Friday, January 01, 2010

Joking Top Ten Guesses of What "Muhammad Rafiq's" Birth Name Might Be

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

In light of the laughable presentation of Daryl Bradford Smith and David "Musa" Pidcock, in which Pidcock claimed that "Muhammad Rafeeq" once actually called himself "Rupert the Bear", I thought I would add a touch of humor to my blog with a joking top ten list of humorous guesses as to what "Muhammad Rafeeq's" birth name might be.

Number 10: Paul Rupert Lev Bronstein

Number 9: Paul Rupert Goldi-Lox-n-Bagels

Number 8: Paul Rupert Ivannabeagoyovich

Number 7: Paul Rupert Bugsy Siegelbunny

Number 6: Paul Rupert Setters Smith

Number 5: Paul Rupert Trepur Luap

Number 4: Paul Rupert Barry Soetoro

Number 3: Paul Rupert Madeleine Albright

Number 2: Paul Rupert Baron de Rothschild

Number 1: Nothing funny about that. . .

The Unbelievable Fairy Tale of "Rupert the Bear" AKA "Muhammad Rafeeq" AKA "Paul Rupert DeBeer". . . Who Truly Is???

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Muhammad Rafeeq", Daryl Bradford Smith, "Ognir" and David Pidcock missed another opportunity to tell us "Muhammad Rafiq's" birth name. Smith has posted interviews he recently conducted with these other men. The interview he conducted with David Pidcock is quite revealing in what these men refuse to reveal, and what they supposedly do. Refer to the following audio starting at 44 minutes, 44 seconds into it:

Quoting from this interview we have:


"Well, David, in light of that statement, you know you, and uh, have known my friend and collaborator, I work with him regularly, 'Muhammad Rafeeq', for several decades now."


"I've known him for a long time. Yes."


"And he has come under fire by critics saying that he is a member of the diamond merchant family De Beers and that I because I used to do a show in South Africa, that makes, the South African connection to my radio show makes me connected to De Beers and. . . . You know we've got these crazy conspiracy nonsense out there, but um they the. . ."

If Smith is referring to me, then Smith is fabricating a straw man argument to knock down. I never said that "Muhammad Rafeeq" is a member of "the diamond merchant family De Beers". Rather, I repeated what Daryl Bradford Smith told me, that "Muhammad Rafeeq" is not the man's original name, that "Rafeeq" is a Jewish banker, and that "Rafeeq" studied cabalah as a practitioner and comes from a family of other Jewish bankers. Smith's straw man argument aside, everything so far stated is perfectly consistent with these facts. I stated that "Rafeeq" was a banker before "Rafeeq" revealed that fact on Smith's show. How did I know it, if Smith did not tell it to me? How did I know that "Rafeeq" claimed to have had a split with his Jewish banking colleagues, if Smith had not told this to me?

Why does Smith raise straw men of his manufacture rather than tell his audience what he told me years ago?

The interview continued. . .


"Do you want me to. . . can I say. . . am I allowed to say. . . what the real story is?"

Why would Pidcock ask for permission to speak the truth about the man's name?


"Well, yes, except that I don't know if 'Muhammad' wants his original family name out though."

Permission denied.


"No, but I would say that he, 'Muhammad', was working in the City of London. He is a very, very clever analyst, uh, brilliant with computers and math, etc. He came to the conclusion that, uh, as uh, Hugh Kingsmill described the City of London and its denizens as 'excrement living on increment.' So that he felt that he had to get out. Now, he had certain information. So he basically changed his name to make everybody think that he'd just. . . uh, ah, he'd just flipped. And he changed his name by (depold?) to Rupert the Bear, OK?"

If Pidcock demands honesty, why did he tolerate the pseudonym for "Rafeeq" and if Pidcock demands truth, why doesn' Pidcock tell us "Muhammad's" birth name and the names of his parents and grandparents, which Pidcock appears to know? Where is the truth Mr. Pidcock? Was it honest to create pseudonyms and pretend to madness?

