asky
23-04-2010, 11:06 PM
FMOTL trial continued
The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).
Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.
He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.
The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.
The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"
This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.
The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.
"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"
Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".
Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"
And "The court aren't flesh and blood.
The defendant is let back in and apologises.
He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.
However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.
Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.
Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.
Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.
Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.
Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.
During his evidence the defendant is let back in.
Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".
Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.
[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]
The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.
The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.
The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.
Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"
Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?
Legal Advisor : Yes
Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?
Chair "We are not here to be judged"
Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"
Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)
When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.
The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.
The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.
The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.
The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.
The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
witnessed by a poster on James randis forum
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155358&page=65
Enjoy
asky
The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).
Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.
He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.
The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.
The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"
This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.
The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.
"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"
Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".
Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"
And "The court aren't flesh and blood.
The defendant is let back in and apologises.
He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.
However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.
Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.
Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.
Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.
Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.
Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.
During his evidence the defendant is let back in.
Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".
Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.
[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]
The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.
The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.
The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.
Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"
Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?
Legal Advisor : Yes
Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?
Chair "We are not here to be judged"
Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"
Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)
When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.
The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.
The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.
The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.
The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.
The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
witnessed by a poster on James randis forum
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155358&page=65
Enjoy
asky