ARK and EIM - legal threat - threads hidden

[Caz]

This video shows how EIM Consult and EIM Group are related. Remember, ARK is now running three schools in London and looking for at least 12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJEQwzB760 Remember, the chairman of EIM Group and the chairman of ARK is the same person.

What this demonstrates is the evidence on the www.pehi.eu website (Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions) that EIM (European Institute of Management) grew out of the PIO (Public Information Office) which is described as 'a fascist "personal" Military Intelligence group that spied on journalists that had a negative attitude towards the Vanden Boeynants gang'. Vanden Boeynants was specifically named in the Dutroux child sex, torture, murder scandal in Belgium first reported in the main stream media in 1996. The perpetrators of this scandal were never caught, considered to have been protected by the 'paedophile lobby'.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/1456107/Judge -tells-of-murder-plots-to-block-Dutroux-investigation.html

[kbo234]

Excellent research and video.

Well done Caz!

Some of us already knew that there are fiends at work who are busy corrupting and debasing the English education system and everyone inside it.

I have believed for some time that these people are those that direct the think-tanks. These bodies are funded by bankers and keep generating ever-more-idiotic and demoralising policies. The 'government' that we elect are merely the Sales & Marketing Department for these people. In truth the individuals at the top of the government we elect are not even chosen by ourselves but by these banking interests.

Now it would appear that we can see that there are degenerates at the highest level who are (self-professedly) working on a project of mass mind control....


......and that these same people already have 3 English schools in their fat paws.

Teachers. Wake Up!!!

[Caz]

Thanks KBO. Make sure you pass it on, and we don't have any more ludicrous articles in the MSM about what a wonderful thing academy and trust schools are. I notice a peculiar comment made by Sir Cyril Taylor: http://education.guardian.co.uk/newschools/story/0,,1704196,00.html

[Marie]

ARK's website - ARK funding Hopes and Homes:

ARK’s work with Hope and Homes for Children (HHC) in Romania closed seven orphanages in just three years, placing 1,100 children into families or family-type care and preventing another 600 children from entering the institutional system. Partnership with government means that the costs of ongoing care are covered from public funds.
http://www.arkonline.org/projects/residential_pages/romania.html

Hope and Homes' website:

Closing Institutions - We have developed a
de-institutionalisation model which is now
being replicated in other counties with a view
of being applied at national level in the future.
We have closed down an institution for infants and set up supporting services for families which means that no other infant in Maramures county will enter the institutional system again.http://www.hopeandhomes.org/romania.htm

And here the press release about their cooperation.
http://www.arkonline.org/resources/B0629-ARKPressRelease.pdf

Not a word on cooperation with ARK.

And both ARK and HOPES AND HOMES remain silent about the 60 million Euro project of the European Union that financed most of the de-institutionalisation of children in Romania.
You can read all about that in
Romania - for export only
www.romania-forexportonly.eu

[Caz]

Although Eim Consult and Eim Group are called European Institute of Management and European Investment Managers respectively and were founded in different years, I find it extraordinary in the extreme that a company of the magnitude of Eim Consult should send potential customers to a completely different company when they click on the 'home' link. This is phenomenally bad for business and it beggars belief that such an error could have occurred. Unless, or course, they are closely associated. It is irrelevant if the two companies call themselves by different names and are founded in different years; that one has been diverting inquiries to the other is what is significant.

I have heard that on ringing Eim Consult, people were told they had the 'wrong number' and the business address in London, although giving an impressive photograph on their website, is actually a post-office box. This is deceit. You either operate from a building or you don't. You can hardly be mistaken. At the moment the Eim Consult website is not operating at all. (www.eimconsult.com). However, they have moved to another location, and maintain an interest in 'human re-engineering', and profitability enhancement: http://www.parabolic.be/eim/whoweare_eim_uk.htm

One of my concerns with the original EIM Consult website was the mention that they would provide 'more nursing time for nursing staff'. I did wonder if they meant something like this:
from: http://www.injusticeline.com/strouds.html

[ian neal]

Our ISP has received a complaint and threat of legal action in response to a recent thread entitled ARK and EIM. If the thread had not been removed the whole site would have been shut down until the matter could be resolved. As a result I have decide to remove it pending discussion amongst the moderators.

