Judge Rivlin … boy!
Get that ridiculous wig off your barnet and start acting like a real human being – uphold law and democracy.
You can loose the heels and thong under that silly dress and sash while you're at it cuz you got two hopes: Bob Hope and no f*cking hope of fooling or entertaining this crowd. We are not buying the justice you have sold out from underneath the people and your acting skills suck. We are not amused.
I have thought for days and days; trying to make sense of what was absolute nonsense.
QC Rivlin's court room 1 was stinking to high heaven of bullshit and corruption.
The truth of the matter before the courts – who was in contempt of who, I remember clearly and with contemporaneous notes written on day and on the day after said event, I can prove what I am saying to be true as my notes were posted on internet when I claim I wrote them… funny that - evidence can back up fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Six summonses were laid bordering the out of time limit of 6 months although absolutely no police investigations were carried out between the elapsed time of purported serious organised crime committal and the date the evidence was laid by CPS before a judge. Why the delay?
The six summonses all had dodgy addresses. Should the police be responsible for providing the correct address, they were informed of all new correct addresses, at various intervening intervals, when all people summons were either reported for serious organised crimes, or cautioned or again arrested; surely they would provide the latest current recorded address. Surely their record keeping is not that poor whereas they would knowingly assist a gross abuse of the legal processes by the laying of known incorrect information.
The courts themselves were most certainly aware of Mrs. Barbara Tuckers address as they refused to acknowledge it to be Parliament Square, bailed her out of the Designated area, banned her from attending her own court dates, refused to accept she was a member of Brian Haw's Peace Campaign and demanded she provide an alternative address, which would have been mine, at that time, until this bastardisation of law was sensibly overturned in Crown Court.
Mr. Steve Jago's summons had both an incorrect home address line as well as an incoherent post code. It was by mere chance that Mr. Jago received his summons and attended court on March 26, 2007.
Despite the fact that Babs feeling very poorly and having had lost her voice, she attended the COWMC at Steve's request, as a MacKenzie friend and since Steve was denied legal aid for a charge which was imprisonable – an assault on an officer, which is another gross abuse of power by the state.
Should none of the accused have appeared in court on that date, would summonses have been issued for all three people as was and is the case of Christopher Eubanks?
Mr. Eubanks failed to attend a hearing that was held in his absence to which he was convicted of freely expressing himself in a place of public access as guaranteed under both European and English domestic law – Art. 10:expression/ Art. 11:assembly. DJ Snowjob issued a warrant for what is not an imprisonable offence – disproportionate?
Curiouser and curiouser.
It was at this point that we all decided we would use Jago's address for the courts so as they only had one address to deal with for the three of us and could not possibly make any further issuance of any further dodgy summonses signed by DJ Nick-the-prick Evans or DJ Snow-job fro the City of Westminster Magistrates' Courts.
I received a phone call from Steve Jago stating that I was listed for 1 SOCPA offence and Babs was listed, to her surprise, for 4 SOCPA offences.
This is the first place I can really begin to see clear cracks in the testimony of Miss Orla Austin, the Court Clerk from the date of the contempt of court, and start to question just how far she is willing to perjure her testimony.
Miss Austin testified, under oath, that she had handwritten Steve Jago's home address on the court sheet from that day and believed that it was in reference to a provided address by Babs and not to myself.
Miss Austin testified that she did not recollect me being listed nor being mentioned on that days afternoon or morning listings.
Why, after I received a phone call from Mr. Jago, was he given a photocopy of the summons that apparently went missing in the post personally by Miss Orla Austin and why was his address also handwritten upon said photo-copy of my missing summons by Miss Orla Evans?
Why wasn't Barb offered photocopies?
Is Austin's recollection of events poor?
Are her note-taking skills in dire need of improvement?
Is she just a lying slag?
Why was I given a two day adjournment?
Why didn't Orla remember this fact?
Why wasn't Barbara given an adjournment as her solicitor had advised her to request? Furthermore, why wasn't Babs offered to read photocopies of her summonses whereas mine was sent home with Steve?
Why were the charges not even read out in open court, to Babs, before she was forced to enter a plea to crimes on unknown dates that she was unaware of, and why did Evans enter that plea for her?
The time lapse of events appears to be grossly out of sync when it is taken into account that the time in dealing with my involvement with these matters was either neglected or omitted in evidence and ruling alike.
Orla testified that she didn't remember Barb being not able to speak and attributed various shouting comments that were not able to made by Babs on that particular day, to Babs. I clearly remember our telephone conversation from that day.
