Abandoned Court - Their Rules

[Dreadlock]

"Subject to the provisions of subsection (7) below, the justices composing the court before which any proceedings take place shall be present during the whole of the proceedings; but, if during the course of the proceedings any justice absents himself, he shall cease to act further therein and, if the remaining justices are enough to satisfy the requirements of the preceding provisions of this section, the proceedings may continue before a court composed of those justices."

Here is how it will probably be interpreted.

As all three of the magistrates left the room the proceedings halted. Therefore none of the magistrates absented themselves during the course of the proceedings. Therefore all three were eligible to return and proceed. Which they did.

[pitano1]

yes,and they `probably` returned under another jurisdiction.

this may be worth considering,for any further attempts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u13xL8JQOwE

[musashi]

"Subject to the provisions of subsection (7) below, the justices composing the court before which any proceedings take place shall be present during the whole of the proceedings; but, if during the course of the proceedings any justice absents himself, he shall cease to act further therein and, if the remaining justices are enough to satisfy the requirements of the preceding provisions of this section, the proceedings may continue before a court composed of those justices."

Here is how it will probably be interpreted.

As all three of the magistrates left the room the proceedings halted. Therefore none of the magistrates absented themselves during the course of the proceedings. Therefore all three were eligible to return and proceed. Which they did.

I am almost stuck for words. Luckily for me I am used to dealing with abnormal psychology. So . . . . .let's see.
Everybody left - so nobody left?
Dear God man, are you for real? What kind of mad universe of insane puppy dog logic does that come from?

Okay,
By extension the following must also be true:
Everybody robbed the bank - so nobody robbed the bank.
Everybody paid the bill - so nobody paid the bill.
Everybody ate gazpacho soup - so nobody ate gazpacho soup.
Everybody was enslaved - so nobody was enslaved.
Hurrah! We win!

Was there ever such a feckin big bollox, Father Ted?
No, Father Dougal. And it takes a lot of very strong drink for Father Jack even to get close to that feckin bollixed.
Ted, do you think whatsisname, God, created all this kind of bollix, or did it, you know, come from the other fella?
You mean the Divil?
Yes, Ted. That's him, the Divil.
No, I don't think so Dougal. That kind of big feckin bollix is all man made.
Oh, that's alright then. For a minute there I thought that divil fella might be trying to confuse us.
No, Dougal. The divil isn't that clever. Feckin bollix this big always comes from men.
Ted, I'm scared!
Go to sleep Dougal.

And it's goodbye from me for the last time. Good luck with the bollix, guys and gals.

Lance.

[Dreadlock]

You have totally missed the point and therefore your interpretation of my logic is incorrect.

[musashi]

You have totally missed the point and therefore your interpretation of my logic is incorrect.

One last comment:
I did not miss your point. I understand it completely.

However, interpretation (especially dialectical ones) plays no part in this - Observation of Due Process is mandatory and The Magistrates Courts Act 1980, rule 121.6, is quite explicit.
Observation of Due Process:
Abuse of process is not an abuse of process, their rules say, if it does not materially affect the outcome of the case. In this instance it very much did affect the outcome and is, therefore, an abuse of process.
We have a number of civil and criminal legal responses to unroll against them no matter what they try to argue.
Lance

[Dreadlock]

The reason I thought you misunderstood was because you seemed to be equating "Everybody left - so nobody left?" with "As all three of the magistrates left the room the proceedings halted. Therefore none of the magistrates absented themselves during the course of the proceedings."

Clearly my explanation acknowledges that the magistrates left the room but is not saying that no one left. Rather it is saying that the magistrates were not absent from the proceedings because the proceedings had been halted because they left the room (All of them. If only one or two of them had left then the proceedings could not be claimed to have been halted).

If the court chooses this interpretation, and I'm only saying it is a possibility, then the statute may not apply because it states "if during the course of the proceedings any justice absents himself" and that condition will clearly not hold true if the proceedings had already been halted when the justices were absent.

Hope that clarifies things.

[musashi]

Consider them clarified.
The proceedings had not been halted in any meaningful way. They simply ran from the court without recess or adjournment being announced so section 121.6 applies.
I say it applies so let them argue the toss. Our process moves on that basis. A number of sworn affidavits will support this contention and the court's record of events will reflect that they left. Incorrect record keeping by the legal advisor (in the record of events log) may be detrimental to his continued happiness. That is to say that their departure should have been logged and support our contention, or he may himself face charges.

A useful by-product of the research on this is an e-mail response from Kathryn (?) from the SIA Contact Centre in the home Office about security staff and their I.D. tags.
It's in the terms and conditions of their licence that it be on prominent display and failure to do so is a criminal offence. You can find the same in the legislation on the SIA.
The Police Specials website has some very derogatory comments on these security staffs. G4S in particular. Even the cops have trouble getting their details and leave without them. No more.
So, those of you who go to court can start to insist they be on display - prominently so. That takes away their anonymity and unaccountability.

Lance.

