Blog Feeds

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link China?s LGBT Community Mon Apr 15, 2019 19:19 | Human Rights

offsite link Declaration of Human Rights at Sea Mon Apr 08, 2019 07:31 | Human Rights

offsite link NZ Watchdog On Limits Of Free Speech Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:44 | Human Rights

offsite link US Abortion Restrictions Violating The Human Rights Of Women Thu Mar 14, 2019 15:33 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Watch Urges the Human Rights Council to Renew and Strengthen Mandate of UN Commission Tue Mar 12, 2019 21:51 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link Weekend polls 09:54 Sun Apr 21, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Sunday and the Week?s Media Stupid Statement 09:45 Sun Apr 21, 2019 | guestposter

offsite link Indifferent futility 07:53 Sun Apr 21, 2019 | guestposter

offsite link SP Euro Election Poster 15:41 Sat Apr 20, 2019 | irishelectionliterature

offsite link Fake five star reviews? 12:02 Sat Apr 20, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017

offsite link IRISH COMMONWEALTH: TRADE UNIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 14:06 Sat Nov 18, 2017

offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Test ? 12 November 2018 Mon Nov 12, 2018 14:28 | namawinelake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

Man faces extradition trial on Thursday 19th March for the crime of sending a DVD

category dublin | rights, freedoms and repression | press release author Tuesday March 17, 2009 21:14author by Dannyauthor email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot com Report this post to the editors

The following is a press release concerning the arrest and trial of John Anthony Hill, with information on where to go if you wish to show support.


The maker of the film "7/7 Ripple Effect", John Anthony Hill, who was arrested by gardai on Tuesday 10th February 2009, and kept in prison for nearly 10 days before being released on bail, will be attending court on Thursday 19th March 2009 at 2:00 PM, at the Four Courts building in Dublin. There is a noticeboard in the reception area under the dome, that provides information concerning in which courtrooms the trials are being held.

The British authorities are attempting to have him extradited to face trial for "attempting to pervert the course of justice", for mailing a DVD to the judge and jury foreman of the first trial of Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, who were being tried at Kingston Crown Court, England, wrongfully accused of helping the four designated patsies of the London 7/7/2005 bombings who were; in reality; victims, as much as all the others who died and/or were injured and traumatized that day.

As far as John; who was born in Sheffield, England and has spent the last 11 years in Ireland; is concerned, he firmly believes those men are innocent, just like the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, and he mailed the DVD in order to help straighten out the course of justice not pervert it.

The film "7/7 Ripple Effect" proves that the four men wrongfully accused of carrying out the London 7/7 terror attacks, are innocent, and that therefore the three men who are presently being re-tried for allegedly helping them, are also innocent and have no case to answer.

Information has reached John, that the DVD never even reached the judge and jury foreman of that first trial, as the "Kingston court staff" did not pass it on to them. Which I don't think was very nice of them. Neither was the fact they instead gave the DVD to the police, to whom the DVD was not addressed to. A DVD of a film that had been publicly available on the internet since the 5th November 2007, six months before he mailed a copy of it to the court at Kingston.

The maximum sentence for the false charge that has been laid on him, is Life Imprisonment. He is 60 years old. He doesn't want any sympathy because of that as he is a fighter, but I wanted to mention it regardless because I believe he is a great example to all who strive for truth and justice in this world.

John is asking anyone who is not working that day or can take the afternoon off (this Thursday the 19th), and wishes to attend to show support, to come along at 1:30pm.

I also know he is a very interesting and nice man, a true friend who loves his neighbour, and it wouldn't do anyone harm to meet him. So be there if you can. The authorities only get away with evil things like this because no-one cares enough (all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing). It is an absolute crime that the Irish and British authorities are expending so much time, effort and money, on this case, whilst the thieves in the higher strata of society continue to rob both countries blind.

