27/9/2018: Sorry website has been offline the past week. We were hacked by Government Agents !!

Brian’s Article 11 Speech to Justice Collins at Royal Courts of Justice on 8 December 2008: “The reason I am here sir, is because my life and the life of my colleagues is in danger” (after Collins J denied White Rose legal representation order 18 June 2007 over ‘legislation’ now repealed) (24.06.2019)

 

 

 

 

The British Establishment tried to avoid a) a High Court Appeal (over their original unlawful arrest and malicious White Rose prosecution on 22 February 2006) b) with legal representation on c) a point of law (there were many points of law) that would repeal their legislation.

 

So the government very belatedly (nearly two years after the Appeal was filed) illegally denied me legal representation, while falsely claiming the District Judge had found as a matter of 'fact' rather than law that Brian and myself were not 'allowed' to campaign together (which was surreal)  although we gave evidence that was not disputed by the prosecution we campaigned together. They cynically did what they did, because 'facts' are appealed to the Crown Court, while 'points of law' and Declarations of Incompatibility' go to the High Court.  The repeal should have happened many years earlier. 

 

The barrister had stated the judge had ‘amended’ his reasons when challenged, which was true, because the District Judge had really said, single (working) mothers should not be spending their money travelling to London to protest.

 

Justice Collins had no legal grounds to dispute the District Judge had ‘amended’ his reasons and when challenged, and therefore deny a legal representation order, because there was no contemporaneous record of the proceedings actually made. Even after being illegally denied legal representation the High Court had to ‘forget’ to notify of me of my own appeal hearing (that had no case management hearing etc) which despite being published, was null and void (because I notified the court, they had not notified me)

 

The truth was the ‘White Rose’ 22 February 2006 prosecution (the Nazis executed the White Rose in Munich on 22 February 1943) could not go ahead because the police could not even produce the police officer who unlawfully arrested me to explain why he had, including because he could have just taken my details and sent me a summons in the post etc. The District Judge would never have said what he did say in court, if there were agreed audio recordings of proceedings in the Magistrates Courts as a matter of course.

 

The reality always was, the completely arbitrary ss 132-138 SOCPA legislation (repealed) had no published due process of any kind, so politicians et al only intention was to abuse all process, with the real aim of trying to ‘at best’ exile people to stop the inevitable resulting High Court civil jury lawsuits)

 

In particular, politicians have always hidden Corbyn et al’s 8 March 2007 emails from public legal scrutiny and horse-traded over them, because they prove politicians were trying to improperly ‘influence’ police etc.

 

On 8 December 2006 (The Feast of the Immaculate Conception): The government lawyers had asked if our instructions are, for…. our lawsuits to be filed, which was affirmative.

 

There is no legitimate aim convincingly established in criminal law for anyone to need to ask or receive ‘permission’ from politicians and their entire state apparatus, to peacefully criticise governance.

 

On 8 December 2008, the White Rose case had gone full circle when we found ourselves before the errant Justice Collins who illegally denied my legal representation order (I have no idea how on earth any representation order ever even came to be before him.

 

It took years to get the Official Transcript of the hearing on 8 December 2008, that then meant we had to get the Official audio, to prove the Transcript was ‘inaccurate’, during which time Justice Collins then said he wanted to ‘amend’ the Transcript etc etc !!

 

The transcript of Official court Audio:

 

Royal Courts of Justice in London.

