The Sheppard v. ZOG League Fixtures Table!
Match 1: I went into the local council offices and complained to a woman council employee that the council were “dumping Africans on us.” The snowflake reported this to the police and I was prosecuted (yet this very term was used by Anne Coulter and broadcast on mainstream British TV in January 2018). The single judge in the Magistrates Court, probably Jewish, delivered verdict of guilty of “racially aggravated” something or other and a fine of £315.
Appealed, three judges, two women and a man. At one point the woman chief would hardly let my barrister get a word in edgeways. Appeal denied, ordered to pay £650 costs in addition.
Score: Sheppard 0, ZOG 1.
Match 2: Civil action against North Yorkshire Police for return of my property, specifically four full-size computers and numerous data storage devices. This they took when I was arrested and held as a terrorist suspect on 14-15 July 2017. They also took a mobile phone with no SIM card used only as an alarm clock, even my odd bits of computer and printer memory. Morning of first hearing, police capitulated, property returned a week later on 1 February 2018.
Score: Sheppard 0, ZOG 0. Not a victory but a draw, since the police held my equipment for six months, causing considerable disruption to my work and personally.
The Defendant, North Yorkshire Police, has been ordered to pay costs (a little over £300; any property claim in the Small Claims Court costs £308, regardless of its value). However, the police lawyers are contesting the order.
Match 3: Two charges of “racially aggravated harassment” of an African nearby to whom the local council have given a second home. I am pleading not guilty. If it goes badly I could be imprisoned again. Pending trial on 22 February.
On 22 February the “complainant” did not attend court. It seems that the police have practically been hounding him to attend. One might even say that the police are guilty of “racially aggravated harassment” of someone who plainly does not want to attend court (for whatever reason).
In a normal case, that would have been the end of it. The police and courts are so fervent however that they have kept the case going, and I face another trial on the same charges on 14 June.
Update, 14 June: This time neither the prosecution witness nor the black complainant turned up. However the judge seems determined to continue and another attempt will be made to re-open the trial on 15 June.
Update, 16 June:The complainant was collected from work or something and the Sky TV man also reappeared, so the trial got underway. The day started off well, with as good a jury as can be expected, eight men and four women. In the witness stand the complainant was almost unintelligible, speaking in a thick Nigerian accent and the accusations he made were quite vague.
The Sky TV man's testimony was less heartening. I have never denied "losing my top" at him but the prosecution's case is only in terms of the complainant. The Sky TV employee made several emphatic assertions about events which were simply wrong, and which were detrimental to my defence. People's memories can be very inaccurate.
I was behind a screen for the entire time of these witness exchanges, supposedly so they wouldn't be troubled by the sight of me. Resumes Monday, when I shall be in full view.
Update, 18 June: I testified and admitted to losing my top with the Sky TV man and using naughty words. However my account was that the complainant hadn’t heard, nor had he been intended to hear. Everything else was denied. I said that the media was poison and that was why I had barracked the Sky TV man and called him a Shabbas goy. At one point I said “the Jews control the media, everyone knows that.” (“Everyone” used here in the sense of “anyone with any wit.”)
All the lawyers were very worried that I would try and “grandstand” and dig myself in deeper, and likely increase my sentence, so saying as much as I did was an achievement. I said a couple of times that mass immigration was a disaster. Despite the jury being all-White, the York city area is very conformist (e.g. York voted to remain in the EU during the referendum).
The jury went out and returned barely twenty-five minutes later.
I was aquitted of the most serious charge, “campaign of racially aggravated harassment.”
I was found guilty of the single instance of “racially aggravated harassment” (the Sky TV man incident).
Ordinary harassment carries a maximum of 6 months but with the “racially aggravated” enhancement it is a maximum of two years.
Sentencing is to take place in the morning, 19 June.
Match 4: Largely based on matters described in Match 1 and Match 3 above, the local council is seeking my eviction. Turns out I am ineligible for legal aid for this, so will be representing myself. This then is an opportunity for me to present my position unfiltered, and the worst the council can do is evict me (not desired but not the end of the world either).
There was to have been a hearing on 18 April 2018 but it has been adjourned.
The defence document is quite good, and is posted below.