More information on this can be found at the Friends of Muad'Dib website:- http://mtrial.org/

(This press release written by Danny for http://www.indymedia.ie)

Related Link: http://mtrial.org
author by Michelle Clarke - Justice and Peace.......Imagine all the peoplepublication date Wed Mar 18, 2009 23:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

'Live one day at a time' infamous Jonathan Swift
Tricky case. Probably going to set a precedent. This complicates our lives further so therefore we ought to consider this case and support it if we feel that is right

Never underestimate how important Free Speech is.......Living in Zimbabwe in the 1990's proved that to me.

What is this new European Arrest Warrant...?

Extradition to England over a DVD construed to be evidential?
Hi All

We are meeting up tomorrow at 1pm at the Four courts, Dublin,
in support of a man(John Anthony Hill) who is in court facing
extradition to England, to possibly face life imprisonment for allegedly
interfering in a court case being heard in England, while living
Ireland.

This case could set a serious precedent to undermines free speech,
freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience in Ireland, on the foot
of the new "European arrest warrant".

If this this case is lost. Any of us could be extradited 'out of'
Ireland, for any reason, with no fundamental, constitutional legal
rights protected. This being to any country, which does not have the an
expectation of truth, justice, or freedom as 'we' have described, as
sovereign people in our Article 40 of BUNREACHT Na hÉIREANN.
[Please see article below for more detail].

God Bless

Mark

PS. Please also keep this case in your prayers.

Message from Mr. Hill arrested for mailing a DVD
Wise Up Journal 16.03.2009

We met with John Anthony Hill who got arrested for mailing a DVD (with
no letter attached) to a UK court from Ireland (reported by the Irish
Times). John is also the producer and narrator of this DVD. Mr Hill, 60
years old, showed us his arrest warrant and gave us permission to pass
on information contained in it. The maximum sentence on the warrant is
Life Imprisonment in England. John had his computer and other property
seized which is why he requested other people to help him as he is not
able to defend him self properly as a result. The phony charge is
possibly fabricating evidence that might cause injustice and this is
from the same country that helped put people in Guantanamo and other
torture facilities world-wide. The DVD only contains main stream media
news (BBC, ITV, New York Times etc) and the small remainder is his
political opinion which as of yet no one is legally supposed to be
extradited for, within the EU. The DVDs were also never given to the
Judge or Foreman of the trail which is to do with 3 men never mentioned
in the DVD. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of
this documentary anyone who values freedom would see there is an
injustice being carried out here.

John’s court case is on this Thursday at the four courts in Dublin.
Having a gathering outside would not change anything inside the court
but it might get the media to shine more light on this injustice. John
is asking anyone who is not working that day (this Thursday the 19th) to
come along at 1:30pm, and anyone who can take a half day. I’m not sure
if handing out his DVD or flyers with information contained in the DVD
on the street would be WELCOMED by the court, but it is not yet illegal
to hand out free materials on the public streets of Dublin that does not
promote a commercial event. Anyone who has the technical abilities to
make copies or photocopy information and is able to come along might
want to think of doing so. The documentary is available free on the
Google videos and Youtube, 7/7 Ripple Effect. Perhaps spread this on
forums and contact the media if you think it is a good idea or better
yet come up with your own peaceful ideas.

I’m sure you would want support too if injustice was being carried out
against you, but you should only help because you want to.

Article source:
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=830

Related Link: http://www.discipline
author by Mike Novackpublication date Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

That kind of "reporting" doesn't help at all. He was certainly not charged with "sending a DVD".

Apparently you are under the impression that there couldn't be VERY serious charges associated with even "possession of a DVD" let alone sending. It all depends what is on this DVD or what is the prupose of sending it.

If you want to post a story about how this person is being unfairly/improperly prosecuted then present the ACTUAL story. What is he being charged with (and given that charge, is a DVD not a possible "instrument").

