02nov - two men arrested for illegal socpa protest
reason | 04.11.2008 13:06 | SOCPA | Repression | Social Struggles | Terror War
two men were arrested at downing street on sunday 2nd november for protesting without permission. they were left wondering why there was only two of them when all activists should unite to break this silly law.
one man was holding a piece of paper with the words "this is illegal" & a tshirt with the slogan "investigate 911". the other man was holding various messages including "more pay for police" (which got a few giggles). 2 americans asked to be photographed holding the signs and this flagrant flouting of the law was ignored by the police.
they were first approached by 3 pcsos who asked them to move on and then, on further instruction, to go and break the law over the road where authorised protests are permitted. then 2 policemen arrived saying that the option of breaking the law over the road was no longer available. there was some debate and several requests to move on. then, on further instruction, they were again given the option to break the law over the road. this offer was declined by both men and after about 30mins of discussion they were arrested, handcuffed & taken to belgraveyard police station (belgravia as it's commonly known to police, as it's not usually that busy).
one man refused to give any details and was to be remanded in custody to face court in the morning. he was also not allowed his 'sealed' food or book as the custody sergeant couldn't perform a safety assessment without the suspect confirming his identity.
one handcuff refused to open and the man was slightly injured in releasing himself from the cuff using soapy water. he was informed that the handcuff maker had gone bust!
the other man gave his name/dob with 'no fixed abode'. it was thought that he would also have to stay overnight to face court in the morning. no fingerprints or dna were taken as they were told it was not a recordable offence. the man who refused to confirm his details, did so later after deciding that he was not currently prepared to see it all the way through to a prison sentence for not confirming his details. this was synchronistically or telepathically decided around the time that his colleague was bailed, even though he had no idea that this had happened! both men were later bailed to appear at horseferry magistrates court on 12 November and agreed to the bail condition of "not entering the city of westminster before the court date".
they were first approached by 3 pcsos who asked them to move on and then, on further instruction, to go and break the law over the road where authorised protests are permitted. then 2 policemen arrived saying that the option of breaking the law over the road was no longer available. there was some debate and several requests to move on. then, on further instruction, they were again given the option to break the law over the road. this offer was declined by both men and after about 30mins of discussion they were arrested, handcuffed & taken to belgraveyard police station (belgravia as it's commonly known to police, as it's not usually that busy).
one man refused to give any details and was to be remanded in custody to face court in the morning. he was also not allowed his 'sealed' food or book as the custody sergeant couldn't perform a safety assessment without the suspect confirming his identity.
one handcuff refused to open and the man was slightly injured in releasing himself from the cuff using soapy water. he was informed that the handcuff maker had gone bust!
the other man gave his name/dob with 'no fixed abode'. it was thought that he would also have to stay overnight to face court in the morning. no fingerprints or dna were taken as they were told it was not a recordable offence. the man who refused to confirm his details, did so later after deciding that he was not currently prepared to see it all the way through to a prison sentence for not confirming his details. this was synchronistically or telepathically decided around the time that his colleague was bailed, even though he had no idea that this had happened! both men were later bailed to appear at horseferry magistrates court on 12 November and agreed to the bail condition of "not entering the city of westminster before the court date".
reason
Additions
update
05.11.2008 22:33
one man was charged with organising and the other with participation. the 'investigate 911' tshirt was not admitted as evidence and was said to be a 'fashion accessory' by the arresting officer.
it is thought that the man charged with participation will refuse to enter a contract with the court (as detailed at www.tpuc.org). if this fails his defence will be that he was trying to prevent the ongoing commission of genocide & war crimes by the uk government under sections 51 & 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (british law).
it is thought that the man charged with participation will refuse to enter a contract with the court (as detailed at www.tpuc.org). if this fails his defence will be that he was trying to prevent the ongoing commission of genocide & war crimes by the uk government under sections 51 & 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (british law).
reason
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
Down with SOCPA
04.11.2008 14:51
G
ridiculous
04.11.2008 17:29
bones
chill out bones, no-one likes a whinger
04.11.2008 18:54
There are thousands of people doing their own things each day to try to make the world a better place. Just because they don't come to your little event doesn't mean they don't care.
I never heard of this protest beforehand. Was it advertised somewhere?
It sounds like they did fine with just two people, anyway. That's all you need to get some press, assuming they are interested in covering it.
@non
SOCPA is not DEAD
04.11.2008 19:59
SOCPA is dead.... but the illegal harassment continues
SOCPA Is Dead but the police harassment continues
SOCPA Is Dead And Buried
I am sorry if I am being too critical but I think campaigners are not doing any campaigning on the issue because of this and good people are being arrested for no reason other than exercising the freedom to protest.
