… is a Court of Record.
A ‘Magistrates Court’ is not a Court of Record.
Thus, every hearing is ‘Off the Record’.
Which means that the participatory ‘Officers’ of said ‘Court’ falsely believe they are unaccountable for their actions.
A jury of 12 of one’s peers is capable of nullifying any judgement made against one.
How difficult is that to grasp?
In this video, the man Sandy makes the above point as often as he deems necessary. It’s worth watching to see how hopelessly out of their depth the robotic cops are and how, ultimately, it was a very good thing that he was recording the farcical proceedings as he was assaulted and battered when he, in good faith, attempted to follow the three magistrates into their ante room in order to serve upon them a notice that he regarded their actions as treasonable in so far as they had palpably failed to provide him with a competent hearing in front of a jury of his peers – albeit only 2’ 50’ long, it serves to illustrate the sheer levels of cognitive dissonance that appears on the face of each and every public officer who was present in Cheltenham Magistrates Court that day.
Further to the assertion that there is no remedy to be had in a Magistrates Court, there is the case of the trumped up charges against Chris Spivey, a journalist whose forensic analysis of the ‘Woolwich’ incident puts to shame any and all state-sanctioned pseudo ‘journalists’ of the main stream media who failed to examine the facts to the depth they require. Chris’ testimony to the facts of the matter, stands as yet another recent example of how lawlessness pervades ‘Her Maj’s’ Courts.
This ridiculously oppressive Mad Hatter’s farce serves only to further discredit an increasingly illogical (to the point of criminal) judiciary who, it is fair to say, deserve to be publicly castigated for their sophistry with the facts and abject failure(s) to provide legal remedy for the people by way of all manner of discreditable VOID hearings, practices and orders, all of which are issued demonstrably in denial of the evidence.
These members of the judiciary – and their bootlicking cohorts – each and every knave of them an expensively educated statist to the core – falsely believe that they can get away with it in perpetuity and that they are somehow above the law and that ‘might’ is on their side.
Their reactionary default position towards any individual who stands up against them, is to threaten them with incarceration in one of the court’s privately run dungeons, where the ‘jailers’ are employees of companies like GEOAmey and G4S.
How many of them would be so keen to treat their fellow men like that had they ever spent an hour or so in such a cell themselves?
In the autocratic idiotic technocracy that exists in all forms across the earth, complaints against the judiciary get fudged, just as ‘public’ inquiries (Chilcot, Hillsborough, Savile… ad nauseum ) are whitewashed and the blatant gross misconduct of police officers gets highlighted on a daily basis.
Until such a time as justice is done, RM is of the view that any and all public officials, who are demonstrably committing fraud by way of misrepresentation and/or omission, be publicly and appropriately exposed for any and all of their crimes against the People.
And that, of course, includes the Judiciary. Given that the court system is entirely rigged in favour of the continued promulgation of state-corporate power, and that said judges are inveterate statists, ipso facto, there is no remedy to be had therein.
So what to do in the meantime? Expose them. By way of any appropriate medium and, naturally, by way of satire, lampooning and any other reasonable means/ art form that occurs to the individual.
Why not bring them to task via properly convened Grand Juries which will boldly examine the facts in accordance with the ancient British principles of due process and common sense? If they are genuine upholders of the law and the rights of the people, then surely they would have no quarrel with being accorded their right to being heard?
In the Magistrates Court, as we have seen time-after-time, there is no justice, as it is simply, at each turn, a system of common (mal)practice which trundles on regardless of due process of the Law. The cornerstone Case management files are incomplete, ‘duty’ solicitors sign off these bogus forms on behalf of their ‘clients’ to whom they never disclose that their first ‘duty’ is to the Court, not the individual and nary do the matters appear to have legally passed the required evidential and public interest test.
And yet, there are two words which strike fear into the heart of the judiciary – JURY NULLIFICATION.
It is long established that a jury of 12 of one’s peers is all that is required to nullify any and all bogus charges being brought by the highly paid barristers.
Thus, upon hearing an indictment and first hand testimony to the facts, the Grand Jury of 22 July, 2015 unanimously declared a true bill in the matter of the violent eviction of the Crawford family. In other words, that there is a case to answer that the eviction was unlawful. All relevant and interested parties were subsequently formally informed of its findings – the CPS, the judicial officers of Nottingham Crown, County and Magistrates Courts, the Attorney General, the Chief Constable and current commissioner of Notts Police.
Anyone who thinks Grand Juries are going to somehow ‘whither on the vine’ is failing to focus on the bigger picture – as more lies get spun by agents of the state-corporate machine, the more it spins out of control. There will come a point when public knowledge of the deceptive financial and legal practices is so wide spread, that there will be virtually no public confidence in the system. It will be seen for exactly what it is: a genocidal control grid.
And, at that point, the people will walk away from it. En masse.
The release of information regarding the DWP’s genocidal treatment of people on benefits, which shows how many are dying on a weekly basis as a direct consequence of being ‘sanctioned’ is hard evidence of the culpability of Ian Duncan Smith in crimes of treason and genocide against the people.
There may be calls for a ‘Public Inquiry’ but what realistic hope is there of it being sufficiently independent to find against one of its own?
Why not put the facts of IDS’ genocide of the British people to a Grand Jury of the victims peers?
Would that not send a clear message to all those who are deemed to have a case to answer that they have committed Malfeasance in Public Office and are to be held accountable by the people of these lands?