Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: shootings 77
hello guys
i havent read all of thisbut, i heard reports of shootings death, arrests in london on that morning on skynews, i assume its arcived if someone wants to root about. unless they have removed it, 1 or 2 days before i saw footage one of the guyd in bala clarvers run over to a police van, reached under the bumper and pulled out a long iron bar, commenced to smash windsceen and dent van hitting it multiple times, the camera moved in on him, not one person tried to stop him, police were in van. what worries me is what happens when these sort of people that that are worming their way into all industries become 51% of the population.
all the best
sxx
Given that the attempt to discuss this whole issue at the Hamara Centre in Beeston this last Sunday, all booked and agreed, then pulled at short notice as a result of undue pressure being put on the Hamara Centre staff by the rich and the powerful, who do not want Beeston to entertain this mad conspiracy theory
Boy, we rattled some cages in the medium high ranking. We know we're onto something. They'd want to ban a bunch of nutters? Of course not. We're bannable because we're on the right track. As is Muad'Dib whether right or wrong
We're going for it again and we will spread the news no matter what factions oppose us, Nick Cooper or more powerful people _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject:
Muad'Dib arrested:
Quote:
Man in court on foot of UK extradition warrant
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
A 60-year-old man wanted in the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice during the trial of a number of men in connection with the London bomb attacks has appeared in the High Court this afternoon.
Anthony John Hill, orginially from Sheffield, was arrested on Carrig Street in Kells this morning on foot of a warrant issued by the authorities in Britain.
It is alleged he sent DVDs entitled "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the jury, the judge and members of the victims' families.
The DVDs claimed the attack was an inside job and that the accused men were innocent.
The men in question are accused of conspiring with the bombers and of helping them to kill over 50 people on July 7th, 2005.
The High Court heard that, when arrested this morning, Hill said: "I sent them, I believe those men to be innocent."
He has been remanded in custody until February 18th.
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
A 60-year-old man wanted in the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice during the trial of a number of men in connection with the London bomb attacks has appeared in the High Court this afternoon.
Anthony John Hill, orginially from Sheffield, was arrested on Carrig Street in Kells this morning on foot of a warrant issued by the authorities in Britain.
It is alleged he sent DVDs entitled "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the jury, the judge and members of the victims' families.
The DVDs claimed the attack was an inside job and that the accused men were innocent.
The men in question are accused of conspiring with the bombers and of helping them to kill over 50 people on July 7th, 2005.
The High Court heard that, when arrested this morning, Hill said: "I sent them, I believe those men to be innocent."
He has been remanded in custody until February 18th.
This is a very good demonstration of what may have really happened.It deals with the lack of CCTV evidence,and the security services lack of credibility in regard to the actual evidential lack of facts regarding who carried out those attacks.Also included is extracts of the Panorama
programme aired over a year before where it's stated "The coverage will be managed" pp!
The Home Office have recently changed the narrative. They now claim that the alleged bombers caught the train which departed at 7.25.
Talk about shifting the goalposts
To me ,the biggest giveaway is the 'bus bomber' goes into one of the biggest companies of corporate capitalism & has a happy meal,half an hour before blowing himself up because he's that fundemental he's willing to die for his cause
For me it was the ID of one of the alleged terrorists found on two different locations.
And would someone who is going to kill himself why bother to pay for a return ticket?
Anyway way before 2005 I knew they were going to do something, like 9/11, because the politicians kept on talking about a threat, threat constantly repeating it.
since 2001 they kept on it, to be honest I was surprised it tool them 4 years after the 9/11 to do it.
I guess they didn't want to make obvious, so they waited 4 years, and they needed time to plan it, like finding scapegoats like the 4 young guys.
without ringing the bells, my concern is, now that more people know about it, do you think something is going to happen? I am almost certain
nothing is going to happen, no one is going to be brought to justice and no one is going to be persecuted, they can't persecute themselves.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject:
Wise Up Journal
16.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara
We met with John Anthony Hill who got arrested for mailing a DVD (with no letter attached) to a UK court from Ireland (reported by the Irish Times). John is also the producer and narrator of this DVD. Mr Hill, 60 years old, showed us his arrest warrant and gave us permission to pass on information contained in it. The maximum sentence on the warrant is Life Imprisonment in England. John had his computer and other property seized which is why he requested other people to help him as he is not able to defend him self properly as a result. The phony charge is possibly fabricating evidence that might cause injustice and this is from the same country that helped put people in Guantanamo and other torture facilities world-wide. The DVD only contains main stream media news (BBC, ITV, New York Times etc) and the small remainder is his political opinion which as of yet no one is legally supposed to be extradited for, within the EU. The DVDs were also never given to the Judge or Foreman of the trail which is to do with 3 men never mentioned in the DVD. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of this documentary anyone who values freedom would see there is an injustice being carried out here.
