astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: Sat06Jun - NO LIES RADIO - Is Muad' Dib Innocent? |
 |
|
Imprisoning an innocent man
Muad'Dib is being interviewed on Kevin Barrett's 'No lies' radio station this Saturday - Kevin writes:
| Quote: | | During the show I will be expecting a call-in from Muad'Dib, the political prisoner in Ireland who was arrested for sending 9/11 truth DVDs to the kangaroo court staging the show trial of the 7/7 patsies: http://mtrial.org/chronology . It is astounding and obscene that this man has been arrested and imprisoned simply for mailing 9/11 truth DVDs as a friend-of-the-court brief! (And speaking of violations of free 9/11 truth speech, check out the latest at Muslims for 9/11 Truth, http://www.m911t.blogspot.com ). |
Truth Jihad Radio, http://www.americanfreedomradio.com Kevin writes: | Quote: | | We're planning for Muad'Dib to call in (skype in actually) during my conversation with guest Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, this Saturday. Andy's on for the second hour, 7-8 pm US Eastern Daylight, and Muad'Dib will hopefully join us around 7:30 Eastern. |
http://mtrial.org/chronology
Here is a summary of what I've gleaned. I do not confirm that he sent any of his DVDs to the Kingston 7/7 trial jury, or that any of that jury ever saw his video. He simply sent a video c/o the Crown Court at Kingston - and citizens have traditonally been at liberty to do this for any trial under the 'Amicus curiae' legal concept.
1. The warrant was issued on Jan 17th 2009, 2 days before the new 7/7 trial started on the 19th Jan 2009. 'They wanted me to be in custody before it started, as THEY were desperate to convict them'.
2. It was an EU international arrest warrant: Why did the Met use a Euro arrest warrant to try to pull somebody out of Ireland? MD is presently fighting this extradition warrant.
3. The charge against him was:- "Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice contrary to common law."]
4. 'If I get extradited I may need a solicitor who is willing to help me present my case and evidence to a jury without the enemy being able to stop me.' The next hearing will be before the Irish Supreme Court, which could take months or a year.
5. 'The charge carries a possible maximum life sentence'.
6. 'the police have stolen my computers'.
7. He was released from jail on bail on April 25th .
8. Did he send 'Ripple' DVDs to the 7/7 trial Jury? Answer, 'Everything that was sent was sent c/o the court. Nothing underhand about it.'
9. Could he get a jury trial? 'If extradited, Yes.'
10. Amicus curiae: JPL to MD: 'What you did was absolutely within bounds of the filing of such an amicus curiae brief. Perhaps it was not formulated as such, but it's the content that counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae Amicus curiae refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
USA: An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. —Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Here is a first-hand account of his trial from an Irish journal:
| Quote: | Extradition judgement of the information mailer
Wise Up Journal
02.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara
Would the world be a safer place if people who mail public information are behind bars?
Today at the four courts in Dublin, 11am - court 11, the Judge ruled on whether or not to extradite John Anthony Hill to the UK. John mailed a publicly available DVD, with no letter attached, to a court in the UK during a trail of three men. The DVD had nothing to do with those three men, it contained information from the BBC, ITV, the New York Times and other such established main stream news entities about four different men. During John’s trail in Ireland, March 19th, the judge said in his closing statement that he would watch the DVD before making a decision. Today we found out that the judge failed to uphold that promise/commitment made in court when he told the court he had not looked at that evidence. The Judge ruled against John, 60 years old, who was then put in to handcuffs and lead away by the police to a prison. The Judge said a number of people from all over the world mailed him envelopes with DVDs, he also said he did not open the envelops.
The judge said the European Arrest Warrant Act does not give him permission to not surrender John under the grounds of freedom of expression, religious reasons or if it was a violation of the Irish constitution. After the judgement, in the public corridors of the four courts, John’s barrister said that the European Arrest Warrant Act states he cannot be surrendered if he will be treated unfairly in the UK as a result of his political opinion, which they feel he wont. But if you read the key article 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act (below) from the Irish Statute Book you can clearly see what it really says. It talks about the warrant being invalid at the issuing point, it does not talk about being treated unfairly if extradited to the issuing state (UK). It says “a person shall not be surrendered” if the warrant is “issued” due to “political opinion“. It is even more open than that because it states that if “there are reasonable grounds for believing that” it was issued “for reason connected with his or her” “political opinion” or “religion” then the warrant is invalid and John does not have to be surrendered.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act...45/sec0037.html |
Perverting the Course of Justice
Seems to me that justice was indeed perverted by that Kingston re-trial of the 3 7/7 'suspects' and not only by arresting Muad'Dib for its duration. Firstly, what right had they to do a re-trial? The legal concept of 'Double jeopardy' traditionally forbade trying twice of the same crime. You can't have a retrial just because you don't like the jury's verdict! Recently it has been established that a re-trial can be allowed, but only if significant new evidence turns up, and what was that supped to have been?
Secondly, if after three months of trial the jury decides 'innocent,' then what right did they have to put two of those on trial away for seven years? What was the point of the jury sitting if the defendants were going to be found guilty anyway? The 'guilty' charge of allegedly intending to attend a terror training camp was pulled like a rabbit out of a hat, merely to avoid the catastrophe of HMG's complete failure to prosecute anyone credible over the 7/7 issue.
(for earlier discussion see http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=16719 )
http://www.radio4all.net:8080/files/anonymous@radio4all.net/16-1-diale ct_20090606.mp3 |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