David Pidcock states in the interview and elsewhere that he is the great, great grandchild of opium manufacturers and opium shippers and persons involved in the East India Company long before his birth. Were these not ultimately Rothschild enterprises? What was the information "Rafeeq" had which he believed compelled him to pretend that he had gone mad, according to Pidcock, though "Rafeeq" has not stated that this fairy tale is correct? Has not "Rafeeq" called upon intelligence agents to have courage and reveal what they know on "The French Connection"? Has he revealed what he knows? Why not start with his birth name?


"Yes, because, because in a prosecution it's kinda hard to be serious about prosecuting Rupert the Bear."


"Right, right. So the there were the three bears. There was mother bear, father bear and Rupert the Bear. And uh so, he. . . I said, well we couldn't, uh, we had. . . we went to give talks in various places. I said well we can't announce you as Rupert the Bear, because we'll all look stupid, and even though I like Rupert and uh the Chinese gentleman that was his mentor in the express, uh, but uh so, um, as you think of it I'll send something quickly. I said well we'll call you Rupert DeBeer, and so it came out of 'the Bear' but it turned into 'DeBeer' for the sake of, um, ah, just having something which sounds credible. Then we were due to do a program in the Middle East, which was cancelled, uh and uh, then, of course, he would have to reveal his identity, using his passport to get visas. So, it was complicated, and so these first name on his passport was used as Paul Rupert DeBeer, not, rather than Rupert the Bear. So it has nothing to do with South Africa. It's everything to do with fantasy."


"Well, uh, you know, the idea, um. . . See, what I've always said to people is, is look at the body of the work. If you have a, if you take issue with my conclusions or the work I've put out there, challenge me."

I did challenge Smith and "Rafeeq" on their nonsensical apologies for Bernard Madoff, and their response was to smear me with falsehoods, avoid the issues I raised, and pretend that I had no basis whatsoever to claim that "Muhammad Rafeeq" was not the man's birth name. Was it honest of Smith and "Rafeeq" to smear me with falsehoods, when I asked a perfectly legitimate question of them, based on Smith's own assertions, and when was it was obvious on its face that "Rafiq's" apology for Madoff was complete nonsense? Where was the truth and an honest and open response when I posed these questions, and issued a fair criticism of their body of work? Why did Smith and "Rafeeq" pretend that I had ulterior motives, when they knew quite well that I did not? Was their behavior honest?


"Challenge. . . Right! Give us the evidence. I'm quite prepared to change anything that I, uh, so long as the evidence supports it."

I do challenge your stories, Mr. Pidcock. I ask you why you did not tell the truth about "Rafeeq's" name, by your own accounts, and ask if you believe such behavior is sanctioned by Islam? I ask you for "Muhammad Rafeeq's" birth name and those of his parents and grandparents? I ask you if "Muhammad Rafeeq" has any Jewish blood and if he studied cabalah as a practitioner? I also ask you to explain why, in your opinion, did your old friend "Muhammad Rafeeq" try to savage me with falsehoods when I posed these questions to him directly, why did he try to make it appear as if there were no basis for my inquiries, and if his behavior is consistent with the requirements of Islam?

Note that Daryl Bradford Smith has failed to name the names of the alleged Mossad agents whose sister was supposedly his patron and who is his close friend. What business is this family engaged in, Mr. Smith, and what are their names? Why did you tell me that you are good friends with prominent Jews in the gold and jewelry trades, importers from Italy, was this not your story? Name names, Smith. Name the alleged Mossad agents. Name "Rafeeq's" birth name. Stop pretending that there is no basis for my legitimate and entirely fair inquiries.

The Lawyer Who Defends Brendon O'Connell Will Likely Become Famous

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Brendon O'Connell's case is bound to make the lawyer who defends him famous. I can only imagine that the television media will regularly interview the lawyer who represents O'Connell.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Prosecution of Brendon O'Connell Must End

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

There should be pretrial motions to the dismiss the indictment against Brendon O'Connell on the grounds that the Statute under which the prosecution is brought, and is proceeding, is illegal, void and unenforceable; in that it violates Brendon O'Connell's fundamental constitutional and human rights of free speech, equal protection of the laws, self defense and freedom to engage in normal conduct intended for the public good.