[musashi]

I just registered and posted the security guard update on PoliceSpecials.com to help the boys in blue help us with the security guard issue.
I've also educated them on the fraud act 2006 and negligence arrest options. You never know, some of these cops have been outraged by security guard attitude and actions, and would love the chance to hit back. Have a look next time you're in court - if you go there at all - and see if they're now wearing badges.I intend to write to court mangers on the matter now that I have the legislation and the home office response. Maybe I'll let one or two be arrested first!
Or would that be just too naughty?

Lance.

[pitano1]

have been digging in my old e.m`s,and found this.
i`m not sure if the info regarding...G.4.S...is still accurate.
have removed all names except...veronica.


Search E-mail

Message View
Nottingham Maggot’s Circus - 4th June, 2014
From: Veronica <Veronica@FMOTL.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 5:22

It was a ‘Speeding Camera’ case. The Court was sent two letters from the “MyCourt” templates to tell them how the Court would be ‘arranged’ and that we would be recording the proceedings.

MyCourtTemplate was sent recorded delivery, and MyCourtTemplateNonResponse was sent a few weeks ago … also recorded delivery.

We checked the Listings, and found the case listed Room 12, 2nd Floor.

The Usher (outside) wanted a “Name” and I quoted the Case Number. He said that was no good.

I said show me you list and I’ll point it out to you. He immediately held his clipboard up against his chest.

I said don’t be childish … all right … look for the name “xxx” … which he did, and I said: “Does that match this Case Number?” … while showing him the Case Number

He made some marks on his list.

We waited about an hour, and the case was called.

As we approached to door, the Usher said: “Please make sure all Mobile Phones are turned off”.

I said: “We’ve told the Court it will be recorded anyway, and they’ve not rebutted it”.

He said: “Wait!” and then almost immediately said: “You can’t do that!”.

There ensued some verbal to-ing an fro-ing (it’s all been recorded!), and – since the Usher remained intransigent, I pushed the door open and Jim & I walked into the Court.

I said: “Is this a Constitutionally-convened Court of Law?” … and … at the same time was over-talked. The Maggots then all got up in unison, and left.

So I said: “Oh … obviously not. Right … I want your name” … looking at the Clerk of the Court.

At this point I was grabbed - by behind - by Security thugs, and so was Jim.

I shouted: “Don’t touch me unless you’re a DESIGNATED COURT SECURITY OFFICER!”

They push my head downwards, and pushed my arm right up my back. I that way they frog-marched me to the lift, into the lift, down to the ground floor, and out through the entrance.

At that point they let me go.

They did the same with Jim. I could only see the floor, but others (with us) saw it all, and said that a coloured Security girl was hammering at Jim … like a dervish … so much so that she ripped his T-Shirt.

Outside we were seen by a Policyman, called PC Coulson. I don’t want to belabour this e-mail by going into the conversation with Adam Coulson but – just as he decided we’d ‘finished’ … the Court Usher came back out … walked up to me … in front of PC Adam Coulson … and said: “It has been agreed that you can come back in and the Hearing will go ahead if you agree not to record it”.

I said: “I’m dealing with this Police Officer, go away … and NO … we don’t not accept that condition”.

There’s a LOT more to this … what happened afterwards … but they were trying to get us back into Court … PURELY IN ORDER TO charge Jim with assaulting a Court Security member of staff.

We know that because, when we refused to go back in, the Usher took Adam Coulson to one side and said that they wanted Jim charged.

BUT THIS IS BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm on record as saying: "Don't go to a Maggot's Circus except to HAVE FUN!"

And, boy oh boy .... this was FUN!!!!

“God” must have been smiling on us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why? Because an FoI – from a few months ago – admitted that NO-ONE from G4S has been DESIGNATED as a Court Security Officer (with powers under Section 53 of the Courts Act 2003).

Which means that both Jim and I were assaulted!!!!!!

And WE WILL HAVE THEM ON TOAST.

And, when we do, Michael Doherty’s Appeal will be granted automatically.

There’s a lot more in the offing (for example, I’m in e-mail contact with the Copper), but that’s brief summary.

We think they have shot themselves in the foot, for the following reasons:

1. They certainly did not behave as though they had had the training for DESIGNATED Court Security Officers, with powers under Section 53 of the Courts Act 2003. If they had been DESIGNATED, then they would have asked us to “Leave peacefully” … before getting violent.

2. The FoI response said G4S has NO DESIGNATED Officers.

3. The fact that we are “invited back in” - almost immediately - indicates that there was absolutely no reason to behave the way they did to eject us.

4. The fact that, when we refused to go back in, they immediately asked PC Adam Coulson to charge Jim with assault, means that they are taking the piss out of PC Adam Coulson … AND THAT’S WHY I’M IN E-MAIL CONTACT WITH HIM!