John’s court case is on this Thursday at the four courts in Dublin. Having a gathering outside would not change anything inside the court but it might get the media to shine more light on this injustice. John is asking anyone who is not working that day (this Thursday the 19th) to come along at 1:30pm, and any who can take a half day. I’m not sure if handing out his DVD or flyers with information contained in the DVD on the street would be WELCOMED by the court, but it is not yet illegal to hand out free materials on the public streets of Dublin that does not promote a commercial event. Anyone who has the technical abilities to make copies or photocopy information and is able to come along might want to think of doing so. The documentary is available free on the Google videos and Youtube, 7/7 Ripple Effect. Perhaps spread this on forums and contact the media if you think it is a good idea or better yet come up with your own peaceful ideas.
Theorising Truth What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University.
Abstract
This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings of 7th July 2005: 7/7 Ripple Effect and the BBC’s Conspiracy Files: 7/7. 7/7 Ripple Effect argues that the alleged bombers were not in central London when the bombs exploded, and supports this with press reports of shootings at Canary Wharf. To test this claim, press reports from Canary Wharf were retrieved using a search of the Nexis UK News Database for the period 7th to 30th July 2005. Further searches were made using Google to locate blogs and discussion forum archives from 7th July 2005. The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth. When adopting a correspondence theory of truth, it is just plausible that the evidence found supports the theory implicit in the BBC documentary. The theory presented in 7/7 Ripple Effect is also plausible. When deploying a coherence theory of truth, the thesis put forward by the government and BBC collapses due to low probability that four men would choose the same targets, at the same time, and on the same day as a simulated crisis management exercise organised by Visor Consultants. The thesis put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect remains coherent with available evidence. A social constructivist (critical) perspective identifies cultural and political interests that influence the selection and interpretation of available evidence. While the paper concludes that both documentaries construct truth that supports their political outlook and agenda, the theory advanced in 7/7 Ripple Effect is better able to explain anomalies in the official account as well as the evidence of a crisis at Canary Wharf on the same day.
About the author
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Behaviour and Human Resource Management at Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University. Amongst other teaching duties, he is leader of Philosophies of Business and Management Research on an ESRC approved Masters in Social Science Research programme (MRes), and leader of Research Methods for the university’s Masters in Human Resource Management (MSc). He completed his PhD in 2005, and now regularly publishes papers in journals and as part of academic conference proceedings.
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:52 pm Post subject: Wonderland Of A Real Court Trial
Please visit source:- http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1428 for links. Yes, the date appears to be wrong but have left it as is because I don't know the correct one yet.
Wonderland Of A Real Court Trial *
Wise Up Journal
11.05.2010
By Gabriel O’Hara
The following reminiscence was written from my notes of last year’s trial against John Anthony Hill, the DVD mailer, which I attended. It shows the reality of court, which is nothing like the logical Hollywood or TV fiction courtroom dramas the public are given to watch.
To sum up quickly what John did: He posted a DVD documentary to a UK court. A documentary that was already widely available in the public domain on youtube and google videos. Almost the entire documentary is from the BBC, ITV, New York Times and other mainstream news. The UK trial involved four Muslim men who were accused of terrorism (who were found innocent after John’s trial). The documentary mentions four other men and not the men on trial in the Britain. The British government obtained a European Arrest warrant for John’s extradition to the UK to face a new trial and face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. John originally helped produce the documentary that shows British government officials making major and embarrassing contradictions.
I never expected it to be anything like how it was. At times it was similar to being in a court with Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver describing his travels. At the first moment of the trial I saw that the defending barrister had his black robe hanging down around his elbows that was perfectly upright before the start. I had a strong urge to pull it back up like helping a disorderly four-year-old child with his coat. It remained dangling around his elbows for the entire hearing, for over one hour.
