Three stories about yesterday ....

Our own research is rooted in academic studies using the investigative tools often employed by police to solve 'cold case' crimes.

Then there is an interloper named Paul Rusling who stole some of our research; slapped his own name on it, and then twisted it to support an fictitious narrative in aid of Malcolm Smith and an eponymous tiny operation called 'Caroline'.

But now, a third storyline has come to our attention.

This one seems to have begun in earnest somewhere around 2014, which is when we ran into a conundrum involving a book about Charles Orr Stanley and his son named John. Both were involved in building the Pye Group of companies, and from 1959 onwards they led a new fight to obtain radio broadcasting licenses as alternatives to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Our own research into the history of British broadcasting had taken us back in time to the work of U.S. Justice Hugo L. Black. His interests and our interests came together over his investigation into the origins of the United States Constitution. In the United Kingdom, which does not have a foundational document called a written constitution, Black traced the U.S. written constitution back to a fight for individualism that was led by John Lilburne. This relative of Thomas Jefferson lived from 1615 to 1657.

Now another storyline has come to our attention. This one does not incorporate the work of Black and John Lilburne. Instead, while it does include a somewhat similar evidence base to the one we uncovered,  this other version projects into the future, whereas our own research only deals with the present moment in time.

However, this other line is the work of a very close relative to a member of our own team; published over 50 books, and acquired an impressive accreditation. His futuristic world is based upon the idea of Prince Charles emerging as King Charles III to become not only a British monarch, but a leading figure in a modified United Nations which has morphed into a Federal World Government.

While his idea of federalism is modeled upon the United States system which combines both Federal and State governments, it lacks an existing foundation in law that can be referred to as a written constitution. To overcome this problem he has written and had published documents which create a transition from the present United Nations Organization, into a United Federation of the World.

But whereas U.S, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black could trace the origins of the United States Constitution back in time to the era of John Lilburne and his fight with both King Charles I and Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, in this instance we would be looking at present-day Russia; China; Iran and other despotic nations becoming sovereign states in a Federal government.

We do not want any part of that.

​We oppose even the present-day monarchical system that governs the United Kingdom, and we certainly do want to legitimize the idea that Prince Charles could become King Charles III who could reign over a United Kingdom, when the present-day U.K. already lacks a continuity of legitimacy. Where the problem for us occurs, is not so much what this third and futuristic storyline says about yesterday, because to some extent we are in agreement with many of its findings. Where we differ is in the future interpretation of that data.

Whereas Rusling stole research from us to create a twisted and fake storyline in support of a bogus link to a tiny eponymous radio station called 'Caroline', this other line tries to lay the groundwork for a tomorrow that is in sharp contrast to the ideas of John Lilburne. It is therefore on a collision course with the development of constitutional law in the United States of America. That path is centered upon individualism. This other idea is centered around collectivism and a 'democratic' vote to be exercised by existing dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships.

We don't want any part of that.

Therefore, now that this third interpretation has popped-up and come to our attention, we have to deal with it because its author is directly related to one of our 'Trio'. How we should deal with this situation has now created a conundrum that we have to address. That is what we are currently working on.