 

An unknown CPS lawyer: “Morning”

 

Court Clerk: “Morning”

 

CPS lawyer: “Umm… I find myself in the slightly awkward position this morning. (followed by laughter) Notwithstanding it is a Monday… I am in court. (As an aside) “Could you do me a favour and call me back in five minutes because I am just talking to counsel”. I’m in the case in court, but having said that I’m really not. (more laughter) I’m here on behalf of the CPS who of course aren’t being Judicially Reviewed. And I am effectively here just to see what happens, I guess. That’s what I suppose they (the CPS) have instructed me to do. He’s (Brian) Judicially Reviewing a decision of the Magistrates (District Judge Snow’s refusal to hear an abuse of process argument in Palace of Westminster’s Nigel Cutteridge case) Court in relation to a trial currently part heard. So I’m not really acting for either parties. I’m just here. I’m kind of an interested party. Umm… (Someone asks if anyone is acting for Brian) I doubt it. I expect he is acting for himself…. I have absolutely no knowledge of anything. But my real question is, if I am just an interested party do you want me robed or not ? (more laughter) I don’t know what I am doing here. It’s difficult for me to think that anyone else knows what I am doing here (laughter) I am trying to find this clerk (more laughter)”

 

“He’s got a green hat with badges”…

 

Justice Collins: “The case was adjourned ? I wondered what had happened with the case…”

 

Brian: “It was adjourned until 19th of this month (December 2008)” 

 

Justice Collins: “You’ve got on the face of it, some pretty strong evidence in the form of the statement from a witness. Now as you probably appreciate, no judge would be able to reach a conclusion without hearing the facts. However strong your case is, the other side has got to be heard. That’s a fundamental point of justice. You’ve got to hear both sides”

 

(Justice Collins has immediately ’side-stepped’  the issue is it is COWMC who have already refused a listed hearing of an abuse of process argument it was agreed by all parties would be heard).

 

Brian: “May I request sir, at this stage, prior to any further proceedings that we be given a full transcript of this hearing sir, at public expense ?”

 

Justice Collins: (interjects while Brian is trying to explain) “No you may not”.

 

Brian: “Because the reason for that, sir, is there have been substantial abuses of process in every hearing, in every single hearing up to here, and therefore… “

 

Justice Collins: (interjects) “We’ll see.”

 

Brian: “Excuse me, sir. Please don’t interrupt.”

 

Justice Collins: “Please don’t interrupt me.”

 

Brian: “I am giving you the reasons sir, why I would want them for your judgement.

We are appealing against all these other abuses of process. These are long detailed appeals so we would require this. Lord Justice Pills ordered the Transcript at the public expense at the last hearing sir.”

 

Justice Collins : (Assumes ?) “You’ve got the transcript of the judgement at public expense” (In fact, we had the full transcript of the hearing of our ongoing CO/11393/2007 which was filed on 19 December 2007 before being constantly ‘delayed’ etc etc, because RCJ had to order SCC to produce the transcript and audio of a hearing which they didn’t want to, because it showed SCC didn’t just ’side-step’ the question in the case, which led to the appeal being granted in the High Court, over the original summons against the Commissioner et al)

 

Brian: “What is really said in this court is what we really require.”

 

Justice Collins: “Well we shall wait and see, shall we ? It depends (?) on what the decision is. Let’s wait until the end and you can make an application at the end.”

 

Brian: “Well, I am making it now.”

 

Justice Collins: “I am not going to deal with it now.”

 

(There is no willingness on the part of courts for there to be a public record of court proceedings as a matter of course, so the judicial system is used to perpetrating any and all manner of abuses of due process. which at best, means endless form filling etc etc to follow up on)

 

Brian: “Can you tell me why not ?”

 

Justice Collins: “Let’s get on to the substance…”

 

Brian: “I am sorry sir…”

 

Justice Collins (Interjects) “Mr Haw, will you please get on to the substance” (substance was not something that interested Collins J in the White Rose case)

 

Brian: “I am trying to get things like process in order.”

 

Justice Collins: “We can wait until the end, and I will decide at the end whether you are entitled to a transcript at the public expense”

 

(The production of a published transcript should be a matter of course)

 

Brian: “When it involves regarding note-taking sir, my wrists have been damaged very many times by the police, I have great trouble taking notes. That would solve that problem.”