Every time the defending barrister stood up he was hunched over and limp. When it was the prosecuting barrister’s round to argue he stood up straight, firm and confident but I could not believe he actually said the things he did. One of his arguments brought up the fact that John used a pen name in his documentary and he cynically added that everyone has freedom of expression… but why was it done anonymously? Aha! I did not know whether he was trying to prosecute John or the literary establishment, George Orwell aka Eric Blair, and most journalists who use a pen name. This imaginary dark cloud that now hung over John was not challenged by the Judge or by the defence. It was not difficult to sense we were no longer in the realm of critical thinking. From my memories of wasting time with online forums I thought these guys would not last four minutes before they were laughed out of any online forum with their cloaks between their legs. However, I thought, they do not seem like the type that embarrass easily; after all they do wear dresses and wigs.
The drooping defence barrister did make a couple of good points, however I noticed they were followed quickly by the term “park it”. I do not know whether “park it” has any legal definition other than don’t contemplate that for the moment. The defending barrister was stuttering a lot but he sputtered even more when he called the judge a judge, which was followed by “respectfully your lordship”. In Ireland the judge does not have to be addressed as lordship any more, but I see old pseudo dogma worship dies hard. There were male twins in the room who worked for the court, one on the left and on the right; it reminded me of Gemini which did not help lessen the bizarreness.
The small remainder of John’s documentary that is not from mainstream media is his political opinion. On the European Arrest Warrant it says no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments and the term “freedom of expression” brought up and how there are limitations to that such as not going into court with a machine gun and killing everyone. I wish I was the one who brought that wretched machine gun point up in this article but unfortunately that was stated in court and not by the prosecuting barrister but by John’s defending barrister. Again and again I could not believe what I was hearing. The prosecutor said something very revealing when he quoted Mark Twain, “It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.”
The prosecutor mentioned that John must have sent the DVDs to the court with the intention of thinking the accused men where innocent! I never heard that countered with the law states that every person is innocent until proven guilty. As far as I know that right has not been taken away… yet. Actually scratch that last sentence, Guantanamo bay and other similar U.S. and UK rented facilities worldwide temporarily slipped my mind. John is charged with a common law offence, attempting to pervert the course of justice. If you take the non-law society meaning of that (our society’s meaning) it implies that there is a predetermined course/destination and any relevant information could pervert or change that course. The accused men are Muslim (the modern persecuted Jews), so what might you think that course of justice was? The legal common law definition of perverting the course of justices is: “1) Fabricating or disposing of evidence, 2) Intimidating a witness or juror, 3) Threatening a witness or juror”. There was no fabricating of evidence, over 80% of the film is from public main stream media and the rest is John’s political opinion relating to that information. His film was also in the public domain on youtube. The film never even mentions the three men on trial, it is about four different men. Intimidating or threatening was not mentioned on the European Arrest Warrant of course as no letter was sent and John is a peaceful spiritual man. I fear John might be sent to prison in the UK to set a new precedent taking away even more little freedoms we have left.
As a small few outside the court were handing people entering the four courts copies of John’s DVD the judge inside said what John did is not a crime in Ireland. Another one of the conditions of the European Arrest Warrant is that the charge must be a similar offence in Ireland. It would be like posting a newspaper to a court or handing a DVD to a person entering a court, who could well be a jury member. Western governments over the past few years have dismantled a lot of rights that protect innocent people under the guise of terrorism. We are told the terrorists want to take away our freedoms, well look at who is taking them away, if it quacks like a duck… Do you really think Muslims are jealous of John’s freedom to post a DVD to people he is sure would be interested in the topic?
Posting a bomb was also mentioned and then they discuses hypothetical scenarios that could arise. There is no need for hypothetical folly, that scenario is covered in the European Arrest Warrant, a bomb is terrorism and that is a more serious type of European arrest warrant that falls into what is called the “European framework list” which has different conditions for extradition. John’s warrant says, “the extradition offences specified does not fall within the European framework list”.
John living in Ireland is afforded the rights of the Irish constitution, which the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) also states. Despite this the confident prosecutor twists us into fantasy land by saying the Irish constitution dose not stretch in to England or anywhere else outside Ireland. Yes, we know this, John mailed the DVD in Ireland, John and yourself are in a court in Ireland, the EAW says John is under the Irish constitution and the offence must be a similar offence in Ireland. He then goes on to talk about raping a woman in another part of Europe. At this point I am wishing for the case to end as if we stay here any longer our brains could be twisted into a pretzel.