Please -- if Indymedai is to advance, we need sensible journalism.

author by Michelle Clarke - Accountability, Truthpublication date Thu Mar 19, 2009 16:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mike

I am not a person to write an article that is in any way incorrect or wrong. I just got an email from a friend of mine who has been following this case on a personal level. I feel a little bit upset that I would have got the wrong end of the stick. Could you please clarify for me if possible, with the highest of respect, what is the real story in this situation. I feel your comment on Indymedia needs not this kind of postings, is a little bit unfair. I have been writing for years on various topics. I made a mistake and I have the guts to say I got it wrong and maybe if a lot more people in Ireland today could say the same we could have a much better country without the harsh judgments we give out to each other. Again, with the highest of respect, I did not know this case personally

Michelle Clarke

author by paul o toolepublication date Thu Mar 19, 2009 17:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This chap John Anthoiny hill, the film maker of '7/7 Ripple effect', sent a dvd copy to a judge in London who was sitting over a case relating to the 7/7 bombings in London. The Irish authorities arrested him on Febuary 10th on foot of a warant from the UK asserting that he was trying to pervert the course of justice.
If anyone is suggesting that the courts, law enforcement, the media or the politicial class act without fear nor favour in Ireland or in the UK mabey take a look at the movie 7/7 Ripple Effect -and decide for yourself.
How did the case go??

author by KH - nmnpublication date Thu Mar 19, 2009 21:22author email thetruthie at eircom dot netauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Does anyone have an update on the court case today??

author by Dannypublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 00:26author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

The judge is taking 2 weeks to consider his verdict, which should be given at 11am on Thursday April 2nd March 2009.

author by Mike Noavckpublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I'm talking about our journalism (not the case itself)

The point here is that this story wasn't about a "crime" of "sending a DVD" but an acusation of interfering with the judgicial process and the only way in which a DVD came into it was as the mechanism. PLEASE -- if you took what I said as a comment on the rightness or wrongness of the acusation of "interfering with the judgicial then you misunderstood completely.

It is silly to argue things like "because the attempt to send material influencing a case to a judge or juror failed there was no attempt to violate a law". Are you wanting to argue that only bank robbers who get away with the money should get prosecuted? That those who fail or get caught in the process are thereby innocent?

Again -- I am NOT trying to comment directly about this case but about the way being reported. I am not arguing that our journalism needs to be "neutral" but only that when partisan it should do so in a sensible manner. Nor was that intended as some sort of personal attack on the "journalist". Sadly, this kind of "reporting" is all too frequent here on indymedia.

author by Dannypublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:19author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

The verdict will be delivered on Thursday 2nd April 2009.

The word "March" shouldn't be there, I added it by mistake at first and forgot to delete it. Sorry about that.

author by Dannypublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 14:12author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear Mike,

In essence, you are asking for us to accept that the British and Irish authorities’ spin on what this is about, is what we should report it as.

Why? Why must one simply parrot what the authorities say and the manner in which they spin it? Is it not enough that their claim (“attempting to pervert the course of justice”) was duly stated, for the record?

You have an issue with the statement, “crime of sending a DVD”, but you appear to miss the point behind it being written that way. There was no attempt to pervert the course of justice at all. And the only “crime” (which it isn’t) is that a DVD (or DVD’s) was (or were) sent. That’s the only thing (event) that actually happened. So, it’s nearer to being an actual “crime” than something which never happened in the first place (“attempting to pervert the course of justice”). It is a bit of sarcasm to put things in their proper perspective. Employing one’s freedom to glean and state what the truth actually is, instead of parroting the authorities’ propaganda which has been dressed up as an accusation that a crime has been committed. “You are free to write what we tell you, HOW we tell you”, is not freedom. Neither, in the great majority of cases, will it be the truth.

The story here is actually about the British authorities trumping up a false charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, when it is they who are perverting it themselves. The story here is about three innocent men in England, who face long sentences in prison if no-one does anything. The story here is that this case is a test of whether the Irish Constitution is worth the paper it is written on and whether it actually does protect the Irish people's (or Irish residents’) rights. The story here is that John Anthony Hill and his film are beginning to worry the criminals in high places behind the London 7/7 attacks and they want to shut him up.