 

Justice Collins: “Alright Mr Haw, we’ll wait to the end. It may well be that I am with you, but don’t waste more time now” (from the mouth of the government and their state apparatus who passed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 now repealed to do nothing but violently attack the public !!!! )

 

Brian: “I am trying not to waste any time, sir. The reason I am here, sir, is because my life and the life of my colleagues are in danger, sir.”

 

As you will have read the long and detailed…

 

Justice Collins (interrupts) “The issue here is whether the police were guilty of an abuse of process in the prosecution of you” (the Palace of Westminster Nigel Cutteridge case was about the drunk waving around the cricket bat complaining about me, on 1 September 2007, shortly after the governments life-threatening attack on me by their ‘unknown’ assailant/undercover agent on 17 August 2007)

 

Brian: “No sir, that is not the issue of this hearing…”

 

Justice Collins: (interrupts) “That is the only issue of this hearing.”

 

Brian: “Sir, the issue of this hearing is whether District Judge Snow was right and correct in refusing an abuse of process …”

 

Justice Collins (interrupts) “What he said was the matter should be dealt with in the full hearing. Now…”

 

Brian: “I am sorry sir. How do you know what he said ?”

 

Justice Collins: “Because I have got a note of it” (??)

 

Brian: “Well, I am sorry sir, but I must re-but very strongly. I tell you for why sir. Because on the acknowledgment of service City of Westminster Magistrates Court stated explicitly, the court intends to make no submissions.”

 

Justice Collins (interrupts again) “He was not dealing with the abuse of argument then because he perfectly sensibly said that the matter would have to be dealt with when he heard the evidence. Now he cannot decide whether there is an abuse of process…”

 

(In fact, District Judge Snow refused to hear the evidence of the abuse of process in a listed hearing)

 

… until he has heard both sides” (Collins is misrepresenting the true position)

 

Brian: “COWMC did not make representations” (saying that)

 

Justice Collins… “your case, the other side, before making a decision” (says the ‘judge’ who illegally refused a legal representation order someone made without my knowledge to him, and without him even speaking to or hearing from me. How the question of my legal representation even ever came before him was always an  unknown mystery)

 

Brian: “The other side, the other side, are not here to contest. The other side have therefore conceded.”

 

Justice Collins. “They will deal with it or he will deal with it at the hearing.”

 

Brian: “He was required, should they require, to contest this, to come here and make their submissions and argument.”

 

Justice Collins: “No, Mr Haw. I am sorry. They are saving costs in not attending this hearing.”

 

Brian. “No, they are not saving costs in abusing the process yet again.”

 

Justice Collins. “Mr Haw, you are getting obsessed with this” (from the government who obsessively passed the ss 132-138b SOCPA 2005 legislation now repealed)

 

Mr Haw: “I am not obsessed sir. These crutches, me being crippled.. the police, the grinning…”

 

Justice Collins: (Interrupts)… “Mr Haw”        

 

Brian: “No, excuse me, the grinning PC outside the court of door number five, when District Judge Snow is inside the court (over the malicious prosecution against Brian when he was crippled on 5 May 2008, when the CPS halts withdrew the case when police started threatening witnesses) is reported (was actually recorded) as you have read in the accounts, by my barrister, my client is outside the very door of this courtroom ringing 999 because he cannot come into this court for the case to continue because he is reporting the police (in the case) intimidating witnesses (admitting they crippled Brian and threatening to cripple other campaigners, in front of a barrister too) when the grinning PC is saying, your lucky I didn’t put you on crutches as well.”

 

Justice Collins: “Where was this ? At the Magistrates Court ?”

 

Brian: “At number 5, it’s in the (written papers) argument, sir.