Thank you for your understanding

[ian neal]

FYI email received 10 mins ago which led me to move this thread

Hi Ian,

We have received notification of possible legal proceedings against today
regarding possible defamatory postings on your forum under the thread 'The War on Children' - 'ARK and EIM'.

As we do not want to get drawn into a legal dispute on your behalf we must ask you to remove the post in question from your forums. The post linked is below:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12806

We need a response to this email within 24 hours with confirmation of the
posts removal otherwise we may have to suspend the site pending successful resolution of the matter between yourself and the person making the complaint.

Kind Regards,

Simon Wallis
UH Abuse

[TonyGosling]

Ian,

That is not a post, it is an entire topic.

What exactly have the lawyers told the ISP are they objecting to?

Have you got the full text of the legal letter the ISP recieved?

Is all comms between the ISP & you on this thread?

This is a bit tricky of the ISP because they should give us the text of the objection so that we can decide what to do. We can then take out any offending info and replace the rest of the thread!!

We should have all that info up here on this thread and post the legal letter on the public forum

[TonyGosling]

For everyone's information.
this is the video EIM/ARK failed to get YouTube to remove

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJEQwzB760

You can save it to your own computer using this link

Ian Neal is (I hope) curently in communication with the ISP to establish if there is any grounds for the legal threat.

[ian neal]

I asked for the specifics

The letter from the solicitors to the ISP is confidential according to UH. If necessary they can pass my details on to the solicitors and ask them to contact me.

What I have posted is the full total of the communication

[TonyGosling]

That's ridiculous and where Greennet would be 1000 times more helpful.

Maybe you should xplain to them that unless there is a specific allegation we'll replace the thread tomorrow.

Can't have this sort of silliness.

[TonyGosling]

Latest info is that the ISP FastHosts has told us to remove the entire topic or they'll close the whole site tomorrow - even though they won't give us any specific allegation of defamation.

Here's more on the man:
Arpad is the one on the left

[paul wright]

[TonyGosling]

From what they're saying all we have to do is change the headline and extract one post which Caz (Karen) believes is suspect o a new url and we should be in the clear.

Let's see this as a challenge to be risen to.

[TonyGosling]

The discussion really needs to be with the ISP because we really don't know anything yet.



here is the legal note sent by YouTube

[TonyGosling]

Youtube have now removed the video

nothing about why!!!

[TonyGosling]

version of video without the audio


Link

[Caz]

Video now at this location: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/EIMConsult_censored_video

Talk page re video at this location: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:EIMConsult_censored_video

Solicitors letter from Schillings at this location: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_demands_to_EUTruth. Org_over_EIM_Chair_Arpud_Busson

What others have said about Schillings:

from: http://www.pickledbushman.com/index.php/2008/02/22/schillings_lawyers_ send_take_down_notice

[TonyGosling]

There are some worrying connections between these two organisations EIM and ARK.

All individuals involved with the new academy schools should be closely looked into.

[paul wright]

Anyway, seeing as that YouTube video has been taken down, and these parties are making threats, we can assume there is something very big to hide.
Is that video still up elswhere?
EIM's Human Reengineering and Profitability Enhancement is a worrying concept particularly if it's feeding into schools and young person's institutions
It's like an arm and branch of Common Purpose

[Caz]

Video and solicitor's letter here:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/EIMConsult_censored_video
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_demands_to_EUTruth. Org_over_EIM_Chair_Arpud_Busson

[Caz]

Who is robbietherobot?

The following is a comment posted on youtube and the reply, while the Ark Schools video was running, prior to it being removed by youtube:

[Caz]

[Caz]

Thread which was removed on account of legal threat posted here:

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14932

[Caz]

a possible connection to the Russian Mafiya??

http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=166

[TonyGosling]

Final threads to go through

[TonyGosling]

The Injunction King, a cabal of grasping lawyers and a £2,000 an hour assault on free speech

By Richard Pendlebury - Last updated at 9:41 AM on 25th May 2011

Given how events unfolded this week, it’s hard not to conclude that Ryan Giggs has received legal advice which was the equivalent of what’s known in football as a hospital pass.

By following the guidance of his high-powered lawyers, a personal embarrassment has become a PR catastrophe. And it might well have cost him as much as £250,000 – so far – for the privilege.

Exposure of his extra-marital fling with a pneumatic brunette from kiss and tell central casting would have been at best a two-day wonder, of interest to a minority of national newspaper readers, if he had allowed the story to be published.