You claim that I, or others(?), have argued that "because the attempt to send material influencing a case to a judge or juror failed there was no attempt to violate a law". This is a completely mistaken claim. For starters, there WAS NO attempt to commit a crime. Full stop. And therefore your “bank robbing attempt” example is ludicrously out of context. Not to mention unfortunate, since the banksters are the biggest robbers around. Secondly, what I said was that staff at Kingston Court were not nice in failing to deliver the DVD’s to the persons they ought to have been delivered to, and that even worse, they gave it to people it was NOT addressed to (the police). We're not happy they did that because now we can "argue there was no attempt". We are pointing out the opposite. That what they did was wrong and IS a crime. It is a mixture of theft and eavesdropping.

But sending proof of someone's innocence should NEVER be a crime. Even if the "mechanism" happens to be a DVD… THAT is what you fail to recognize with your unfortunate but all too common affliction of inverted vision.

Sadly, the kind of reporting you are promoting is all too frequent amongst the mainstream media (whores). But the space between my ears is mine (or should be), and thankfully I do not need the police, politicians or any other human telling me what a crime is and what isn’t.

Yours Truly,

Danny.

author by Tyronepublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 14:41author email tyrone2005 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 spent 15 and 16 years each respectively in prison for crimes they never committed and were wrongly convicted for. Along with countless others we have not heard about.

Sending proof of people's innocence is a public duty in order to prevent miscarriages of justice.

author by Cybepublication date Fri Mar 20, 2009 15:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Tyrone: But THEY have made one's public duty illegal so that THEY can get the result that THEY desire.

(THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You)

author by Mike Novackpublication date Sat Mar 21, 2009 22:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Our Indymedia sites do BOTH "news" and "opinion".

Journalism 101 -- you distinguish these.

You are prefectly entitled to your (IMHO cloud cookoo land, but that's just my) opinion that "sending proof of innocense (or guilt) should never be a crime". By all means write an op ed piece explaining why we should not have trials with rules of evidence constraints, why anybody should be able to communicate with judges and jurors during the procedings, etc. You might even be able to present a compelling argument for your alternative court system.

But you are totally confusing "should be" with "is". Opinion with fact. You want to do a NEWS story about this substituting "should be" for the reality that IF what you reported done was done, then that IS a crime in Britain and since also a crime in Ireland, an extradition request would be normal.

As my wife pointed out, the story COULD be about some mistake. Useful evidence sent to the wrong people through ignorance. Or perhaps it was first sent to the defense team but they chose not to use it (you pay them for their judgement about that sort of thing). That could be part of the defense of the person acused of doing this. Again a confusion about the system -- we do trial first, sentence after (in other words, however you feel that the person shouldn't be CONVICTED for "attempted tampering" does not translate into "should not be TRIED for "attempted tampering"). By the "fact" part of what you reported, CLEARLY enough to require a trial based on what IS our law. and equally clearly because a SHARED law involved, no valid defense against extradition.

Please stop confusing how you feel about the case and what you would like to see happen and what you think would be the right sort of laws for us to have with reporting NEWS. My concern here is that we (Indymedia) can never get taken seriously as an alternative news and opinion source unless we improve our journalism.

author by Dannypublication date Sun Mar 22, 2009 16:51author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mike, there's nothing new in your post. Just a re-hash of what you have been saying over and over.

i.e. That for you, "fact" is what the State says and how they say it, and we should all report it this way, and then add our "opinion".

I've made it clear I totally disagree and that I instead choose to write the true facts, from the vantage point of good triumphing over evil, right over wrong, justice over injustice, truth over lies (which you probably perceive as my biased opinion). And THEN throw in the State's "opinion".

You have made it abundantly clear that you support the unrighteous "laws" that would possibly condemn John Anthony Hill to Life Imprisonment just for trying to help three people he believes are innocent. And you keep attempting over and over to cloud this SIMPLE FACT with endless "legalism" to pull the wool over people's eyes about what's really going on.