 

When the barrister goes into the court and reports to District Judge Snow that the office in this case against Mr Haw has just boasted about putting Mr Haw on crutches”

 

Justice Collins (interrupts) “these are all matters you can raise” (that Justice Collins is by and large also responsible for because he illegally denied legal representation in the knowledge the compatibility of the legislation with the HRA had not been argued)

 

Brian:… (which) “is why we cannot get justice in that court. When the barrister tells him (DJ Snow) Mr Haw has been put on crutches because of this assault on him on 5 May 2008, and when the Judge says, when she tells him, a PC is saying he is lucky he didn’t put (other people) on crutches, to my witness(es) outside the very door of the court, and District Judge Snow said, it’s no concern of mine”

 

Justice Collins: “That may be entirely wrong but the reality is”… (It’s not really a question of it may be wrong of the police and judge)

 

Brian: “It is very wrong, isn’t it ?

 

Witnesses are entitled to protection in courts.”

 

(Justice Collins also knows from submissions that District Judge Snow for example, also, for example, tried to set a five day trial, while going through 20 police witness statements in detail, while refusing to look at and ignoring the video that was submitted to the High Court , which forced the CPS to withdraw the malicious prosecution against Brian on 12 January 2008 after he was assaulted.)

 

Justice Collins: “You have representation before the Magistrates Court.”

 

Brian: “I have been dragged away violently sir…”

 

Justice Collins: “Mr Haw, will you please listen to me for a moment ?”

 

Brian: “If you will listen to me sir ?

 

Mr Ant is violently dragged away…”

 

Justice Collins: “I am not having you dealing with the court in this way (whatever that means)

 

Would you please listen ?”

 

Brian: “If you will listen to me with respect sir.

 

Mr Ant was violently dragged away by police on that occasion when he was my witness in the case, he was thrown out of the court building. First of all, there is the boast about assaulting me and putting me on crutches. Secondly, they are threatening my witness(es) you are lucky I didn’t put you on crutches, it’s reported to the judge who says it is no concern of mine. This is outrageous. That case was duly thrown out, the CPS had to drop it (on the same day) We have the video of the police assaulting me. They didn’t want to see that video. That’s the Cooks County judgements at COWMC, sir. It’s outrageous. People are entitled to go to court and make their case unhindered.

 

I’m raising my voice now because I am trying to be heard.

 

To make their argument in a cool and calm and rational manner, without being terrorised by the police ‘witnesses’ in the case. And this is what is going on down at COWMC and that’s only one issue, and one example. We have very many as you can read in the long detailed….”

 

Justice Collins: “Mr Haw…”

 

Mr Haw: “The point is they are not here to contest it are they ?”

 

Justice Collins: “Well, that doesn’t matter “(from the judge whose original ‘point’ was both sides need to be heard, although COWMC did not make any submissions or contest anything)

 

Brian: “But it does matter”

 

Justice Collins: “It’s a permission hearing. They don;t have to attend a permission hearing.”

 

Brian: “I am asking for the case to be quashed because I cannot get a fair trial in a court where conduct like this is going on.”

 

Justice Collins: “The decision you are attacking in this Judicial Review is the refusal to hear your  ummm. abuse of process argument on 24 November 2008” (which involved the actions of the same ‘judge’ DJ Snow)

 

Brian: “That is correct sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “That is an abuse of process argument in relation to the allegations…”

 

Brian: “Yes, and the court did not run the abuse of process argument”

 

Justice Collins: “That was what you were challenging.

 

You have evidence from a witness there was an admission to her by the complainant against you, that he was put up to it by the police, right ?”

 

Brian: “That is part of it sir. There is also the protective summons … the issue of evidence” (the malicious prosecution which originated on 1 & 4 September 2007, was only brought after the 12 January 2008 had to be withdrawn)

 

It was again linked to Corbyn et al illegally hiding their 8 March 2007 emails from legal scrutiny which led to the life-threatening attack by an unknown assailant/undercover agent against me on 17 August 2007

 

Justice Collins: “You can raise all that at the hearing. The Judge…”

 

Brian: “I can’t raise that when I am not safe and my witness are not safe.”

 

Justice Collins: “Well, if there is any question of that, then you have to make a separate application (??) to the court at Westminster. It is not a matter that is before this court.”

