Exclusive – Trade Me’s Jon MacDonald Child Sex Doll Collection Exposed #TOS

#

Featured Image – Trade Me CEO Jon MacDonald with one of his ‘favorite’ child sex dolls.

Check it out – just took a few screen prints – but there are pages of it.

Jon MacDonald kicks Media Whores related accounts  off Trade Me for exposing his pedophile Nazi Satanists – an account with 100% honesty ratings going back 7 years – but he makes money selling child sex and satanist dolls to kids instead.

Pure filth.

Jon MacDonald – you should leave the New Zealand Republic while you still can you filthy degenerate Nazi.

Fk off you Nazi sissy.

No wonder you were so upset about our posts – you are clearly one of them also……

#TOS …. and filthy pervert pedophile satanists……

https://www.trademe.co.nz/toys-models/dolls/living-dead-bleeding-edge/v-gallery?rsqid=06b5502454804f6a986b7a3fc7db457a


(Visited 101 times)

Comments

One thought on “Exclusive – Trade Me’s Jon MacDonald Child Sex Doll Collection Exposed #TOS”

  1. Reply
    Kim says:

    Info topup re: 1080 injunction Hunua.

    13th September 2018. Attention:
    Frida.Cho.Environment Court Case manager.
    The Friends of Sherwood Trust verses Auckland watercare.

    Application for Adjournment.

    1. There are several reasons for application for adjournment.

    2. On 9 Sept 2018 Judge Jeff Smith in the Environment Court ordered an interim injunction, to cease and desist any 1080 application into or near the Hunua lakes Auckland water supply catchment until the full court injunction application hearing in September 13th.

    3. Contractors for watercare aerial 1080 application had already done a pre bait application, despite being fully aware of the injunction application.

    4. It is not possible to legally separate the pre bait application, from the 1080 poison application. As by law one does not proceed without the other. That this splitting of hairs by watercare is a deliberate and dangerous contempt of court.

    5. Which is a criminal matter for the police under the Crimes Act 1961.

    6. There could be further crime’s committed by watercare helicopter contractors.

    7. Experience shows that very regularly in order to “profit financially” helicopter contractors do not do a complete pre bait application, BUT INSTEAD do poison application and pre bait application simultaneously. As a sleight of hand disguised as being part of the pre bait application.

    8. This saves both time and very considerable amounts of very expensive helicopter fuel. To considerable financial profit.

    9. To ascertain whether this degree of fraud and criminal contempt of court has taken place. Discovery of the Hunua Lakes area would need to take place.

    10. To not do this discovery would cause “criminal fraud” by the helicopter pilots to be covered up.

    11. Cover up of potential criminal fraud and misrepresentation by the water care helicopter contractors can only occur if there is no adjournment. 10 days would be required so that further evidence can be lawfully presented as the Environment Court requires.

    12. Evidence of the helicopter pilots having applied 1080 poison along with the pre bait is easy to find. There will be dead animals and dead native birds lying in the waterways as well as poison pellets lying in the water ways.

    13. A thorough search of the area will take 4 days.

    14. Evidence found will mean that this is now very much a police criminal matter, comprising both contempt of Court and possible very serious fraud.

    15. This matter would have been brought to the Courts attention earlier, except the computer ate five pages of material just before 10 am.

    16. This is only two pages obviously, and there are condsiderable other reasons to request adjournment.

    17. No advertising of the court case was on the Environment Court website.

    18. The NZ Herald had only a very small, easily missed notice, on 9th September regarding the 1080 temporary injunction application. This small notice by the NZ Herald editorial will have prevented further evidence for Court decision making, that is otherwise unavailable to the Court.

    19. The NZ Herald should have made a much larger notice of the temporary injunction case, so that evidence would be made available. Whereas the NZ Herald has accidentally obstructed such further evidence being presented to the Court.

    20. The Environment Court requires 10 days notice to both parties of any evidence being brought forward.

    21. On September the 9th, the Environment Court gave only 5 days notice until 13th September, for further evidence of the reasons to grant an injunction against 1080 poison aerial application into water supply areas of the Hunua lake catchment, to be brought to the Courts attention.

    22. Thereby the Court did inadvertently prevent further evidence being presented within the time frame required by the Court. The right to present evidence, and for such evidence to be able to be lawfully presented, is paramount to such decision making authority.

    23. The Friends of Sherwood trust could not be contacted, and in fact did not appear to exist anywhere. Despite searching.

    24. Lawyer Sue Grey was unable to be found or to be contacted, regarding such evidence, without internet access, which was not available. Despite considerable searching for her.

    25. The facebook comments regarding Lawyer Sue Grey, rightly or wrongly, indicate that she has serious issues presenting accurate evidence to the courts.

    26. That she has considerable difficulty recognising and evaluating expert witnesses. That she has considerable difficulty in cross examining witnesses to elucidate the proper evidence required by the Court, that requires a good grasp and very well founded knowledge of the issues.

    27. That in fact the legal representation for this case does not appear to have “legal right of proper representation” present, that the NZ Bill of Rights Act and the International Covenant on Human Rights, signed by New Zealand, orders to be present.

    28. One comment being that Sue grey has no idea at all of what 1080 poison is about. That she presents inaccurate and misleading information. Another comment that one would be better served to have an entrails reader and homeopath to do the job. It is rare to come across such judgement by clients of any professional legal counsel, who appears to be very good at NOT PRESENTING the required evidence required by an intelligent and truth seeking court.

Live Comment

Your email address will not be published.