But by attempting to suppress it with a draconian injunction, he has turned it into an international cause celebre. To make matters worse, his name is also now synonymous with an ongoing attempt to restrict free speech in Britain. As such, it touches on every walk of life, and by so doing assumes an importance that dashes any argument that it is purely a personal matter.


Eye-watering fees: Keith Schilling, whose firm represents Ryan Giggs

Is this what Giggs hired the mighty Schillings, of Bedford Square, London, to achieve? One presumes not.

But if Giggs is a victim of his own libido and poor judgment, then he is also an unwitting casualty of the campaign by a small number of media law firms which, assisted by sympathetic judges and the Human Rights Act, have been pushing to secure a privacy law.

We will address the matter of the huge fees which this ‘crusading’ can accrue later.

For now, it is with some amusement, however, that one views the promise on the masthead of Schillings website. It boasts: ‘We protect those in the public eye from unwarranted intrusions into their personal lives.’

This robustness reflects the nature and background of the man behind what is arguably Britain’s most powerful media law firm.

Keith Schilling is a self-made protector of the rich and famous. The 54-year-old son of an unemployed father and shop worker mother, Mr Schilling left school at 15 to clerk at a Soho firm specialising in media law.

Studying at night, he went on to qualify as a solicitor and left Soho aged 28 to found his own firm.

It has made him very rich. His warning letters and writs to the media drop like confetti and he is known to revel in the nicknames ‘The Injunction King’ and ‘The Silencer’. The latter soubriquet was mentioned in a flattering newspaper profile which he then produced in court to justify his infamously eye-watering fees.

It is the silencing injunction which has become the defining weapon of Schilling and his ilk.

Why settle for a feeble ‘no comment’ from your client when they are questioned about uncomfortable truths, when there is a legal bludgeon with which you can suppress them altogether?

'As usual, Schillings have been very, very aggressive in their approach to the case'

We can trace this conflict back to the formulation of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. Article 8 enshrined an individual’s right to a private and family life. This was at a time when totalitarianism stalked the continent. Millions were oppressed; the rights of adulterous footballers were not in the forefront of debate.

When the convention was enshrined in British law by the Blair Government through the Human Rights Act of 1998, some could predict the dangers of its misuse.

The Bill was indeed amended to emphasise the importance of balancing privacy with the freedom of expression referred to in Article 10. Injunctions would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, theoretically.

But lo, it came to pass that the Schillings of this world jumped on it with bared fangs. Crucially, the judiciary proved receptive to their arguments.

The trickle of injunctions has recently become a flood. ‘Footballers talk to footballers,’ says one media lawyer. Former Formula One boss Max Mosley’s controversial victory in his privacy case, after the News of the World published an account of his orgy with a harem of prostitutes, encouraged the trend further.

Since the start of 2008, at least 38 injunctions have been granted by the High Court, following applications by some of the most famous names in Britain. Some are so-called superinjunctions which prevent even the existence of the injunction from being disclosed.

How does the injunction process work?

It is the silencing injunction which has become the defining weapon of Schilling and his ilk

Let’s say an adulterous public figure gets wind that details of his transgression are about to leak out, and runs to his lawyers to ask for help. The firm in question applies secretly on the client’s behalf to the High Court for an emergency ‘anonymised’ injunction to prevent publication of the story or even the subject’s name in relation to the proceedings, on the grounds that it would intrude into the privacy of his or her family.

However, such emergency injunctions only last for a week before their power expires.

There is then a return date at court, when the newspaper and other interested parties have the chance to argue their cases for publication. If the celebrity is once again successful in his or her privacy argument, the injunction is extended by the judge to the date of another court hearing.

Such litigation has to be underpinned by the understanding that the proceedings are to culminate with that third court hearing, at which the newspaper will be sued for breach of privacy. But in reality this rarely happens. It is a mere legal convention. Usually the injunctions gather dust. Only rarely are they overturned.

The lawyers’ job is done, the erring celebrity retains his wholesome, commercially friendly and now utterly misleading image and the world is none the wiser.

Keith Schilling won his reputation as a privacy expert a decade ago when he helped Naomi Campbell win a case which went to the House of Lords.

After that, he was the ‘silencer’ of choice for a legion of wealthy names.

One failure occurred last year when an injunction obtained to protect England captain John Terry from being exposed as a ‘love rat’ was overturned. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that it was neither ‘necessary nor proportionate’.