Addendum: Subsequent to writing the document below it occurred to me that this could be used as inspiration and a basic template for general actions against local councils. For example, if a council moves in “asylum seekers” nearby, the council could be sued for the distress this causes to a resident. It is, after all, greatly upsetting to see one’s society and civilisation being destroyed before one’s eyes. If they are moved in nearby one is reminded of it daily.
Imposing these people on us is genuine “racially aggravated harassment.” As is typical, they are engaging in Freudian projection, accusing others of the very crimes they are committing.
Such an action may be unsuccessful, but they do have an impact. The costs of bringing an action are not enormous. Imagine the effect of councils up and down the land being sued in this manner! All it would take is one individual in each council area. It would be an effective, grassroots, and entirely legal rebellion against the wrecking of our country.
I, Simon Sheppard, believe it is fundamentally wrong to have a woman judge this matter, or indeed any matter. There are numerous grounds, prominent among which are:
The Council is aiding and abetting a foreign invasion, which is High Treason, a capital offence.* They thus have no moral authority to level accusations at people for relatively trivial offences which arise from the Council’s unlawful activity.
[* Capital punishment has been abolished in Britain but it will be argued that those who are breaking the law cannot legitimately change the law.]
This process is akin to a witchcraft trial of medieval times, because the basic premises of the accusations are erroneous.
The Council’s submission involves accusations of “racist” this and “racist” that. The new word “racism” originates from a solid line of four Jews: Leon Trotsky, Magnus Hirschfeld, Victor Gollancz and Gerald Ronson.
Ronson has poured enormous sums into organising and financing many “anti-racist” organisations and demonstrations, for example arranging coaches to transport students to demonstrations free of charge.
This pattern has been exactly repeated in America recently, where large numbers are transported to venues in “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” demonstrations. In this case the activity was financed by a Hungarian Jew, George Soros. Soros made his first billion shorting the pound in the 1992 Sterling crisis known as Black Wednesday. Hundreds of “front organisations” worldwide are financed by Soros, and his activities are officially restricted in Russia and Hungary.
In short, Western governments are being manipulated into enacting genocide against their own populations by an alien tribe. That tribe is acting cohesively in numerous ways to that end. They have invented the word “racism” to stifle criticism of their malevolent agenda.
Being called a “racist” is worse than being called a “nigger.”
Use of the term “genocide” here is not hyperbole: I am quoting the official definition of genocide adopted by the United Nations. However, the terms “White displacement” or “ethnic cleansing” may be preferred, being roughly equivalent.
Just as in Common Law people have the right to defend themselves, so has a people the right to defend themselves against genocide.
This whole situation has been provoked by the Council by its insane actions. Symptomatic of the mental illness is pathological altruism.
Pathological altruism occurs when a man sells everything he owns and gives the proceeds to Oxfam, to be spent overseas. Subsequently he becomes homeless and dies of pneumonia. His altruism is pathological; it has destroyed him.
Nature is where reality lies and in biological terms his actions are equivalent to a gazelle walking up to a pride of lions so they can eat.
The behaviour of the Council is similar, and has the same outcome, but there is an important difference. The foolish man is giving away his own property: he is free to be a fool with his own wealth. However, what the Council is giving away is not theirs, it is ours: our heritage and civilisation. Western societies are the product of centuries of development and toil, and the fruits of our ancestors’ struggle is our patrimony. The Council does own the common resources, we only entrust them with their supervision, and they are betraying that trust massively. They are giving away what is not theirs to give.
The women in the Council offices are paid, and very well paid, as public servants. The Council’s role is to preserve and maintain the commons (the common resources) for the public. Even though unskilled, they get the same pay as the skilled tradesmen who maintain the properties. (Some time ago I made a formal request to the Council about how much they were paid, but they refused to reveal it, which indicates not just denial of public obligations but great arrogance.)
The fact that the Council is dominated by women has resulted in a “feminine bubble” whereby they have lost sight of their function. It is not their role to impose their sentiments on the public.
If the women in the Council offices cannot cope with plain speaking, or words they do not like or disagree with, and go crying like little girls to the police or anyone else, they should not be doing the job. Inevitably among a sizeable population there will be a great diversity of views. If they are unable to withstand mere expressions of opinion they should stay at home and let men do this work.
Yorkshire folk are famous for being forthright, so this is doubly true for a Yorkshire council.