Brian B
summat wrong here
05.11.2008 00:58
there is a photograph there of a case summary given to barbara tucker by the crown prosecution service
either the cps are lying to the court and to her, or the two men appear to have an excellent case of unlawful arrest, detention etc
can you please keep us informed about this case - or email me privately @ rikkiindymedia(A)gmail[d0t]com
according to the CPS (who should know!), SOCPA IS dead. we really need to know more about the exact charges against these brave folk, and if they don't yet have legal support, i'm sure some street legal support will help them out of this mess and into some compensation money.
rikki
e-mail:
rikkiindymedia[AT]gmail(d0t)com
Homepage:
http://www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com
Good luck with the magistrates
05.11.2008 16:43
This is not illegal
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE 7th November 2008, the MPS and CPS need to clarify
06.11.2008 14:53
it is obvious that parliament are dawdling over repealing socpa 2005 ss 132-138 because they cant dream up a replacement that wont be immediately challenged and parliament are seriously obsessed with not returning brian haws display that is still subject to ongoing proceedings in the high court in co/11393/2007
after 23 (and still counting) unlawful arrests in two plus years, while part of brian haws campaign, with a further arrest under socpa 2005 ss 132-138, on 26th february 2008, i also filed a claim for judicial review of socpa 2005 ss 132-138 in co/2460/2008 on 11th march 2008, because i was getting sick of being harassed, arrested etc. and without proceedings following etc.
i have sought various remedies in co/2460/2008, incl. including a declaration of incompatibility regarding socpa 2005 ss 132-138.
i do not concede for example, that this obscure piece of legislation that only relates to a small area of central london, had any legitimate aim that is convincingly established in criminal law, where general peaceful access is not similarly banned.
the MPS and CPS failed to disclose a relevant case summary that is referred to by rikki until 23rd july 2008.
on 12th august 2008, i was also given papers by treasury solicitors representing the secretary of state for the home department, stating that she intends to contest my claim.
the secretary of state for the home department essentially admitted that at sometime - she was repealing the legislation, but really did not address the issues of law, or what is going on in the interim before the repeal or remedies.
meanwhile, the police have continued arbitrarily stealing persons and property, knowing that the MPS and CPS have albeit disingenuously admitted they can no longer prosecute, so after two incidents on 8th october 2008, i have issued further high court proceedings. to "protect interests".
i am seeking two injunctions - against the commissioner of the metropolitan police at the royal courts of justice tomorrow. one injunction relates to the ongoing use/misuse of socpa 2005 ss 132-138, given that the MPS and CPS have admitted that they can no longer prosecute. it seems logical that if you cannot/do not intend to prosecute - you cannot harass etc.
the metropolitan police have been on notice since 8th october 2008 that i was being forced to take injunctive proceedings and despite batting me back and forth between in house and a private firm of solicitors ( a martin forshaw at weightman's) the commissioner has also appointed - no lawyer has yet come up with any response.....
i hope that whatever the outcome at the royal courts of justice, which can in any event be appealed, the MPS will have to clarify their case summary, which all have refused to do, which states "owing to changes in the socpa legislation the unauthorised demonstration offences cannot be proceeded with..."
all the state have been doing is only illogical....
we can only all try to do our best to chip away.....
babs tucker
VERY IMPORTANT
08.11.2008 21:36
short intro:
clever funny man starts @ 16mins
1. no 'Act' applies to us as human beings only as 'persons' (corporations).
2. you can ask them to define the word 'act' or any other terminology.
3. if they make me an offer, i will accept their offer with my conditions, ball's back in their court.
they won't accept my conditions, therefore declining my counter offer, end of. i accept their original offer so as not to cause conflict which would have to be settled in court. it's important not to dishonour anything even by ignoring it.
4. if they issue an order, i issue a bill. thanks very much
5. if they want me to do something, like stop protesting or put handcuffs on, i'll 'operate under protest & duress'. they must note this or they break the law. i'll ask to be shown a contract. i say 'you have 3 days to show me a contract saying that i have to do this and you have the right of force'. if they fail to do this, i get to determine the terms of the contract. eg. i charge £1000/hour, here's my bill.
6. when agreeing to anything you have 3 days grace to change your mind.
7. if they issue a notice you issue a counter notice.
8. if they issue a remittance ask to keep the original. they won't want you to because it's a 'security interest' (it has value).