 

(It was part of the application before the High court really)

 

Brian: “The Judge impugned the character of my counsel sir. “

 

Justice Collins: Y”ou have representation for the Magistrates Court, do you not ?”

 

Brian: “I had representation for the abuse of process argument …. District Judge Snow refused to let counsel make the abuse of process argument. “

 

Justice Collins: “The counsel can make the argument in the hearing. The matter cannot be refused at the hearing of the summonses against you” (that are obviously trying to ‘overtake’ the summons against the Commissioner of the MET Police in CO/11393/2007) because it is your defence

 

(The reality is it had already been proved anything can be covered up when there is no contemporaneous record of proceedings)

 

“It is a waste of time to make this application now

 

Wait till the court hearing, raise those issues, you have on the face of it, a very strong case indeed.”

 

Brian: … “My interested party will make a submission, sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “Your interested party has no right to make a submission.

 

But I will listen.”

 

Interested Party (Moi): “The interested party has every right to make a submission.”

 

Justice Collins: “No she doesn’t.”

 

Interested Party: “The interested party has made a formal complaint against Lord Justice May and Justice Maddison (from 4 December 2008) It is quite clear there is an ongoing abuse of process, whereby Mr Haw will be convicted at COWMC, to conceal, you must all convict Brian Haw to cover up the illegal seizure that took place in Parliament Square, on May 23, 2006.”

 

Justice Collins: “Do not talk nonsense.”

 

___________

 

N.B (A High Court civil jury, which is what they were all really trying to avoid would agree with me)

 

___________

 

Interested Party (moi): “No sir, you should recuse yourself, because you refused a representation order. You said that two people in this country (Brian and myself) could not campaign together.

 

We are making submissions to the Venice Commission in the Council of Europe and the UN Commission on Human Rights.”

 

Justice Collins: “Well, Good luck.”

 

Interested Party: “Based on you are stopping us campaigning against illegal wars of aggression. This man cannot get a fair trial because it is in the interests of all of you to convict him to cover up the illegal seizure. It’s in that abuse of process argument. “

 

Justice Collins: “You have no faith in any judge.”

 

Interested Party (moi) : “I am just pointing out you have all covered up the illegal seizure.

He went to the Magistrates Court on 30 May 2006 and he raised the issue of the illegal seizure. In ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, there is no power of seizure.”

 

Justice Collins: “He has been given permission to pursue that” (CO/11393/2007 where I was an ‘Interested Party too )

 

Interested Party: “It is just a holding pattern (while trying to find something else to try and convict etc with so many malicious prosecutions used to try and ‘overtake’ ours) because you want to convict him (on something else) at COWMC “

 

Justice Collins: “No, I am sorry, I am not going…”

 

Interested Party: “It is a serious abuse of process. The illegal seizure is a serious abuse of process. You have every interest to convict him. That is an abuse of process that is before this court, that you should recuse yourself. It is an abuse of process that an illegal seizure took place and a court has an interest in convicting someone to cover that up. It is a criminal action.”

 

Justice Collins: “If you aren’t quiet, I shall have you removed.”

 

Interested Party: “What’s new ?”

 

Brian: “I take very strong issue with you denying my interested party to speak because she has the right to speak (with the whole point being none of us should have ever been taken to any court to have the right to speak !! to criticise government etc)

 

In addition, I demand that you recuse yourself on account of this document”

 

Justice Collins: “What document ?”

 

Brian: “This is the document (Brian holds it up and hands it to Collins to read his own handiwork) about the application for a representation order, by Justice Collins. And you sir, said, there is no merit in the argument that the DJ seems to have (changed) ‘added’ to his reasons (when challenged) (lawyers use the expressions instead of saying corrupt) and should amend his case.