There should be a pretrial motion to dismiss the complaint against Brendon O'Connell on the grounds that it fails to allege that an offense has been committed; in that the complaining allegation has no substance because it depends upon the false assertion that the Jews are a race so as to spuriously allege one of the elements of the offense. Therefore the complaint fails to allege a required element of the offense in fact, and is devoid of any sensible allegation that an offense has occurred, leaving the defendant without any means of preparing a defense to a charge which fails to allege that a crime has occurred.

The prosecution must end at the earliest possible date so as to terminate the illegal harassment and persecution of Brendon O'Connell. In the public interest, the prosecution must end at the earliest possible date so as to lift the chilling cloud it is having on public discourse.

Any denial of such motions should be immediately and directly appealable to the highest court, in that there is a strong and compelling public interest in the free and open public discussion of an enemy attack upon the nation, and the illegal prosecution of Brendon O'Connell is having, and is intended to have, a chilling effect on that discussion.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Why Has Not Daryl Bradford Smith Named the Names of the Alleged Mossad Agents He Knows?

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Daryl Bradford Smith has repeatedly called for the formation of public lists of Zionists. Why has he not started such a list himself and named the Mossad agents he has allegedly identified? Why would Daryl Bradford Smith refuse to cooperate with an investigation into these alleged Mossad agents? Why would Daryl Bradford Smith telephone Eric Hufschmid in August of 2009, whom he has accused of Svengali'ing him, and whom he has called a Zionist Jew? How could Smith arrive at the conclusion that his dear and close friend, a Jewess who served as his patron by his accounts, has nothing to do with the Zionist network when he believes that her brothers are Mossad? Was it not incumbent upon Smith to disclose the fact that he believes her brothers are Mossad when seeking to shield her, and was it not, and is it not, incumbent upon Smith to publicly identify Mossad agents and name names?

"Ognir" made a cop out when I asked him to ask "Muhammad Rafeeq" for his birth name with the pathetic excuse that he lacked "Rafiq's" email address. Noel Ryan then spoke directly to "Rafeeq" on several occasion but did not ask for his birth name. Now that I have begun to hone in on "Muhammad Rafeeq's" birth name, "Ognir" claims that he will finally ask for it from "Rafiq" or is it "Paul" something or other, which "Ognir" now concedes is correct, though he previously attempted to vilify me for raising the issue. Funny how names change with Daryl Bradford Smith & Co. "Ognir" is itself an inversion of "Ringo".

Daryl Bradford Smith pretended that I had no reason to question whether or not "Muhammad Rafeeq" was ever known by any other name, or whether or not he had Jewish blood, studied Cabalah as a practitioner and had Jewish bankers in his family, but it was Smith who first told me of these things, and Smith is only now revealing to "Ognir" that "Muhammad Rafeeq" has had other names, if "Ognir's" accounts are true.

"Muhammad Rafeeq" also pretended that I had no right to inquire of other names he has had. Why did "Rafiq" not immediately tell us any and all other names he has had?

Why did these characters try to vilify me for asking these questions and for pointing out that "Rafeeq's" article falsely claiming that Bernard Madoff is innocent was and is bunk on its face, and why did they pretend that I was in some way challenging "Rafeeq" to draw attention away from his transparently bogus conclusions, when "Rafeeq" knew that I had posed those same questions to him long before he had written his garbage article apologizing for confessed criminal Bernard Madoff? Why has not "Rafiq" since apologized to me and thanked me for pointing out that his article was nonsense on its face, which fact can no longer be denied even by a sophist so talented and practiced as he.

Will Smith now tell his audience everything he told me years ago about "Muhammad Rafeeq", or will Smith continue to try to vilify me with falsehoods for exposing the truth he doesn't want known?

The Charges Against Brendon O'Connell Are Themselves Violations of the Statute Under Which They Are Made

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

When the State asserts without proof that the Jews are a race and not a religion, the assertion itself proves that the State and the Jews are racist; in that they seek to prevent and bar by law and common understanding the admission of any Gentile into the class of person identified as the "Jews", or the "chosen people", or as members of the Jewish religion. These facts place the prosecution on the twin horns of a dilemma, because the charges themselves prove the correctness of O'Connell's alleged statements and should the State abandon its racist position and admit that the Jews are not a race, then there is no possibility of an offense of "racial vilification" of Jews ever having occurred.

