DJ Wickham - guilty of contempt against humanity

2:39 p.m. 29/03/07- enter DJ Wickham’s Contemptible Kangaroo Courtroom 4

The first question to be dealt with was whether to try Barbara Tucker and Brian W. Haw together or separately, for contempt of court, pertaining to the bent DJ Evans and his three ring circus on Monday 26/03/07. My first SOCPA charge was moved from her court to courtroom 4 and DJ Evans and was heard at 6:00p.m. Although the CPS had “lost the file”, I still had to make a plea. Wickham stated she wasn’t hearing any other cases “for a variety of reasons”. O’Callaghan was representing me, Haw and Tucker. My original summons was also incorrectly addressed and I didn’t show up on Monday as I was apparently summonsed to do. I received a phone call from Jago stating I was listed with Babs and there was a possibility that an arrest warrant was to be issued.

Question: If a total of six summonses are signed by Evans, directed at three individual defendants, and all six are mailed to the wrong addresses, was DJ Evans hoping that no one would receive a summons and was he planning to issue arrest warrants for all three? I smell a big, stinky, dirty, bent judge.

A curious piece of evidence was given to Mr. O’Callaghan, as described by Tucker – “a paragraph of garbage – nobody put a name to”.

Wickham’s comment to O’Callaghan was interesting regarding the viewing of said curious evidence. “I think you know what I mean. I wouldn’t expect that to go beyond you.” O’Callaghan explained that he would have to show it to his clients. This was the first hint I had that I was witnessing, yet another, scripted bent judge.

O’Callaghan argued that the cases should be heard at the same time as the circumstances occurred at the same time, in connection with the same proceedings, they were both put in cells together, offered the same duty solicitor. He also noted that there was no conflict should there be different outcomes. He further argued that he was representing both their submissions and that they were involved with each other at each relevant stage of this matter; their positions were the same. Wickham had no choice but to try them together.

I wonder why she was so determined that they be heard separately as it made no sense other than she had an ulterior motivation for separating the hearings and splitting up Tucker and Haw.

O’ Callaghan made clear the fact that only when DJ Evans was present and the courtroom was fully constituted, in relation to the specific proceedings, could the contempt of court be contemplated, as DJ Evans has a rather bizarre track record of fleeing his own courtroom and leaving the legal clerk holding the bag… which would be Miss Austin on that day. He stated the actions in the absence of DJ Evans were not relevant.

CX 764 Roger Smith was present as the stalker and weirdo he is known to be, at all of Barbara’s trials. Exactly who is he taking notes for and is he really a MET officer? Wickham welcomed him in the courtroom with open arms as it was an open court and he is apparently on her level.

Miss Austin took the stand and swore her oath and then perjured herself.

The “wilful misbehaviour by both these defendants” apparently took place on Monday afternoon, in Courtroom 7 with DJ Evans present. It was noted that Tucker received a number of summonses for unlawfully demonstrating under SOCPA. Austin wasn’t sure exactly when Mr. Haw arrived and stated that he was sitting beside Tucker.

Miss Austin testified that Steve Jago was first addressed. The complaints and summons were read to the court. Jago stated he was unable to enter a plea as he hadn’t received advanced disclosure. DJ Evans stated that Jago was not entitled (?) to advanced disclosure before entering a plea (which is bullshit). Evans entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. Tucker appeared “agitated”.

Tucker was next asked to stand and enter a plea. She stated that “she wasn’t in a position to do that.” She was present in a capacity to support Jago, as a Mackenzie friend. She stated that she was not at the address of the summons and the summons indicated that they were printed that day. Evans stated that the purpose of a summons was to get the defendant to court and as she was already there, there was no reason that she couldn’t enter a plea. Evans also entered a not guilty plea on her behalf.

Austin testified that Tucker was very annoyed and raised her voice. “Do your job properly. This is a disgrace.”

Evans asked her to sit down. “Thank you Madame, sit down”, he apparently said. Tucker refused to sit down. By this point Haw was actively shouting, according to Austin.

“Don’t bully this woman. You’ll pay for this. Do your job properly.” Austin quoted Haw as stating. Evans warned both defendants about their behaviour and the situation did not improve; it was “clearly deteriorating”. At that point Evans rose. Evans stated that he wanted both defendants taken to the cells for contempt of court. They were taken down to the cells and held in contempt of court.

O’Callaghan addressed Austin and stated that there were various concerns expressed by Tucker to Evans, “Concerns she had raised with you on the date of the summons. You indicated to raise those concerns with Mr. Evans.”

There were no “contemporaneous notes taken at the time this was going on?” questioned O’Callaghan. Austin stated that there were procedural notes only and that the defendants were seen in Courtroom 1 for contempt of court, less than an hour later.