You are part of the problem, because you are the type of person that makes the authorities believe they can get away with doing evil things like this to someone, because you believe they have the "right" (right = righteousness) to do it, to commit this crime upon John Anthony Hill. "If we only just obey all their (millions of) rules, everything will be alright, bleat bleat".

And all you worry about is how Indymedia will look. Gnat-strainer/Camel-swallower. I dare say that if Indymedia was full of people like you, then Indymedia's lack of EMPATHY with others wouldn't look too good. Your particular brand of concern for this website is harmful to its long-term well-being, going by the evidence of what you have written so far.

Empathy:-

Empathy is the capability to share and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or in some way experience what the other person is feeling.

author by Dannypublication date Sun Mar 22, 2009 16:57author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

@ Mike Novack: In all seriousness, are you being paid to write this s***e in order to prevent the mustering of support for John?

author by paul o toolepublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The point is that John Hill is being brought up on extradition charges In Ireland at the request of the UK authorities for allegedly distributing paraphenalia which could in his own view exhonerate the three accused of 'planning the 7/7/ bombings in London.
If this is the case as it is reported there is far more sinister goings on than a simple misstated accusation of 'tampering' on behalf of Mr. Hill, but rather a far more serious situation that the authorities in the Courts in London do not wish to address and that is ....a cover up .
It wouldn't be the first time either as has been pointed out earlier as in the case of the Birmingham six, the Guilford Four, the Maguire seven...ad infinitum.....

If a man should be 'accused of tampering' under the law as in this case, in order to tell the truth, then to hell with the law....it has no basis in logic or morality. The law is an instrument which has always been used to protect the elite and political classes and make sure that ordinary people stay put. And this case prooves it. Again.

If we support incarceration for life of a man trying to actually prevent justice being perverted, in order to show evidence which would free three other men whomb might be seeing life behind bars in the wrong, then we support all injustices and the law is certainly an ass.
The hideous notion that there is some journalisic failing here is a cod.
When peaceful protestors go to prison for attempting to prevent War-Crimes being comitted and the judge is in bed with GW Bush, when Maura Harrington of Rossport gets sent to Mount-Joy for psychiatric evaluation- for posessing a concience, on the sayso of a Fianna Fail judge and not a professional psychiatrist, and people support this then we are in trouble indeed.

I think Danny has written a very good article wether or not Mr Novac thinks so or not.

author by Debrapublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 15:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I have read with interest the press release submitted by Danny, and it is unfortunate that the issue of validity of Danny's article became an issue at all.
I have been following this case; and, the articles, including Danny's, are actually very straight forward. This is not a complicated case - but the truth is hidden.
The issues for focus are these:
#1. the (twisted) charge against John Hill,
#2. and the (purposeful use) of the 7/7 Ripple Effect DVD.
This is an extradition case, and on the 2nd of April, Mr. Justice Michael Peart is to announce his verdict on the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Lawyers are paid large sums of money to pervert the course of justice. They are trained to do this, and trained well. Judges being required to listen to both sides of the council, and then base judgement upon it, know about the motion of perverting the course of justice better than anyone else. A person is as likely to find justice in a court room, as they are to find health in a hospital; thereby making judges and doctors very wealthy. This is not a hidden secret; it is well-known, and, unfortunately, tolerated.

Issue #1: the (twisted) charge.
The very thing that occurs daily in the court rooms by the lawyers, is that which they have charged John Hill with; attempting to pervert the course of justice; yet, John Hill has logical evidence to the contrary, as can be witnessed on the DVD; but the court system (via an EU warrant) has claimed in their charge that the ' purposeful use' (of the DVD) is the crime; instead they call it the opposite - perverting justice.
This is the issue: 'Truth is now a crime.'
I hope the (good) journalists are listening. I hope everyone is listening.
I believe, Mr. Justice Michael Peart knows John Hill is not guilty (of anything); because Mr. Peart knows how justice occurs in the court room; the laws are variable/mutable; and subjectively based.