Therefore, O'Connell is of necessity innocent and it is the prosecution and its Jewish supporters who are guilty of "racial vilification" of both Gentiles and Jews. Anyone, including but not limited to the Jews, the prosecution or any judge who determines that the Jews are a race and not a religion echoes the racist beliefs and racist laws of the Nazi regime. The racially discriminatory determination that the Jews are a race and not a religion prevents Gentiles from becoming Jews and a member of the "chosen people" and is therefore an act of racist discrimination against Gentiles which bars them from the free exercise of their religious right to become religious Jews. This also violates the equal protection clause, in that it arbitrarily creates two classes of persons based upon presumed and false racial distinctions, one class of which enjoys the right to practice the Jewish faith and one of which is barred by the State from entering that faith and people. Said racist determination also subjects any, including former Gentiles, to the determination that their entrance into a religious belief system has rendered them racially distinct from other human beings, a determination which is false and discriminatory in that it, among other things, denies their human right to their heritage and artificially and arbitrarily categorizes such persons as different from other human beings on a genetic level when such distinction does NOT exist in scientific or actual fact, but rather is made as part of a racist and discriminatory policy to separate and segregate Jews and non-Jews.

O'Connell is innocent, but those who accuse him are themselves guilty of the very offense they level at O'Connell by virtue of their accusations which dub the Jews a race.

Forum Needed to Discuss the Legal Issues Involved in O'Connell's Case and a Site Needed to Raise a Defense Fund for Him

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

One good idea is enough to free Brendon O'Connell. We need a moderated discussion board so that we can Tom Sawyer lawyers and anyone of good will to contribute ideas and information which will help to win O'Connell's case. He also needs funds to defend himself from the immense powers of the State to steal away his freedom

Such a forum will serve other functions, in that it will spark interest in the case and serve to rehearse and subject to public trial the issues of concern. The forum must be moderated to prevent a muddying of the waters.

The Charges Against O'Connell Must Be Dismissed Immediately, Because They Fail to Allege an Offense

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

A statement that the Jews are racist cannot be a reference to race, because racism is not a racial characteristic, but rather a trait of a belief system. Therefore, any statement that the Jews are racist must of necessity have been referring to beliefs and not racial traits. An element of the offense of "racial vilification" must be that a race has been vilified, and it is the State, not O'Connell, which is arbitrarily and with malicious intent falsely designating the Jews as if a race in order to silence O'Connell's accurate depiction of the Jewish religion. In America, the normal procedure would be for the defendant to file a pretrial motion to dismiss for the failure of the indictment to allege an offense.

The defendant would also file motions to dismiss due to the unconstitutional vagueness of the Statute which fails to notify the defendant of what conduct is proscribed by law; a pretrial motion to dismiss due to discriminatory violations of the equal protection clause of the constitution; a pretrial motion to dismiss for constitutional violations of the defendant's fundamental rights to free speech; a pretrial motion to dismiss for constitutional violations of the defendant's right to engage in normal human conduct; pretrial motions to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct; pretrial motions to dismiss for violations of the defendant's due process rights to preserve evidence; a pretrial motion for a bill of particulars; pretrial motions to suppress any evidence obtained illegally; a pretrial demand for a speedy trial if such is applicable in the jurisdiction of the court; a pretrial motion for discovery of exculpatory evidence and all other matter which the prosecution will or may wish to present at trial; etc. etc. etc.

At trial, the defendant must raise the absolute defenses provided by Statute as well as those secured as his fundamental rights to free speech, political freedom, self defense, defense of country, freedom of religious beliefs and expression, etc. etc. etc. All this must be done to not only win the case in the pretrial or trial phase, but also to preserve the right to raise the same issues in any potential appeal.

If it is an issue of first impression, if this is the first time the courts will address the question, then O'Connell stands a good chance of being able to appeal to the highest courts any violations of his rights or misconduct by the courts and/or prosecution. Have the courts established the elements of "racial vilification"? If not, then O'Connell has not received sufficient notice of what conduct is proscribed by law. If so, then the indictment against O'Connell must claim each element of the offense, which it cannot do, because the allegation necessitates that O'Connell referred to beliefs, not racial traits. Therefore, the prosecution must end at the earliest possible date so as to prevent further harm to the defendant by the unlawful prosecution currently being pursued by the State.

