Miss "because I can..."
Miss I don't need to abide by the law
THe truth is coming to light reagrding your courtroom antics
Miss I don't need to abide by the law
THe truth is coming to light reagrding your courtroom antics
29 November 2007
District Judge Wright
c/o City of Westminster Magistrates' Courts
Horseferry Road
Westminster
London
To Whom It May Concern:
Unless I am mistaken, there has been either a gross lack of communication or a complete abuse of process with regards to certain SOCPA cases pertaining to myself and others associated with the Peace Campaign of Mr. Brian W. Haw, within the city of Westminster Magistrates’ Courts.
I received a letter from my solicitors dated November 21st, 2007 stating clearly that I was understandably excused from attending the proceedings held today in courtroom 4, under the direction of DJ Wright, as it was only a matter of setting a trial date for the alleged SOCPA offences of April 8th, 2007 and June 8th, 2007. Secondly, as I was represented by a member of Tooks chambers and was, in law, deemed present by way of my legal representation lest the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, be issued with an arrest warrant for his failure to attend his pre-trial hearings with regard to the Health and Safety issues of the Jean Charles de Menenzes killing,
Would a warrant be issued for my arrest should I not be able to attend tomorrows hearing? That thought, in itself, is enough to cause me harassment, alarm and distress – as defined in law to be a section 4 public order offence.
I fail to understand why my presence has been demanded at the COWMC tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. by DJ Wright when I have not been summonsed to appear tomorrow. I will again be represented by a member of Tooks chambers and will again lawfully be deemed present, whether I am physically present or not.
Also, in my past experience, I find it very abusive of the COWMC to demand an innocent party to give up one’s freedom and be locked in the docks when the SOCPA offences being brought against me are non-imprisonable. I reasonably believe that to be in violation of my convention right to liberty and security as defined in HRA 1998.
I find it highly irregular that, if I am informed correctly, the reason for my demanded attendance is so that I may review the advance disclosure, in the courthouse and not in my solicitor’s offices, which has always been the case in the past, so I may inform the court if there are any discrepancies (?). Am I to argue my defence tomorrow at the date to set the trial, instead of on the actual trial date?
Furthermore, both cases of the 8/4/07 and 8/6/07 have no named informants and as such, these cases should be stayed as an abuse of process.
As there is an appeal dated Jan.18th, 2007 at the Southwark Crown Court and the outcome of this appeal may directly affect the outcome of any further SOCPA charges, I would further request these cases, and any future cases being brought forward regarding myself, be vacated/Sine Die until after the outcome of this appeal.
I will be seeking a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 with regards to SOCPA. As such, the issues of human rights and a declaration of incompatibility are far too complex for the Magistrates’ Courts to deal with.
The question of bail does not arise as the alleged SOCPA offences are non-imprisonable and it would be disproportionate to subject me to more serious punishment than is allowable for this offence. When I have been summonsed to COWMC, I have always lawfully appeared, albeit sometimes by way of legal representative.
Regards,
Mrs. Charity Sweet
N.B. I did not eneter the courtroom and did review the evidence with my barrister, in the courthouse - highly irregular. DJ Snow reviewed the case after adjourning from the morning, until the afternoon, and set a date for March...
When will they learn? I was not cautioned nor reported nor arrested on the dates in question as CCTV will prove, which I am certain they will attempt to deny me on some bullshit excuse reason of SECURITY- fuck right off.
The silly officer who perjured himself in his evidence and action book and statement, only harrassed Barbara Tucker regarding her community order, stating that she may not exercise her Article 10 right to freedom of expression, while Steve Jago ran up the road after said copper stating clearly that he too had the same nonsense community order and was pleading to also be reported, with Babs, as he felt left out.
How much of the tax-payers pounds is being wasted on these kangaroo court Nazi political censorship trials at the City of Westminster Maggots Courts down Horseshit Road??
CS XXX
District Judge Wright
c/o City of Westminster Magistrates' Courts
Horseferry Road
Westminster
London
To Whom It May Concern:
Unless I am mistaken, there has been either a gross lack of communication or a complete abuse of process with regards to certain SOCPA cases pertaining to myself and others associated with the Peace Campaign of Mr. Brian W. Haw, within the city of Westminster Magistrates’ Courts.
I received a letter from my solicitors dated November 21st, 2007 stating clearly that I was understandably excused from attending the proceedings held today in courtroom 4, under the direction of DJ Wright, as it was only a matter of setting a trial date for the alleged SOCPA offences of April 8th, 2007 and June 8th, 2007. Secondly, as I was represented by a member of Tooks chambers and was, in law, deemed present by way of my legal representation lest the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, be issued with an arrest warrant for his failure to attend his pre-trial hearings with regard to the Health and Safety issues of the Jean Charles de Menenzes killing,
Would a warrant be issued for my arrest should I not be able to attend tomorrows hearing? That thought, in itself, is enough to cause me harassment, alarm and distress – as defined in law to be a section 4 public order offence.
I fail to understand why my presence has been demanded at the COWMC tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. by DJ Wright when I have not been summonsed to appear tomorrow. I will again be represented by a member of Tooks chambers and will again lawfully be deemed present, whether I am physically present or not.
Also, in my past experience, I find it very abusive of the COWMC to demand an innocent party to give up one’s freedom and be locked in the docks when the SOCPA offences being brought against me are non-imprisonable. I reasonably believe that to be in violation of my convention right to liberty and security as defined in HRA 1998.
I find it highly irregular that, if I am informed correctly, the reason for my demanded attendance is so that I may review the advance disclosure, in the courthouse and not in my solicitor’s offices, which has always been the case in the past, so I may inform the court if there are any discrepancies (?). Am I to argue my defence tomorrow at the date to set the trial, instead of on the actual trial date?
Furthermore, both cases of the 8/4/07 and 8/6/07 have no named informants and as such, these cases should be stayed as an abuse of process.
As there is an appeal dated Jan.18th, 2007 at the Southwark Crown Court and the outcome of this appeal may directly affect the outcome of any further SOCPA charges, I would further request these cases, and any future cases being brought forward regarding myself, be vacated/Sine Die until after the outcome of this appeal.
I will be seeking a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 with regards to SOCPA. As such, the issues of human rights and a declaration of incompatibility are far too complex for the Magistrates’ Courts to deal with.
The question of bail does not arise as the alleged SOCPA offences are non-imprisonable and it would be disproportionate to subject me to more serious punishment than is allowable for this offence. When I have been summonsed to COWMC, I have always lawfully appeared, albeit sometimes by way of legal representative.
Regards,
Mrs. Charity Sweet
N.B. I did not eneter the courtroom and did review the evidence with my barrister, in the courthouse - highly irregular. DJ Snow reviewed the case after adjourning from the morning, until the afternoon, and set a date for March...
When will they learn? I was not cautioned nor reported nor arrested on the dates in question as CCTV will prove, which I am certain they will attempt to deny me on some bullshit excuse reason of SECURITY- fuck right off.
The silly officer who perjured himself in his evidence and action book and statement, only harrassed Barbara Tucker regarding her community order, stating that she may not exercise her Article 10 right to freedom of expression, while Steve Jago ran up the road after said copper stating clearly that he too had the same nonsense community order and was pleading to also be reported, with Babs, as he felt left out.
How much of the tax-payers pounds is being wasted on these kangaroo court Nazi political censorship trials at the City of Westminster Maggots Courts down Horseshit Road??
CS XXX
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 2 comments