Issue #2 - the DVD.
The issue is the DVD, and not the act of sending it to a jury foreman. This particular DVD being sent to a judge/jury foreman ('purposeful use') is the real cause for arrest and charges. Does every person that has ever sent material to a jury foreman and judge receive this treatment?
No, of course not.
I agree, and believe those people as mentioned on the DVD,
i.e. Blair, Giuliani, and Associates are worried about the evidence that implicates them, and also because the DVD teaches the people (the masses) how to think.
It says 'STOP', look around and wake-up. The last thing these people want acknowledged, particularly in a 'purposeful' manner is this DVD; so they have made the act of using it as 'truthful evidence' a crime; sure you can watch it, but you cannot use it for any purposeful means of justice; as John Hill attempted to do.
'Truth has become a crime.' This is a very serious case (with implications within and without Ireland).

author by Solicitorpublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 16:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Debra should know that the charge is in relation to trying to influence a judge and jury.
That is a crime.
The DVD is only incidental.
A scribbled note would bring down the wrath of the law just as quickly.

author by Jurorpublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 16:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If a person has evidence their duty is to BRING IT BEFORE THE COURT.

The court will then OPENLY argue the pros and cons of the evidence.

"Sneaking" suggestive unsubstantiated "evidence" to a jury by the back-door will always land you in jail.

This is Europe guys.
Not some third world banana republic.

author by Yeppublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 21:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Attempting to hand anything to a judge and / or jury during and about a trial is of course a crime. Thats plain and simple logic. If you think it should be allowed then I assume you have no problem with people approaching a jurers home and family? Maybe it wont be a dvd or a note they use to try and make you see 'their' truth? But of course, its ok if its for our cause isnt it?

And while Im here, can someone explain why the dvd wasnt simple given to the defence to be used as the defence and defendent saw fit? Surely this man did not have the only copy of said dvd?

I always find it crazy that people will argue against a system or rule for such a short term and personal goal that they cant see how it will hurt others including people that never asked for your help.

author by Dannypublication date Mon Mar 23, 2009 23:32author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Solicitor says:- "Debra should know that the charge is in relation to trying to influence a judge and jury."

Influence a judge? By simply sending him information he should look at anyway since he is in charge of the trial? If he's not in charge of the trial, who is? Ridiculous. And you support this?

As for "influencing a jury" - a jury should be FULLY INFORMED so that they can reach a correct verdict. Thus nothing should be withheld from them. When a jury is being lied to and critically important information is being withheld from them, they CANNOT possibly reach a correct verdict, and there will always be a miscarriage of justice as a result. A jury should also NEVER rely on, or assume, that the defence is working in the best interests of their client, and hamstring the truth (which is vital to JUSTICE) about the case by only accepting information from the "official" prosecution and defence. They are, after all, usually QC's, and they swear allegiance to the bar and queen, not to the truth. Neither should a person who has vital information rely on going through the defence channel.

The Guildford 4 trusted their defence and the Birmingham 6 trusted theirs too and we know what happened to them.

The jury can, and should, once they have been made aware of new information, request that it be shown in court, and play a more active role, instead of passively listening to the prosecution and defence present both sides as if they knew it all and there was nothing else to look at and consider.

Solicitor says:- "That is a crime."

Is that so? Woe to those who call good, evil, and evil, good. No loss has occurred and nobody has been harmed. That you believe in statutes which assign a crime to something which isn't, speaks volumes about what side you are on. If it is true you are a solicitor, I bet you are really pleased there are so many so-called "laws" which give you plenty of business and end up putting innocent people in prison. And even if they don't get put in prison, the solicitors reap the benefits of them having been brought to trial, anyway, DON'T THEY? Every day is a cause for celebration, with the passage of more and more "laws" (business for you) isn't it? Whilst every day is a sad day for people’s freedom.

Juror says:- "If a person has evidence their duty is to BRING IT BEFORE THE COURT."

What do you think a judge and jury foreman are? Are they not part of the court?