A few days before the case John wrote a great statement highlighting articles of the Irish constitution and the European Arrest Warrant. John said he made sure his barrister had this a few days beforehand, about 10% of it mentioned god but even that involved the law as it highlighted the fact the Judge swore an oath to god under the constitution. However, near the end of the trial John was still requesting that his barrister represent him by reading this out. After many attempts the barrister finally gave in and asked the “lordship” if the could do so. The judge said if it’s just about John’s beliefs he does not want to hear it and John’s barrister said yes it’s about his beliefs and it was not read. Throughout the trial the judge referred directly to the John Hill’s barrister as Mr. Hill himself, it’s standard practice as the barrister imaginarily represents another person. The prosecutor while making his closing statement sticks up his leg and rests his knee on the short table in front of him. After that the judge said he will decide in a few weeks after watching John’s DVD (7/7 Ripple Effect). John, desperate to have the articles of law he wrote down in his statement heard in court, stood up and asked the judge if he could please read it and the judge told him the trial is over.
I can’t say I enjoyed the show.
After a few weeks the judge said he did not watch the DVD and found John guilty. John is appealing the verdict. And since then the Lisbon Treaty was put into force making the Irish constitution redundant, not that the constitution was followed beforehand (in significant cases).
Related:
John’s documentary: 7/7 Ripple Effect
The Independent: How MI5 blackmails British Muslims *
7/7 What are the facts? *
Official Encyclopaedia History: U.S. Iran-Contra Scandal And The Good Ole Days *
Unbelievable odds of 36 hours out of 12 years - Soldiers shot 36 hours after Chief Constable confirms covert British Operations *
Irish Independent: British/American Sponsored Terrorism In Iraq and Omagh (NI) *
7/7 Ripple Effect will be aired at 7 PM tonight on SKY 201, followed by Richard Hall's (of Richplanet Starship) recent interview of the film-maker Muad'Dib, who is fighting extradition to the U.K., at 8 PM.
I'm an hour ahead of the U.K. so that's probably why it shows 8 PM and 9 PM instead, on the screenshot.
The "Submissions" seemed a bit too long to post here in their entirety, so please click on the link above to read, if interested. Although if a Mod thinks it is okay to reproduce them here, please feel free.
11/11 eh? Whats the chance of him being successful?
Him being successful? 11/11 odds, in the long run. Or 100% for those who like it in percentages.
We'll see what happens with the hearing. Could go either way even though it's cut and dried that He shouldn't be on trial in the first place, if justice was really what they were after.
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:31 am Post subject: Muad'Dib interview by Richard D Hall
As many of you will know, Muad’Dib is the producer of the film 7/7 Ripple Effect, and He was arrested in Ireland for the “crime” of sending DVD’s of the film to the judge and jury of the first trial of three men: Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, who were being tried at Kingston Crown Court, England, wrongfully accused of helping the four designated patsies of the London 7/7/2005 bombings who were; in reality; victims, as much as all the others who died and/or were injured and traumatized that day.
In this 80 minute interview Richard asks what the key pieces of evidence are which suggest a false flag attack and also gains knowledge about Muad'Dibs situation. Muad'Dibs arrest and extradition request makes this country appear like a European police state rather than a country which is based on justice. I (Richard D. Hall) have never known such a trumped up pathetic charge for an arrest, of somebody that was simply trying to PREVENT a miscarriage of justice. _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
On 11th November 2010, at 11 AM, in the Irish Supreme Court (Four Courts, 8 Merchant's Quay, Dublin), Muad'Dib will appeal against His extradition to the U.K. for the "crime" of sending a publicly available DVD to a judge and jury.
The hearing is a public one, so interested parties are welcome to attend to show their support.
Today, the judges ruled in favour of Muad'Dib's extradition, completely ignoring the majority of the Submissions He had written, and completely misrepresented or disregarded some of those they did address in their verdict. Instead of admitting the many instances where the judge in the previous trial had acted unlawfully, they took after his example and added their crimes to his. The film in question, 7/7 Ripple Effect, was not watched by these judges either. The Irish judicial (so-called) system has sold out to the U.K. Muad'Dib was taken to the gardai station and will then be transferred to prison awaiting the extradition. A more extensive report will appear shortly. "
The Irish Supreme Court Rules to Extradite the Producer of the film "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the U.K. to face the possibility of Life in Prison for mailing DVDs of the film to a court
11/11/2010 Dublin—The Irish Supreme Court ruled today to uphold the extradition of Anthony John Hill, also known as Muad'Dib, for sending DVDs of the widely popular "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the jury foreman and judge, in c/o a British courthouse.