A view widely held in media law circles was that this decision was taken because the injunction’s clear aim was to protect Terry’s good image for commercial rather than family reasons.

Schillings took a different tack with the Giggs injunction which was exposed in the House of Commons this week, arguing that the footballer was the target of a blackmail attempt by Imogen Thomas – an unproven and contested claim which Mr Justice Eady nevertheless accepted.

But thanks to internet gossip, their efforts began to unravel – and at great material cost to the Welshman.

Keith Schilling himself is one of the most expensive solicitors in London, charging up to £650 per hour. Partners in his firm cost some £500 an hour. There would have been a team handling the Giggs case, costing perhaps in total £2,000 an hour.

In court, Giggs has been represented by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, who charges up to £20,000 per hearing. He has been supported by a junior barrister.

One legal expert calculated that because Giggs’s legal team have returned to court several times to aggressively tackle each perceived new breach, the bill could be as high as £250,000.

What could Giggs have done differently?

In hindsight, the smart choice would have been to take the red top tabloid hit on the chin and ride out what would surely have been a brief storm, save at Chez Giggs.

The smart choice would have been to take the tabloid hit, and ride out what would have been a brief storm

If an injunction was sought and gained but ran into the kind of social networking storm that occurred, it would perhaps have been most dignified, economic and tactically astute to realise the game was up, as Andrew Marr did recently.

Marr had used an injunction three years ago, to stop any reporting of the story that he had possibly fathered a child with a colleague. Last month, he spoke to the Mail about his regret at what he had done.

But that is not how firms such as Schillings operate.

Last week saw a Black Friday for the modern injunction. The one obtained by former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin to stop reporting of an affair he had with a female colleague while his bank imploded – costing the taxpayer £4billion – was partially overturned thanks to the very obvious public interest argument.

That same day it emerged that the indefatigable Schillings were trying to win a court order to force the Twitter website to give up names of ‘guilty’ members of the public who had mentioned Giggs’s name in reference to his injunction.

Cue the rage of the worldwide Twitterati. The dam burst: the world would not be silenced by Schillings’ threats. They had become a self-perpetuating farce.

Some have seen the injunction trend as an attempt to merge defamation and privacy into a blanket legal ban on reporting the bad behaviour of the rich and famous.

The make-up of the recent Neuberger Committee on superinjunctions – set up to investigate the need for a privacy law – did not suggest otherwise. No journalists sat on the panel. But among its members were Rod Christie-Miller, partner and chief executive at Schillings, and a partner of the other big newspaper injuncting law firm, Carter-Ruck.

‘The wave of injunctions has grown huge, and Schillings have ridden the crest,’ says one media lawyer. ‘Now perhaps it has reached its peak and will come crashing down.’

For Ryan Giggs, the damage has been done.

When he acknowledged the fans from the pitch at Old Trafford last Sunday following United’s Premier League triumph, he was not so much waving as drowning in bad, but hugely expensive legal advice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390626/The-Injunction-King-ca bal-grasping-lawyers-2-000-hour-assault.html

[Life]

That is a great report Tony, we are wiser as to what schillings is all about and now have names to present across the internet.

The following information may give insight as to what is really going on with this case, I feel they are attempting to shift the common law precedent that all future cases will follow :

Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.

For such actions to be allowed, it has to come as a direct claim by the monarch, that the European Union is in fact part of the realm of the same, if it were not, then under the oath taken by the Judges no such laws can be enforced...


Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law

In common law legal systems , the common law is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute).

Here is what I have stated for some years now, all law has its basis in common law, the law of the land, that to ensure the statutes cannot hit your being it is essential one does not identify oneself as the commercial debt account, at any point during any and all legal claims against you.

It is after they have gained statute contract that the mentioned modifications by statute are enforceable, and the reason those who have used this information are finding very odd behaviour from the Judiciary and the Constabulary.

I can only suggest at this stage that without the statute identification of the defendant, the CPS cannot function in their means to enrich the corporate, as such they decline the case.....

still learning......

[Caz]

Thread about the second threatening Schillings letter received by United Hostings regarding infomation on this forum, at this location:

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=16397

[Caz]

Have just noticed that the Schillings latter of 4th MArch 2008 does not show up in public profile, link here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32363018/059-Schillings-Letter-4th-March-200 8