Post by Administrator on Apr 24, 2021 10:40:27 GMT
Here im trying to explain it to these people here.. lol.
WHEN YOU USE A POLITICAL RIGHT IT IS NOT A DEFENCE. YOU DONT PLE. ITS SEPERATE FROM THE CHARGE. Rights are applied under 1.1c Of the Criminal procedure rules. All parties must recognise them. Not for Criminal damage you can act with a Right, privilige, interest. Its NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DEFENCE AGAINST A CRIMINAL CHARGE. The LAW says if you act with a right or interest you are not breaking the law (you were right to act) You did not go against the law. Because you are not a criminal acting under these reasons. Now the JURY believed the Protesters were RIGHT TO ACT. They were INNOCENT. The fact is it should never have been tried in a criminal court anyway. Because Political actions to parliament can only be heard/debated in parliament (all facts & circumstances) Also Public Authorities (Police, CPS, Probation) cannot get involved in matters being brought to parliament 9See the human Rights act 1998 section 6.6) The Jury (Public Authority) Already knew about extinction rebellion and its actions thru the news and things. (it wasnt a criminal case like normal crime where they dont know the suspects) Extinction rebellion are known to the public therefore the jury can have a political opinion in matters because its a political matter. (THIS IS WHY POLITICAL CASES CANT BE TRIED IN CRIMINAL COURT) Why we cant be prosecuted (Right to petition) Because THE PUBLIC SIGN PETITIONS AND HAVE AN INTEREST IN MATTERS THE PUBLIC MAY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE CAUSE. .. NOW THE JURY BEING THE PUBLIC.. CLEARLY DID HERE.. (you wouldnt get that in a criminal, robbery or murder) THIS IS WHY YOU DONT TRY POLITICAL CASES IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT AND WHY ITS ILLEGAL TO DO SO. The Right to petition
Explaining this to the average extinction Rebellion people is futile.
Its as futile as trying to explain to the Judges DJ Watson or CPS
This new Case.. the Not Guilty Verdict..
It is amazing.. But really its a Miracle.. Im not saying the Decision was wrong or Not..
But its the FUNDAMENTAL DYNAMICS that these people do not get.. You just cannot explain it to them..
They dont have the cognative capacity to understand even when they win a case...
Post by Administrator on Apr 25, 2021 12:19:47 GMT
JUDGE GREGORY PERRINS & THE EXTINCTION REBELLION CASE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY PROSECUTION NOT ALLOWED
Simon BramWell, Ian Bray, Jane Augsburger, Senan Clifford, David Lambert, James "Sid" Saunders V Crown - Trial - at Southwark Crown court Friday 23rd April 2021 Judge Gregory Perrins
Perrins found it a rather "peculiar case" after claiming there was no legal basis for defence.
I explain why Section 6 of the Human Rights act 1998, The Right to petition parlisment without being prosecuted and the fundamental dynamics of the Crown Court Framework is defective when a case is brought in connection with Political Matters brought to the parliament.
This case is classic example of why such cases ultimately will fail. Because of the Public having an engagement in the matters, facts & circumstanves, which renders it not a standard criminal case.. Politically charged & why these rights & laws exist, that the Police, CPS & Judge failed to identify.
Therefore serious lessons need to be learned.
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.