The Irish Supreme Court's decision was to facilitate the British government's demand, through Westminster Magistrates Court, and an European Arrest Warrant, and surrender Mr. Hill to face charges for simply mailing DVDs of the "7/7 Ripple Effect” (with no letter) to the Kingston Crown Court, during the original trial of Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and Mohammed Shakil. The British government had hoped to use the trial to lend credence to their "official story", which they failed to do when the 3 young men were found innocent.
About 35 to 40 followers and supporters of Muad'Dib attended the extradition hearing at the Irish Supreme Court. The hearing was heard in a small courtroom known as the Hugh Kennedy room, rather than the primary Supreme Court room, probably to limit the publicity and room for supporters. The room was full, with about half a dozen supporters standing at the back.
The following is an account of what took place in the Irish Supreme Court. It is not a verbatim account, and has been transcribed from rough notes taken by Richard D. Hall during the trial, and added to by others, so the quotations and statements are not word for word.
Muad'Dib represented Himself in front of the panel of 3 Irish Supreme Court judges, and was immediately and rudely questioned by the presiding judge about His Written Submission. The presiding judge felt it necessary to question which aspects of Muad'Dib's Written Submission Muad'Dib would be presenting to the court, as if the other points would not be considered, even though the presiding judge claimed that everything was being considered.
Muad'Dib opened by stating that it needed to be established that neither the Irish Supreme Court, nor any other court on this prison planet, has any jurisdiction over Him, and that the ONLY Law which applies was The Law given by Moses, at Sinai, in Horeb as stated in The Bible. He held up a copy of The Bible as He made this statement to the court and the judges.
The presiding judge felt the need to then ask if that was the only point that Muad'Dib wished the court to consider or if He was planning on presenting any of the "legal" arguments from His Written Submission. The presiding judge presumably asked this question because Muad'Dib's Written Submission thoroughly covered all angles, using the Irish law and Constitution, the laws of the European Union, and also God's Law, which is recognized by the Irish Constitution and by British law as the Supreme Law, superseding all others.
Muad'Dib informed the judges that one really precluded the other, because He was The Supreme Authority and that The Law expressly forbids men from making up man-made legislation, like the legislation that was being used against Him in this case.
Muad'Dib then told the court who He really is, prompting His friends and followers to vocalize their support for Him. An officer of the court then quickly shouted at everyone to be quiet and extra security then entered the courtroom.
Muad'Dib pointed out to the judges, that a statue of Moses resides on top of “this building” (the 4 Courts building in Dublin) and that Father and He had given Moses The Law and that it is The ONLY Law on this prison planet. Therefore all legal arguments, which are all based on fraudulent man-made legislation, are not lawful according to The Law, and this applied to the EU arrest warrant served, which had no authority.
In an effort to skirt the issue of jurisdiction, the presiding judge then stated that Muad'Dib had made legal arguments in His Submission to the court and then asked Him “Does that mean you are not going to present legal arguments to the court?” with the same attitude as before.
Muad'Dib paused to consider this, and stated the obvious, that the legal arguments were irrelevant and there was no point to it because the court had no jurisdiction over Him. The judges initially seemed baffled by this line and again asked, did that mean his legal arguments were not to be considered, proving that they had not read and studied His Written Submission.
Further proof of this came when Muad'Dib asked the judges if he had watched the DVD, to which the presiding judge replied “No the court has not”. He went on to say “The court has been asked to consider a European arrest warrant. The court will not look at the DVD for the same reason that the judge in the previous hearing did not look at it." The presiding judge then stated "we are only interested in legal argument at this hearing". The previous lower court judge (Peart) had promised to watch the DVD and then broke his promise by refusing to do so (because he was ordered/threatened not to watch it?).
Muad'Dib then replied to this “So, not lawful arguments, just legal arguments, which are legislation and are therefore unlawful”.
After being asked previously by Muad'Dib, and refusing to answer which points of His Submission the court was going to consider, the presiding judge eventually yielded that the court was considering only 3 of the numerous "legal" points (including the fact that the surrender of the Appellant is prohibited under the EAWA 2003 on the five distinct grounds) made in Muad'Dib's Written Submission. Muad'Dib began the discussion of the "legal" points by stating that the law of crime by embracery is fraudulent and reminding the court that mankind cannot legislate. He said under embracery any submission is illegal, because it can prevent the truth getting into a court.