O’Callaghan claimed that “there was a great deal more said” – “the reasons why she did not wish to enter a plea.” Tucker “spoke to her solicitor and was advised to request an adjournment.”

Austin said, “She may have said that”.

O’Callaghan stated that at no time were the charges actually read to Tucker and that Evans had entered a not guilty plea in relation to a summons that the defendant did not receive and had not been read to her. He asserted that Tucker had stated that she had attended to support Steve Jago and was not there in her own right.

“Do your job properly, judge.” – O’Callaghan quoted Tucker.
“Do you remember her saying, “This is dishonest”, indicating she wanted to make a complaint?”
“Do you remember her saying, “This is wrong”?”

Austin indicated that Haw and Tucker had made similar comments. She perjured herself by stating under oath that Mr. Haw stated, “You will pay.” Austin’s words, not Haw’s.

“You will answer for this. Do not bully this woman.” – Haw’s words.

Austin testified that Mr. Evans warned the defendant’s of possible incarceration and rose to leave. Austin stated that on 28/03/07 there was “no reference to extract from my report; it was never intended to be a comprehensive statement.”

O’Callaghan asked “Did he warn that it might result in detention?” He asserted that no warning had indeed been given and that while Haw was addressing the court, Evans stood up and walked out. O’Callaghan asserted that Haw and Tucker were not warned that they would be taken into custody.

Austin claimed that because there was so much shouting, she was not in a position to hear, so to speak.

So… even though Evans insisted upon entering a not guilty plea, no date was set for trial. The matter was ‘sine died’ - put off - behind closed doors and kicked into the long grass for the CPS to pull out of their hat at a later time of harassment.

4:33 p.m. Tucker takes the stand.

Tucker stated clearly that she had notified March 23, 2006 that she would be campaigning for the foreseeable future and that SOCPA was incompatible with the Human Rights Act – restricting peaceful people from public assembly, stating she has been continually harassed by the police, the CPS, the courts and the judges. She quoted Evans as stating, “Article 11 of the Human Rights Act is not a point of law.”

She stated she did not appreciate being brought to trial, “being brought before a criminal’s courts”. She stated that the courts were seeking to conceal political trials and questioned their service of summons.

Tucker referred to Smithy, present as always, in court, and how he attempted to serve a summons to Whitehall pavement and Parliament Square on 22/01/06. Tucker explained that she was repeatedly being denied the opportunity to have legal representation and that the courts knew full well that all summonses were to be delivered via her solicitors – Bindman’s.

“Stop killing the children” is the message that Tucker testified to and requested that her banners be brought into court which was obviously denied.

Tucker again explained that she was present on Monday to accompany and support Steve Jago and is being consistently harassed within the courthouse. Tucker recalled how she had previously attended a court case for the Ant, and Jeff had approached the clerk, to approach a police officer, to have her arrested for breaking bail conditions that had been lifted at Crown Court previously. Her solicitor was also approached and threatened with obstructing and officer for defending her client after he demanded absolute proof that her bail conditions had been lifted. (?) The solicitor commented that perhaps the cleaner should be notified of Babs being off Evans’s bullshit bail.

Tucker reminded the courts how she had even once been bailed from attending her own court hearings and on another occasion, for being anywhere in England.

Tucker stated that her advice from Laura Higgs of Bindman’s was to note that several summons were out of date and that the court should be approached for an adjournment.

The Courts have continuously tried to prosecute Tucker, solely for being peacefully present in a public place and saying, “Stop killing the children.” Tucker explained how she spoke to the clerk in the beginning of her hearing. Tucker explained that there had been a clear lack of procedure, time and again. She recounted how she pleaded, in October, on a stop and search that was confirmed NFA – no further action – and had since been hauled to court again and again on said NFA charge. Tucker asked the CPS how they were going to prosecute a NFA and their response was “We’re just gonna do it”

Tucker stated that this was “a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice” and that she had been subjected to malicious and vexatious prosecution, for months almost a year. (?)

Tucker stated that on Monday, she was asked her name and she stated that the summonses had not been sent to the correct address. DJ Evans’ response was, “You’re here.”

Tucker stated, “The charges weren’t read out to me.”

Evans indicated that he was entering a not guilty plea and Tucker stated, “I was in complete shock. What was I supposed to do, stay silent?”

Tucker testified, “This is dishonest. I want to make a complaint,” expecting the judge to explain to her, how to do that – to make a complaint. Tucker explained she had been subjected to personal attacks and that this was vexatious and malicious; that she was being harassed by the police, the CPS and the Courts.

O’Callaghan asked whether she had any recollection of being warned she would be detained in cells and she responded that Evans left the court room without even setting a court date and to add insult to injury, behind closed doors, the CPS ‘sine died’ these four new summons.

