERPO, John Titor, Ashtar Command, Galactic Federation, Blossom Goodchild, bean and balloon porn)

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, add a third to that - some people are swayed by anything they read on the internet.

Internet Rule #53: No matter how ridiculous the premise might be, if you post it on the internet, a frighteningly large group of people will believe it and a slightly smaller, somewhat more scary number of people will develop a cult around it.
(for examples see: NESARA, TOPPT, SERPO, John Titor, Ashtar Command, Galactic Federation, Blossom Goodchild, bean and balloon porn)

And that is certainly a rule that should be higher up the list than #53. But of course ATS would never see such behaviour now would it (cough, cough)?

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by smurfy

actual trials can mean nothing, I know that big time as a one time juror. A citizens's arrest is just that, and legal.

Actual trials have actual consequences. I was a juror once too. What does that prove?

Best of luck trying to make a citizens arrest where no crime has been proven in a court of law. You will wind being arrested by real police, tried in a real court and wind up in real jail.

If you go to a Crown court, it should be expected that there should be some substance to a case before it even gets that far. The very serious one I attended was ridiculous in part, and hearsay for the rest.
Anyway, I'm not that concerned about citizen's arrest, which is possible here, and in the US, it does not need court approval. What I would be concerned about is adding fuel to the fire, in the "He looks evil" remark, while at the same time talking about nut jobs who might act on their own.

reply to post by smurfy


the soon to be former pope does not look pope-ish.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but, in my opinion, he's got a slightly evil smirk-like look. Doesn't mean he's a bad dude or evil incarnate, it just means he looks that way to me and, more important, my opinion doesn't matter regarding the way he looks, or anyone looks. but he does have a little palpatine thing going on, I believe someone, somewhere, pointed out.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by smurfy

 

more important, my opinion doesn't matter regarding the way he looks, or anyone looks. but he does have a little palpatine thing going on, I believe someone, somewhere, pointed out.

You just said internet rule 53 above?
Anyway the Pope has resigned, and it's more like as not, he got a bit of a push. That will be another story if it ever comes out.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by smurfy

 

the soon to be former pope does not look pope-ish.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but, in my opinion, he's got a slightly evil smirk-like look. Doesn't mean he's a bad dude or evil incarnate, it just means he looks that way to me and, more important, my opinion doesn't matter regarding the way he looks, or anyone looks. but he does have a little palpatine thing going on, I believe someone, somewhere, pointed out.

Hmmm, it's hard to know how to comment on that. You look how you look, it's not a reflection on your character. All I would say is when you are 85, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if the face that looks back at you is the one you would like people to see.

BTW, how does someone look pope-ish?