Muad'Dib also pointed out that in the perversion of the course of justice there has to be dishonest intent, but again the presiding judge said that this hearing was not to consider evidence, but to consider the European arrest warrant.
Muad'Dib's representation at the previous high court hearing was also discussed. Muad'Dib stated that His Barrister, Mr. Kelly did not follow his instructions and didn’t present His Argument that the extradition request was malicious and politically motivated at the previous trials. The judges completely ignored this fact, as evidenced in the court's decision.
After about half an hour the 3 judges left the court to consider the case for about 20 minutes. About 1 minute before the judges returned to give their verdict, 5 Garda policy enforcers entered the court room. The presiding judge then summed up which took about 15 minutes.
He first dismissed the claim that the court had no jurisdiction over Muad'Dib, quoting that their authority over Him comes from the constitution, but the presiding judge did say that the court understood Muad'Dib's Position on this, which is impossible. He then said that they considered 3 of the numerous legal points which Muad'Dib raised in His Submission, and that he would address the 3 legal points.
The first was that the charge of perverting the course of justice was an infringement of His Freedom of expression under European law. The actual charge is “doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law”, which the presiding judge never correctly stated, referring to the charge as "perverting the course of justice". The omission of the "intention" portion of the charge is critical, as there was obviously no intent on the part of Muad'Dib to do anything but PREVENT a miscarriage of justice, which is what prompted Him to send the DVDs. The presiding judge dismissed this stating that, while they recognize the importance of freedom of expression, it is not an absolute right and that it is "universally recognized" that restrictions have to be placed on it. He then used the example of newspaper editors writing prejudiced material while a trial is under way, that could result in the jury being discharged, which is ridiculous. The DVDs were sent IN THE CARE OF THE COURT. Newspaper articles do not use the courts as a filter for what they print during a trial. The court proceeded by rejecting the first of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Written Submission under these false pretenses.
The second argument considered was that there is no such offence in Ireland as perverting the course of justice. Please pay special attention to this, for this also proves what a miscarriage of justice this hearing really was. This Supreme Court judge made it sound like Muad'Dib had stated the opposite of what was actually written in His Submission. It was, in fact, the prosecutor (Minister) in the previous High Court trial, who had stated there was no such offence in Ireland as perverting the course of justice, as part of his argument that Muad'Dib should be extradited to face trial in the U.K, instead of being tried in Ireland for the same alleged offence. The judge (Peart J) in this previous High Court trial also did nothing to correct the prosecutor (Minister).
Please read the following taken from Muad'Dib's Written Submission to the Irish Supreme Court:-
43. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to submit the statement that, from the learned judge’s legal-experience, he must have known was a lie; for which the Minister should be charged with committing perjury; and the learned judge also erred by then accepting that lie into the hearing. That false statement/lie being that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice, as the Minister MUST know, is clearly defined in the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0010/sec0041.html#partv i-sec41
Section 41. – (1) Without prejudice to any provision made by any other enactment or rule of law, a person – who harms or threatens, menaces or in any other way intimidates or puts in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation by the Garda Siochána of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, or a member of his or her family, with the intention thereby of causing the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, shall be guilty of an offence.
44. Peart J. erred in law by then allowing the Minister to build on that lie; that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice; to introduce into the hearing, a different offence in English law, not Irish law: stating that we have to accept the English law, in an Irish court: that of attempting to influence a judge or jury. If it is a crime to attempt to influence a judge or jury, then every barrister and solicitor is guilty of that crime, in every case.
45. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to advance this argument when it is based on a lie and it is a different offence from that with which the Appellant is charged, and now the Minister is at it again having subsequently introduced embracery (from 1360AD) and contempt of court, that appear nowhere in the EAW that is the subject of this case, as is required by law. Who is he serving?
Muad'Dib even quotes the section from the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999, for their benefit. The Supreme Court judge went on to state that the law goes back 100 years (so why not try Muad'Dib in an Irish court for it?) and also stated that "it is a common law". The presiding judge delivered this ruling against Muad'Dib never realizing that he had actually misunderstood the point(?) and was ruling in favour of what Muad'Dib had actually presented in His Written Submission. And these were allegedly "learned" and "impartial" Supreme Court judges?