Juror says:- "The court will then OPENLY argue the pros and cons of the evidence."

By all means let them openly study the evidence presented in the film 7/7 Ripple Effect.

Juror says:- "Sneaking" suggestive unsubstantiated "evidence" to a jury by the back-door will always land you in jail.

I suppose that's why a copy was also sent to the judge, who is supposed to be the head of the trial? And both were sent straight to KINGSTON CROWN COURT through the FRONT DOOR?

Juror says:- "This is Europe guys. Not some third world banana republic."

You really are blind. Just about everything you said is bananas (the opposite of the truth, and the opposite of how it should be, which it WOULD be if it weren't for people like YOU).

Yep says:- "Attempting to hand anything to a judge and / or jury during and about a trial is of course a crime. Thats plain and simple logic."

Yes, of course. Any information to prevent a miscarriage of justice in a trial should not be given to the judge and jury of THAT TRIAL. And that you call plain and simple logic. Why don't you start being illogical then, you might begin to make more sense?

Yep says:- "If you think it should be allowed then I assume you have no problem with people approaching a jurers home and family? Maybe it wont be a dvd or a note they use to try and make you see 'their' truth? But of course, its ok if its for our cause isnt it?"

A DVD was sent to the jury foreman at Kingston Crown Court. Why is it you have to assume about something else that NEVER HAPPENED? Might it be because you realize you have very little to attack John Anthony Hill's brave and noble actions? You know, the ones he actually DID? Not the ones you are trying to make people IMAGINE he might have done? Nice try, slanderer. If you don't work for them already, you might wish to try applying for a job with the "War On Terror" crowd, they could use your imaginary-fear-mongering expertise.

Yep says:- "And while Im here, can someone explain why the dvd wasnt simple given to the defence to be used as the defence and defendent saw fit? Surely this man did not have the only copy of said dvd? I always find it crazy that people will argue against a system or rule for such a short term and personal goal that they cant see how it will hurt others including people that never asked for your help."

Personal goal? You are so blind and brainwashed it is impossible for you to see the SELFLESSNESS of John's actions. As for your question about the defence, see my reply to "Solicitor", not that you WILL "see" (the truth of) it of course.

"Solicitor", "Juror" and "Yep", you three are straight out of Matthew Chapter 23 in the Bible. Christ has a message especially for you there, you ought to read it. Here's a little taste:-

23 Woe unto you, scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

author by Jurorpublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 09:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Danny, you clearly do not understand the STRICT rules of evidence, honed over centuries to minimise abuses.

The guy who sent the DVD probably did not realise the hot-water he was landing himself in.

However,there is yet another strict rule of law:

IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENSE.

author by Know It Allpublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 09:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mind you,If he pleads guilty and admits to complete ignorance of the law and makes a formal grovelling apology to the court and to the judge and to the jury he will probably get off very very lightly.

author by Jurorpublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 15:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Nice quote from Matthew Danny.
It doesn't apply to me I'm afraid.

I'm an atheist.
I'm Doomed already.

author by Know It Allpublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 15:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors


"24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

That's me all right Danny.

author by Mr Manpublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 17:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Solicitor and Juror have it spot on. If he wanted the evidence shown in court, he has to mail it to the defense who then present it to the court. The defendants have the right to their own legal representation, or receive court appointed representation. If they feel that their defense is not representing them, they can appeal the appointee or represent themselves (not 100% sure on english system, but Irish one is cogged from theirs). John Anthony Hill was definitely wrong to send material to a judge.

author by Debrapublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 19:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I hope we can please stay with the real (truth) issue here.
I thought Indymedia was for the truth.