 

This case concerned Article 11 when Mrs Tucker was demonstrating with myself, on my exempt (at that time) demonstration and District Judge Evans said two whole people cannot assemble or associate freely together on an exempt (at that time) demonstration. I stood up on the witness box and so did Mrs Barbara Tucker and you have it in your account sir and it’s all there. I stood up in front of DJ Evans (on 22 February 2006) and said Mrs Barbara Tucker is demonstrating with me in Parliament Square. She stood up and said likewise (and the prosecution did not dispute) District Judge Evans, whilst acknowledging that we both gave that witness on affirmation, then went on to say, he didn’t accept it. I am sorry sir, nobody has shown me in the statutes anywhere, where it says, a person, two whole people cannot associate freely together on an exempt (at that time) demonstration, incorporating Article 11, the right of freedom of assembly without having to trot along to COWMC and find out whether District Judge Evans finds it acceptable or not.”

 

Justice Collins: “Well, he didn’t.”

 

(The White Rose case proved the legal necessity for recorded hearings in Magistrates Courts)

 

Brian: “This is outrageous, sir. Britain’s version of Article 11, Freedom of Assembly is two whole persons cannot demonstrate freely together on an exempt (at that time) demonstration”

 

Justice Collins “That was a finding of fact”(??)

 

_____________

 

N.B: There were no witnesses who disputed the fact we were campaigning together, which we did legally do for many years, without our hiding that fact. The police officer who unlawfully arrested me was never produced in court, and indeed the government refused to produce him, so it was actually illegal for the prosecution to proceed. So the District Judge (& CPS) did know it was illegal to proceed with the ‘White Rose’ show trial.

_____________

 

Brian: “That was a matter that was lost in Town and Country Planning. Mrs Tucker’s appeal was lost in Town and Country Planning for two whole years. Now can two people associate freely together in Britain ?”

 

Interested Party (moi): “Of course they can.”

 

Brian: … “Under the Human Rights Act. How outrageous. You sir, to your shame sir, also went along with this, and you refused her legal aid (Justice Collins tries to interject) I will finish. You said the case had no merit. How dare you sir. You should recuse yourself, sir. In fact, I demand it. You are so biased and prejudiced.”

 

_____________

 

(which a Judge would have to be, to claim another judge’s at best, personal opinion could be called an evidential ‘fact’).

 

A reasonable and rational person would know the legislation had no due process while arbitrarily abusing and robbing the public of freedom and money.

_____________

 

Justice Collins: “I am not going to recuse myself. You are talking nonsense, Mr Haw.”

________________

 

(which explains precisely why freedom of expression must be free from the financial/state interference of others, arbitrarily calling peaceful freedom of expression a crime)

_______________

 

Brian: “I am talking the law, and you are talking poppycock.”

 

Justice Collins: “If you don’t calm down, I shall have you removed from the court.”

 

Brian: “On what basis ?”

 

Interested Party: “Well, don’t ‘invite’ us to courts. Do not ‘invite’ us to courts. Do not abuse us. Leave us alone to campaign.”

 

Brian: “On what basis will you have me removed from court.”

 

Justice Collins: “If you don’t sit down and be quiet, I shall have you removed.”

 

Brian: “I am asking you sir, with the greatest respect, I have asked you to recuse yourself because you have outrageous bias and prejudice.”

 

Justice Collins: “Alright, that is what you believe.” (He asks for staff to call security because he knows he can’t cite a Contempt of Court… in the High Court because it is all part of the wider cover up over the legislation, they don’t want on the High Court record)

 

Brian: “This is fact and law.

 

Justice Collins: “Mr Haw, I’ve listened to you and read the papers (probably the Sun news… papers) and there is no point in this application because the matter which you complain about, as I say on the face of it you have a strong case that you are right in your contention… that the police put the complainant up to the allegations, because if the statement you have is true, and I have no reason to question it….”

 

Brian: (interjects) “it is about (firstly) the refusal of District Judge Snow to hear the abuse of process argument, a process that was listed. That is the issue in this case.”

 

Justice Collins: “The matter will have to be sorted out in the hearing.”