Detached from reality, the Council seems to believe that it can transplant people of an entirely different species into a Yorkshire town without causing serious problems in the future. One result is the destruction of social cohesion, which is confirmed in several academic studies:
The Downside of Diversity: A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth? Boston Globe (website), August 5, 2007:
It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam – famous for Bowling Alone, his 2000 book on declining civic engagement – has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
From the book, Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, Chapter: Diversity, Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Trust and Ethnocentrism in European Societies (2007; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247447618), Marc Hooghe, Tim Reeskens and Dietlind Stolle:
A number of studies suggest that increasing social diversity could have detrimental effects on social cohesion (Alesina & La Ferrara 2002; Hero 2003; Delhey & Newton 2005). According to this research, in more diverse societies, generalized trust is more difficult to foster, resulting in the loss of a sense of community. At the same time, we know that generalized trust is a key element of social capital, a societal resource that fosters collective action. The research indicates that generalized trust tends to be lower in ethnically fractionalized communities or in geographic areas with large ethnic or racial minorities. This relationship also holds when we compare census tracts with varying concentrations of immigrants in Canada. Trust levels are not just lower among the ethnic minorities themselves, but they are also suppressed among the dominant groups within society. However, these alleged effects of ethnic and racial diversity have only rarely been studied outside North America...
A rapid decline in social cohesion and community involvement is just the beginning.
The women in the Council appear to be engaged in xenophilia. I have seen several instances of White women reacting to non-White males like a deer frozen in headlights. They are distressingly blind to the nature of the immigrants they are housing and encouraging.
Arabs have average IQ’s from 78 (Qatar) to 86 (Kuwait), and Negroes average 64 (Gabon), 84 (Nigeria) and 91 (Sierra Leone) (Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen). Even someone with an IQ of 60 can learn to cry “racism” whenever criticism is encountered. Besides their indupitable lower intelligence, wherever Negroes settle, crime and disorder increases. Wherever Arabs settle there arises Islam, a backward culture which is best described as a system of conquest disguised as a religion. Britain is already massively over-populated, already having more unskilled workers than there are jobs for. I suggest that the only “benefit” immigrants provide is to enable White women to engage in miscegenation, a perversion with worse outcomes than paedophilia.
Mass suicide is insanity, and if the Council staff want to destroy themselves, they can carry on and do it. However they do not have the right to inflict destruction on the population it is their duty to serve. Without a dramatic reversal in trend, immigrants’ higher reproductive rates make it inevitable that native Britons will become a minority in their own country. This will have very severe consequences.
I have been under a great deal of stress, firstly due to illness and secondly due to a critical juncture being reached in my work. Around the time I lost my temper with the Sky TV man I had endured weeks of pain in my mouth.
I have not read Mr. A’s statement; I have seen enough of them. Mr. A is a manipulator who is playing the system for everything he can get. He appears to be better at it than most.
There are two potential explanations for Mr. A’s false claims:
I do not claim to be faultless, but what I have been saying is believed to be true. At one point I went into the Council office and said to the receptionist “There’s a problem in my area of fly-tipping, and the worst of it is, the worst of it is being done by the Council, dumping Africans on us.”
What I said was not only true, it was understated. Third-world immigration is far more harmful to our society and civilisation than unsightly bags of dumped rubbish and discarded furniture.
Further, on learning what is going on, it would be abnormal not to be upset and angry at the ongoing destruction of our country. Seeing the state of our cities and the invasion of our town in particular causes me great distress.
Many people are distressed at the situation. Moreover these instincts pass testing against evolution theory (evolutionary psychology) as valid.
A good doctor is ten years behind, a good consultant is up to date, and a good scientist is ten years ahead. I have over a hundred academic citations and a record of being considerably more than ten years in advance, becoming aware of the psychological mechanisms involved during a series of experiments ending in 1995. I have been told that I will be famous after I am dead.
My findings are as follows. The media has been engaged in a campaign of emotional manipulation and societal distortion for decades. The resulting divorce from reality is so severe and widespread that it can only be described as mass madness.
The media’s actions constitute an element of what has become recognised by military analysts (Lind et al) as fourth generation warfare (4GW). At its simplest, the object is to convince the enemy to destroy themselves. Also in accordance with 4GW, our institutions have been co-opted.
The Council will not like my conclusions but they are based on good evidence. I have been trying to highlight the situation, which is of critical importance, even at great personal cost.
The Council’s detachment from reality involves thinking that:
The proper psychological term for detachment from reality is psychosis.