The presiding judge also made a slip of the tongue when discussing the DVD by stating that it was "anticipated", which later he corrected to "intercepted". He went on to say that "any approach to a jury may amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice". The court therefore stated their rejection of the second of their three cherry-picked arguments, never realizing (or did they?) that they AGAIN misunderstood the point and had actually agreed with Muad'Dib's argument here whilst ruling against Him.
The third argument considered was that the crime was not committed in England. This was rejected on the grounds that the act of communication with the Jury took place in England, despite the fact that the DVDs were mailed from Ireland, AND despite the fact the alleged act of communication with the Jury never took place. They again used a far-fetched analogy, that it would be the same as if Muad'Dib had telephoned someone in England and asked them to do it, never taking into consideration that the DVDs were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, for the court to forward as they saw fit, and that THE DVDs NEVER REACHED THE JURY. The court therefore rejected the third of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Submission, again under false pretenses.
And that is how the "learned" Irish Supreme Court judges orchestrated upholding the extradition request.
Several chants from the supporters then began, "Traitors", "Injustice", "Cowards", "This is an outrage", "Shame", and "Look at the evidence, Servers of Satan”. Muad'Dib sat quietly on the bench for 3 or 4 minutes with a Garda policy enforcer standing over Him. He was not forced to his feet, the Garda policy enforcer could clearly see he was a very peaceful and elderly man. Muad'Dib's Followers tried to appeal to the Garda policy enforcer's common sense to reconsider what he was doing to no avail.
Muad'Dib was taken to the local Garda station first and then transferred to Cloverhill, where He had previously spent 33 days incarcerated for this matter. There is presently no update on when He will be moved from Cloverhill to the U.K. and no court date there has been set.
From what has transpired, it should be clear to anyone familiar with the case that there is absolutely NO justice in Ireland, nor was there ever an independent republic of Ireland. The Irish people are still subject to the fraudulent queen of England and the Irish judges and QC barristers are in fact traitors and nothing more than pawns carrying out their orders from the British crown. The British crown does not like being embarrassed, which is exactly what Muad'Dib/JAH has done with the "7/7 Ripple Effect" film, and why He is being made to suffer. The ludicrous nature of the charge against Muad'Dib/JAH should show everyone how desperate the British crown really is.
It is ironic that at the same time Burma was releasing the political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi; whom Prime Minister David Cameron has called an "inspiration"; the British "crown" was making further inroads towards turning Muad'Dib into a political prisoner right here in Britain, for sending a court DVDs of the "7/7 Ripple Effect".
What the British government doesn't seem to know is that in extraditing Muad'Dib/JAH to the U.K., they will not only be increasing the popularity of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" film, they are bringing home THE evidence that Elizabeth II is a fraud. This injustice and how it unfolds should hopefully help focus people's attention on Muad'Dib/JAH and get the world to take notice of The Example that He has set, to bring the Truth, Justice, Freedom and Peace to this planet.
The State failed to bring Muad'Dib to court again today, even after the judge last week ordered Him to be brought.
The judge said that he would not grant bail to Muad'Dib without Him being in court. Things were quickly adjourned, indefinitely at this point.
Are we really to believe that "her majesty's" prisons don't obey the orders of "her majesty's" courts and that her judges are powerless to enforce their own orders?
THEY* are fighting to keep Muad'Dib in prison, claiming it is to make sure He is in court for trial, when THEY themselves now have a 33% success-rate in having Him in court, whereas He maintained a 100% perfect attendance and signing-on record when on bail for nearly two years, in Ireland.
It's not only desperate on the part of the British authorities, but further proof of the corruption, which goes all the way to the top.
comment - "I have seen this "Ripple Effect" DVD and it is jaw-dropping! John Hill (aka Muad'Dib) deserves a MEDAL for having the brains and the balls to seek truth, apprehend it and forward it to those who SHOULD be considering all the EVIDENCE. But of course the courts are run by those involved in the bombings. This DVD is filled with evidence proving what he claims to have happened; such as trains the patsies were meant to get but had been cancelled - proven; the bus having been diverted last minute - proven; the famous inflammable passport! and there is simply no other explanation for why it was reported on the NEWS that suicide bombers had been neutralised in Canary Wharf..." _________________ Currently working on a new website
You can also get Dr Woods book, 'Where Did The Towers Go' on there also. This book will blow your mind even if you already understand and know the work of Dr Wood to be correct.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