 

Brian: “No, it will not, sir. The defence are entitled to make their abuse of process argument any time they like.”

 

Justice Collins: “They are not.”

 

Interested Party (moi): “In law, they are.”

 

Brian: “In law, they are entitled sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “That’s what you say Mr Haw, but I am against you and I am afraid this application has no merit and is refused.”

 

Interested Party (moi): “The police did not act alone. You all acted together.

 

(as Corbyn et al’s 8 March 2007 emails they always hid from legal scrutiny prove)

 

It is in your interests to convict Mr Haw.”

 

Brian: “Transcript, sir. “

 

Justice Collins: “That’s it Mr Haw.”

 

Brian: “Full Transcript sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “No, you’re not having it.”

 

Interested Party: “Okay, we’ll make a formal complaint about you too.”

 

Justice Collins: “It’s not a matter that justifies public expense”

 

Brian: “It is sir, because your outrageous abuse of process which has all been recorded, I need a copy of that, to appeal against you sir. “

 

Justice Collins: “You can get a copy if you make the necessary application” (the endless ‘permission’ form-filling)

 

Brian: “Why are you refusing me the application” (for the transcript) ?

 

“Do you know how much it costs ?”

 

Justice Collins: “I haven’t a clue.”

 

Brian: “How much ? 30 pence per page. How many hundreds of thousands pounds have been spent prosecuting me ? The Commissioner stole £111 thousand pounds of taxpayers money to commit theft on 23 May 2006.”

 

Justice Collins: “That is all”

 

Brian: “That is a matter of public record, sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “That is all. “

 

Brian: “Millions have been spent trying to get rid of me sir, and you sir, I demand a full copy of the transcript.”

 

Justice Collins. “You are not going to get it.”

 

Brian: “I am entitled to appeal.”

 

Justice Collins: “You are entitled to apply.”

 

Brian: “I need the transcript to appeal.”

 

Justice Collins: “What you can have is the observations I made at the end.” (Well, he couldn’t call what he said reasons)

 

Brian: “Observations at the end ? don’t show how you abused every process there is. According to you sir, Article 11 about two people demonstrating together.”

 

Justice Collins: “You have your remedy. Out.”

 

Brian: “Sorry, Sir ?”

 

Justice Collins: “I said out.”

 

Brian: “Out ?

 

What do you mean by Out ?”

 

Justice Collins:  “I want you to leave the court.”

 

Brian: “I haven’t finished my submissions yet.”

 

Justice Collins: “You have finished your submissions.”

 

Brian: “Do you know how long this case was scheduled for ?”

 

Justice Collins: “It’s not scheduled for any particular time.”

 

Brian: “it is scheduled for one full hour, sir.”

 

Justice Collins: “Now, would you please leave the court.”

 

Brian: “and here we are…”

 

Justice Collins: “remove him…”

 

Brian: “How dare you sir…  seventeen minutes into an hour hearing, and you are running away. Corrupt. Who knows law in this court. Does anyone do law in this court ?….”

 

_____________

 

Justice Collins did subsequently dispute what was said, so the courts Official audio had to be produced (the official Transcript was ‘abridged’ that Justice Collins also sought to then ’amend’ !!)

 

The legislation had to be repealed because it was not compatible with the Human Rights Act, and was really only being used to violently attack and at best exile peaceful free speech.

 

The ‘courts’ really do need to have affordable court records available so appeals can be simply filed, using agreed court audio.

 

Related:

 

Donna ‘Black-Cat’ Bugat: British monarchy are stopping true free market capitalism with their global centuries old illegitimate landholdings which are not a level playing field (02.12.2019)

 

I am curious to see what true free market capitalism looks like with a real level playing field.

 

It is common-sense it is a fundamental human right everyone should have the land security of owning some land so they can build their own shelter which is necessary for their survival. 

 

Love, Peace, Justice For All xx

 

The truth is free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27/9/2018: Sorry website has been offline the past week. We were hacked by Government Agents !!