9. see attachment of 'notice of understanding & intent'. once issued they have 3 days to dispute, if not i make a claim of right for whatever is on my notice.
10. notaries are useful people. although 3 people 'of good standing' working together can act as a notary.
want a judge, get a notary.
if they don't do what you want, put them on notice, report them to the notary society. lawyers don't like notaries. the notary society love menard (see magnificent deception)
woh!:
longer vid (good):
i propose a new society (like the law society). we have our own laws & even our own language which nobody else can understand. it sounds like english but the definitions of a few key words have been changed.
anyone in a society is bound by that society's laws. if anyone from the law society wants to exit their society they would be held accountable to our laws.
peace&freedom.
ps. anyone with a ni number is a state employee. like when you work for an employment agency. you get a state pension afterall.
reason
attachment mentioned above
09.11.2008 01:10
reason
court update
12.11.2008 18:05
in court:
i refused to confirm that i was the legal fiction 'person' known as {my name in capitals}.
(by answering to the name of your 'person' in court you accuse yourself. you aren't a 'person' you are a 'human being' which has a 'person'. eg. you have a bank account, you are not the bank account.)
i asked if 'we are all equal under the law', judge confirmed.
i refused to enter dock. asked to leave the court. called again, refused to enter the dock again.
judge wouldnt 'enter discussion' (illegal?)
court staff told me i must confirm my name & enter dock. they tried to intimidate & scare me into it (outside the court). mentioned contempt of court, getting security to remove me.
CAREFUL THOUGH, i refused with questions, which i'll post later.
this is a game it must be played carefully. ie. when the ball is passed (a request made or question) you must always return the ball (with a request or question. even what a particular word means).
they have started a discussion with you, you must enter that discussion, if not you dishonour them and enter conflict which the judge resolves.
{lunch}
called again, different court (harder judge), asked if 'we are all equal under the law', judge confirmed, refused again, said 'i retain full & unconditional rights', bailed within court house, called again as 'human being'. allowed to be outside the dock. refused to confirm 'person' status. gave 'family name'. refused dob. refused plea. judge refused to put his 'oath' & 'bond' on the record. judge refused to confirm if he was operating on his oath. judge plead 'not guilty' on my behalf (illegal?). i said it was 'under protest & duress'. bailed me 'til 13feb. i asked if this was in the public interest given the money it must be costing. i asked if it was an 'order'. he confirmed this and i said 'you can expect my bill'. (in contract law, bills follow orders). he said he looked forward to it.
i understand i have 3 days to refuse his offer or void the contract.
(take your time, don't get rushed or flustered. keep your cool, maintain your position and dont be intimidated but remain respectful & loving. have one of the 'uk freeman movement' as your 'mckenzies friend' (a friend who stands with you in court). post here if you wish to get in contact. i'll setup an email address for this purpose.
if everyone did what i did today the court system would be in chaos. if everyone did what we did at downing st the court system would be in meltdown.
reason
interesting day in court
12.11.2008 20:14
reason
message for reason
21.11.2008 10:02
a friend of mine sent me a link to your comments after i had introduced him to menard's work....
i am living in london and all of menards work is based in canada/america...
since i have very little understanding of the law in general, and in particular how the human being versus legal person fundamentals and it's vast implications are applying to british law, i have been looking for quite some time for someone knowledgeable to collaborate on that.....everyone i showed the documentaries so far is somehow realizing that this is truly mind blowing information and has the potential to liberate human kind from the stranglehold of our illusionary prisons, but i haven't met anybody in the uk who actually works along these lines (apart of this one guy
i was wondering if you have any contacts of people (visionaries with a knack for the technicalities of the british/ human rights law) willing to meet up and share the implications of that (in terms of tangible application) here in london (or at least in the wider uk)...
i have been really put off from joining any of these wide spread "against" organisations, because very often i found them trapped in dualistic "us against them" disempowering ways of thinking and acting, not acknowledging that the current situation humanity as a collective is in, is a mere reflection of our general and individual unwillingness to really take charge of your own lives....to really be self-responsible and act a self governed individuals....
therefore i am emphasizing the word visionary, which i think menard really is.....i recall him describing how we have been nannied, and how we now politely reminding the nanny that her job is no longer needed. this shows a level of maturity that i really find inspiring....in my view this is the only way to take back our power, to remind ourselves that WE ARE FREE IN THE FIRST PLACE.........so if you know people here in the uk who are working along these lines of being, it would be great if you could let me know....thanks a lot...inlakech mona
mona