See also my blogs:

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Establish an Authoritarian and Anti-Democratic Government: November 26, 2009

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Violate Several Fundamental Human Rights and Due Process of Law: November 25, 2009

The Brendon O'Connell Case Concerns Us All

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Having watched the following statement by Fredrick Toeben, I would like to make a few observations and comments:

Playing the Race Card in Australia during May-June 2009 - Part I

Though there are certainly weighty historically important questions which will be judged in the case of Brendon O'Connell, his first concern should be to preserve his liberty and win his case. Any defendant should be raising legal issues in his defense and not simply hope to win because he is morally and factually correct. If convicted, a defendant may have waived those rights he did not assert prior to and during trial, and the appeals courts may refuse to consider any issues raised for the first time in post-conviction process. It is important, therefore, for any defendant to vigorously defend himself at the pretrail and trial stage of the prosecution, and throughout the process and assert all of his rights, and not get caught up in the drama and emotion which may blind him to the legal issues which can free him and which can help preserve all of our fundamental rights as human beings against the encroachments of the State.

If the information Toeben presents is correct, then the law which the State seeks to enforce against Brendon O'Connell is fatally defective on its face.

If the determination of whether or not the Jews constitute a race is made after the alleged act of vilifying the Jews occurs, then such a determination, however made, and whether made by a judge or a jury, or some other form of hearing, is made ex post facto and therefore is unenforceable against a defendant who had no prior notice of what conduct is proscribed by law.

The very act of conducting a hearing to determine whether or not Jews are a race demonstrates that the Statute failed to provide sufficient notice to the public of what conduct is proscribed by law, and therefore the Statute is unenforceable and must be struck down.

Since the Statute provides no legal definition of whether or not Jews are a race, the question is an issue of fact, not law, and therefore a defendant so charged ought to be entitled to have the issue of fact determined by a jury, if that is his choice, and not a judge or other non-jury form of hearing. I know nothing about Australian law. It might be that a defendant will have waived his right to have the issue determined by the jury at trial if he fails to assert that right pretrial and instead agrees to have the issue determined by a judge without objecting and taking exception to the violation of his fundamental due process rights. I do not know if the Australian courts honor a defendant's fundamental right to have issues of fact determined by a jury of his peers, as opposed to by a judge who in America is only entitled to determine issues of the law if that is the defendant's choice. This is a very important point to consider and one which the appeals courts may refuse to consider if it is not raised at the pretrial stage.

(1) There is a substantial argument to be made that there are no distinct human races, and therefore any accusation of racial vilification does not, and cannot state an offense and can therefore be dismissed pretrial. (2) This argument can be made in addition to the argument that the Jews are so genetically diverse that they cannot constitute any homogenous and unique biological category, much less constitute a specific race. (3) Beyond this is the argument that the Jews are followers of the Jewish religion, not an homogenous and unique racial biological category. A Jew may become a non-Jew by changing his religion without changing his genes. A non-Jew may become a Jew by conversion and belief. Though such a convert may believe that he is racially superior based on his incorporation through his beliefs into the "chosen people", science provides no evidence that his genes have changed, much less blended with those of a mythological homogenous and unique Jewish genotype which nowhere exists. These are three separate issues and should be heard separately at different hearings or by a jury.

Once again, since the law has not made any such definitions, these are questions of fact best left to the determination of a jury which is more likely to be sympathetic to the defendant's position than the State's by virtue of the fact that a judge is a member of the State. Any defendant should consider whether or not it is in his best interests to raise issues of: fact versus law, jury versus judge; and raise objections and take exceptions should the courts deny his right to have these issues of fact determined by a jury of his peers.

I once again caution O'Connell to use his head, not his heart, to defend his liberty, and his backside, and not martyr himself out of emotion and knowledge that he is in the right. He needs proper legal counsel who defend all of his rights and he needs to assert those rights and make proper and effective legal arguments as well as historical, religious and political arguments. The press, the public and the courts will take a strong interest in well stated legal arguments.