Orla didn't remember me or anything with the time lapse of Mr. Jago calling me from outside the Courtroom, giving me information that was ordered to be put directly to myself via telephone by DJ N. Evans.
The script that was played out in the courtroom was that the scene grew so far out of control, so quickly; Evans had no choice and acted correctly. The truth of the matter was that the proceeding are a complete abuse of process and, on the day, were a slow wind up job by nick-the-prick in his perversion of law and democracy and his complicity in punishing peaceful people for political dissent which I believe to go well beyond his pre-scribed remit of duties.
DJ N. Evans is sent in to wind up the courtroom; he is a wind-up merchant - of that there can be no doubt. You can bet he was billy-no-mates as a kid. His people skills suck to say the least when he insists that people who are innocent until proven guilty are placed in docks and denied of their liberty for a non-imprisonable offence when they are not legally represented and entitled to sit equal to their accuser.
This jack – ass has stated that Article 11 of HRA 1998 is not a point of law and had the audacity to tell me I had no European Convention Rights and that they didn't exist – in his f*cking brain dead mindless world – maybe.
I clearly remember Babs telling me that she told Evans that he was dishonest and wanted to make a complaint. Evans bailed out of the courtroom as soon as Brian started to open his mouth, leaving the legal clerk holding the bag, not knowing what to do until she is told by Evans, as an afterthought, to jail them for contempt of his kangaroo court proceedings.
I have various other sets of contemporaneous notes clearly showing Evans having a bad habit of bailing form his own courtrooms when he can't handle the truth of what is being said in his weak-minded dishonourable presence.
It is clear to me that Orla was sent by the CPS and COWMC to lie under oath in agreement with what sentence was all ready and written out, to be handed down – scripted. Scripted courtrooms have become a rather usual occurrence with those being drug through the sausage machine of injustice and political dissent in association with the Peace Campaign of Brian Haw.
I pulled this little gem off of wikipedia.
Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions (30 November 2007)
Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions  EWHC 3019 (Admin) (30 November 2007) This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellant was convicted under section 132 (1) (c) of the Serious Organized Crimes and Police Act (SOCPA) of being within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, carried on unauthorised demonstration by herself in a public place in a designated area, namely Parliament Square. Her defence was that Mr Brian Haw had invited her to join him in his demonstration. He gave evidence on her behalf to that effect. The magistrate said: "Had I accepted this evidence (which I did not) it would have been argued that the allegation that she had 'carried on an unauthorised demonstration by herself ..... ' could not have been made out, and further more (in my view incorrectly) that it would provide a defence by saying that as Mr Haw is safe from prosecution anyone who joins him is also safe." The question posed by the magistrate was: "Was it lawful under section 6 (1) HRA to convict the appellant?" The Administrative Court held that SOCPA was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (specifically, Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly)), and Ms Tucker's conviction was therefore lawful.
In this case, irrefutable evidence was offered regarding Babs and Brian wearing matching book-end pink sparkly banners and DJ N. Evans refusing to accept the truth of the evidence and reality.
There was a pattern of judges refusing to believe the truth as Rivlin refused to accept that Babs was ill on the day just like Evans refused to accept that Babs was with Brian. Rivlin refused to accept that I was listed on the day and my case was adjourned or that I was even present or not present on the day, as the case may be.
A funny co-incidence is that I am to appear before his sideshow, the Rivlin freak-show of a Crown Court, on Feb. 7, 2008 regarding my conviction pertaining to this summons for standing outside the gates of Downing Street with an old wooden English door gratified with the words free speech, faith, hope and charity.
I am an artist.
I was exhibiting art.
Bollocks to Goebbels Brown.
Collateral damage? One of the basic principles of international humanitarian law: that military action must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets.
Fourth Geneva Convention
Part I. General Provisions
This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:
• Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
• Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are.
• A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons.
Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons.
Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the American Administration's interpretation of unlawful combatants.
Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War
Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.
Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.
The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during World War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous.
Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.
Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
International treaty for the renunciation of war
The 1927 Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains a binding treaty under international law. In the United States, it remains in force as federal law (see U.S. Const. art. VI).
As a practical matter, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, and the German invasion of Poland in 1939, were prime examples of this. However, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.
Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace — it was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II.
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which states in article 2 paragraph 4 that
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The consequence of this is that after World War II, nations have been forced to invoke the right of self-defense or the right of collective defense when using military action and have also been prohibited from annexing territory by force.
Mr Chris Coverdale making wars history
Charity Sweet XXX