John: of the family xxxx was there. This is his summary:

> Magistrate Court appearance at Nottingham
>
> Today’s date 4/6/14
>
> A summary of the court hearing at the Nottingham Magistrates court.
>
> After waiting peacefully for about an hour we were called in for the hearing of James Overton’s alleged speeding offence. Please note Mr xxx on two occasions sent letters, by recorded delivery, expressing his right to record the hearing and that - if they did not respond within fourteen days - which they didn’t - rejecting his proposal - it could reasonably be assumed they agreed.
>
> However, the Usher’s response was “Wait here”, while he checked with the court. On his return he said no recording would be allowed, and no sound reason was given to support their demand, and the Usher said the hearing was cancelled. The Usher left the court Chamber door open, and we walked in for an explanation. Instead, after Veronica asked is this a constituently convened court of law, the Magistrate all stood up and walked out. Almost simultaneously Veronica and James were surrounded by so-called security guards, who did not give any notice by asking them to leave peacefully - but just man-handled them with force. Veronica protested, saying if you are not designated by the Lord Chancellor, it will be assault. But this fell on deaf ears and, despite showing no aggression towards the staff, there was no pause in the attack. They literately grabbed Veronica’s left arm and forced it up behind her back, and at the same time forcing her head and body down towards the floor, all the way to the lift. She was taken down in the lift, with her head forced downwards, and then frogmarched - again without letting her come upright - all the way to the front door, where she was eventually released. James, again, was not showing any résistance but was constantly abused by the lady guard while another guard held him, and this went on until other officials (police) intervened and stop what was going on.
>
> I would a first class witness to the event and that both Veronica and James did not retaliate in any way or initiate any violence towards any staff despite being grossly attacked. There is a taped recording on James’ phone which was switched on, and remained on, during the scuffle. I mentioned various times to the aggressive behaviour of the staff that I’m a prime witness to the abuse that is taking place.
>
> Outside the court James xxxx spoke to a police constable who took all of our contact details, Veronica’s, James’ and myself John xxxx. While these details were being taken the Usher appeared and said, despite being told previously the hearing was cancelled the Magistrates were prepared to now allow us to reappear for the hearing on their terms – e.g. “No recording of the session” - despite still giving no sound reasonable explanation as to why the recording of the hearing was not allowed. Consequently after the heavy handed behaviour of their security guards we obviously declined the offer, because we feared for our safety from the unprovoked attack.
>
> This restrictive protocol could not be accepted as it would interfere with proper procedure in the process of law and our indefeasible rights recognised.
>
> Almost immediately after declining their offer for reasons given above the police constable asked us not leave as the security guards were now pressing assault charges against James xxxx. This took about another three hours so in the mean time we opted to get a bite to eat and a hot drink, having been advised to do that by the Police Officer on the desk at Bridewell Police Station.
>
> On our return to the Police Station, we were eventually reunited with James (who told us that he’d been interviewed for about 15 minutes, and then locked up in a cell for the rest of the time) … and we went home. When we arrived home, we examined the damage. In the case of James, his T-Shirt had been ripped down one side, and Veronica had a very visible red mark, on the left arm - the one that was forced up behind her back.

[musashi]

Section 53 does indeed outline court security staff powers to restrict and remove etc. It does not confer authority to assault and kidnap. Which is what happened to you and the others.Their powers are limited in exactly the same way as police or civilians. To assault right from the start is a crime whether they are designated court officers or not. Get that out of your head right now! It is all about necessity. It is about proportional, necessary and reasonable use of force. Read the ACPO pdf on the subject. Your account describes it as none of these things.
I suggest in the strongest terms possible that you pursue these monkeys and brutalise them, traumatise them, rip through their lives like a maniac with guns, knives and amyl fucking nitrate by every legal means available to you.
You could also easily and convincingly argue that the magistrates, the legal advisor - in fact all the court staff present - are equally guilty. You could easily argue that by calling for security and them assaulting you that they solicited a crime, sat by while that crime was enacted before them and did nothing. You could easily rip through that entire court and drag them through more shit than they believed was possible to have. You may not get them all but, by Christ's holy loin cloth, it will make the scum-sucking corporate fucks think twice about being a magistrate and fucking with the good guys.
Assault; kidnap; conspiracy; probably data protection offences just to start with. There could be more once you start looking into human rights act and declarations from Europe and the U.N etc. Remember, the doctrine of vicarious liability applies.

Request the cctv footage and you will probably be told that the cameras were not working. Well, you then get the judge in your case to order the release of the logs from the computer - nothing can be hidden on it - forensically examine it and it will show when the data was last modified. That will show that someone went in and deleted stuff after the event. You will then have them and the designated data protection officer - they must by law have one - and that brings a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, falsify evidence, tamper with data, aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact, etc into the game. Data protection offences are mostly crimes of strict liability with unlimited fines and heavy prison sentences.

Thanks for the tip on G4S non court officer status. We've been needing for some time time to get a grip on these freaks. It looks like our ship might be about to come in.
Any help I can give with your criminal complaint, prosecution, or whatever - just ask. The compensation should buy you a decent little house, brother. Happy hunting.

Lance.

ps. Might I suggest that you slip down to that court, catch them without name badges and set the cops on them? Just a thought if you felt a bit playful one day.