Tucker quoted Lord Moses, “These are real people’s lives we are talking about.”

Tucker brought up another ‘sine die’ case relating to August 5, 2006 when she was held in police custody for over 30 hours and tortured.

4:56 p.m. Mr. Brian W. Haw takes the stand and was questioned as to what circumstances brought him to court on Monday. Haw explained how he was shocked to see Tucker listed for 4 new cases without her prior knowledge. “Right from the beginning of this case”, he stated that there was “no process… every step along the way, it’s abusive. What they’ve done to this decent lady.”

“This is unlawful.” I asked the judge to be lawful. “You are answerable; we are all answerable for our actions. Do not bully this woman.” – Haw testified to his own words.

Haw reminded the court that DJ Evans was involved in another bent decision, involving Tucker and himself, where he insisted that they were not together when they obviously were, wearing matching pink banners. Haw also made reference to Evans refusing to accept article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and how Evans stated that it was “not a point of law”.

Haw stated it was a “no-brainer”. “It is wrong to commit genocide and torture and it’s wrong to be crushed by the police and the courts.”

O’Callaghan asked whether he had been warned that he would be detained. Haw denied this. Haw explained that he told Evans that he must be lawful and not act according to how he “thinks”. Haw said, “You’re answerable” to Evans and told Wickham that he wished that there was CCTV in the courtroom as we would see “who is speaking the truth.”

Haw reminded the courts of Charles Clarke of the High Court and Haw’s exemption from this farce of a law known as SOCPA. He said it was ludicrous that he, alone, could express himself without authorisation. “Bollocks to Bliar” was laid as an example.

5:16 p.m. Steve Jago takes the stand. Jago stated that he was present on Monday as a defendant and as the only person of the three summoned by Evans that had actually received his summons, by sheer luck, as the numerical address, the road name, and the postal code were all wrong. Jago stated Tucker was present as his Mackenzie friend despite her summons also being sent to an incorrect address. Jago stated that Tucker was quite upset with Evans entering not guilty pleas on her behalf, as she was not expecting to be listed that day.

Jago stated that her solicitors suggested that she should ask for an adjournment and she approached Miss Austin before the Court sat. It was noted that Austin said that Tucker should raise her concerns with the judge.

Jago testified that Evans entered a plea for her after some dithering.

Jago was questioned as to whether she used violent language which was not the case and he asserted that she made a number of valid points, that there was a disagreement about the comments and that Tucker criticised the judge for the manner he had dealt with this matter. Jago stated that these comments could have very easily been made by a solicitor.

Jago’s interpretation of Haw’s comments was that Haw felt Tucker had been treated unjustly and Brian felt he had a right to express his opinion on her behalf – in her interest – as she was being rushed through an inappropriate process.

Jago was questioned as to whether there was a threat of violence or if foul language was used? None was noted. Jago said that given the surrounding circumstances, they were not in contempt.

O’Callaghan clearly stated that it is necessary to warn defendants to desist and to make clear that should they not desist, there is a prospect of them being detained.

In summation, DJ Evans was in contempt of Barbara Tucker, Mr. Brian Haw, and humanity for that matter, attempting to wilfully pervert the course of justice and once again, deprive Tucker and Haw of their liberty.

Wickham then got the clerk to get out his ‘bendy book of law’ and she proceeded to bend the law like Beckham, citing Section 12: wilful misbehaviour.

Wickham’s appraisal of the situation was disgraceful. She presumed from her only perjured witness, that the contempt had arisen as a result of the interruptions of Tucker, on behalf of Jago, which was then added onto by Haw. She accepted that Tucker may have been surprised at summons and irritated that her request for adjournment was ignored and “There are rules of engagement”.

Tucker was fined £50.00 + costs for apparently not sitting down when told.

Haw was fined £250.00 + costs for allegedly saying, “You’ll pay.”

Wickham finished off by expressing her contempt for all humanity’s children in stating that what Brian and Barbara do is “THEATRE”.

I WONDER IF THE CHILDREN OF IRAQ OR PALESTINE OR AFGHANISTAN THINK ‘WAR’ IS “THEATRE”?

Were there no other witnesses in the courtroom on Monday, bar Miss Austin, or was she the only one willing to perjure herself?

Why wasn’t the list caller, from Monday, testifying or a security guard or any solicitor or any member of the public present in that courtroom, on that day? Surely there must have been someone more believable and a bit more credible than Miss Austin.

Did DJ Evans not need to give a witness statement or is he quite happy to hide in the hallways, bending the law, protecting a war criminal from his imminent journey to the Hague?

Charity Sweet XXX