Numerous blockbuster films have been made (for decades) with the famous movie stars, depicting the injustice of the current legal system that exists world-wide. The basis of truth is understood, even in the fictional films. So one need not have to over-extend themselves further than to put a DVD into the player and sit on the couch for two hours, or so, to see the truth. Books have been written as well, that one need not have to remove themselves from the couch either, to see the truth. It is literally in our faces, and not hidden except in the minds of those that refuse to see. To hear these silly arguments, and suggestions to grovel on behalf of the current legal system makes me consider whose mind is it that speaks such things.
The depiction of good versus evil is the underlying theme in most movies, literature, art. Why? Because this battle is inherent within mankind.
It can be seen here in the very postings, on this forum and elsewhere, like a tennis match, because it is the crux of the moment-to-moment life of every person.

It is apparent to me, that John Anthony Hill, in sending the DVD's, got up from the couch (metaphorically speaking) and kindly, and peacefully sought to help others.

I thank John Hill, very much.

May we please go forward, and instead of defending a system that obviously defends the very, very (very) wealthy; focus on what it is we can do to promote the good (truth).

With that said, please, if you will, Danny, tell us what specific (get-up off the couch) actions can we take, at this time, to help the case of John Hill, please.

I thank you.

author by Dannypublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 20:59author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Debra says:- To hear these silly arguments, and suggestions to grovel on behalf of the current legal system makes me consider whose mind is it that speaks such things.

A mind that promotes bondage/slavery for mankind.

Debra says:- The depiction of good versus evil is the underlying theme in most movies, literature, art. Why? Because this battle is inherent within mankind.
It can be seen here in the very postings, on this forum and elsewhere, like a tennis match, because it is the crux of the moment-to-moment life of every person.

Indeed. Many of those who are in bondage have been conditioned to view anyone who "breaks the rules" as a criminal (but exceptions are allowed for "important" people and their close friends, whose rules they are in the first place).

You mention movies, and this reminds me of the movie The Matrix:-

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Business-people, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But, until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Mr. Rhineheart: You have a problem with authority, Mr. Anderson. You believe that you are special (meant to be FREE), that somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously you are mistaken (you are meant to be a slave).


And the comments from people like Mike Novack, Solicitor, Juror, Yep, Mr Man... demonstrate how the "sentient programs" (bondage doctrines people are brainwashed with from birth) easily take control of people still plugged into The Matrix:-

Morpheus: Sentient programs. They can move in and out of any software still hard-wired to their system. That means that anyone we haven't unplugged is potentially an agent. Inside the Matrix, they are everyone, and they are no-one. We have survived by hiding from them, by running from them. But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors. They are holding all the keys, which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them.

Debra says:- With that said, please, if you will, Danny, tell us what specific (get-up off the couch) actions can we take, at this time, to help the case of John Hill, please.

People who wish to help can visit http://mtrial.org and read the Call To Action section, to find out what they can do that some of us are already doing in solidarity with John. If they do not feel up to that, they can always come up with other things.

We only have the freedoms we are willing to fight for. The measure of our love for freedom is in how much we fight for it.

author by cybepublication date Tue Mar 24, 2009 21:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENSE."

Thank you for informing me that ignorance is no defense. I would therefore like to start brushing up on all the laws so that I don't unintentionally break any of them. Can you tell me how many there are please? And how long it took you to study them all?"

author by cybepublication date Wed Mar 25, 2009 06:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wise Up Journal
23.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara

The British government through Westminster Magistrates Court are looking to have John Anthony Hill extradited to the UK, accused of mailing a DVD (with no letter) to a court, to face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment . The DVD was titled to the judge and to the “foreman of the jury”. I think most people would have faith that a court administrators would know whether to legally pass it on or not, which they did not pass on. The way it was sent makes it impossible to pervert the course of justice. John is also the producer and narrator of this documentary which basically shows footage from the BBC, ITV and some news articles by the New York Times and others.

The small remainder of John’s documentary that is not from main stream media is his political opinion. The European Arrest Warrant Act states no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments about the term “freedom of expression”.

continued: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=839

author by Mr Manpublication date Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"... demonstrate how the "sentient programs" (bondage doctrines people are brainwashed with from birth) easily take control of people still plugged into The Matrix:-"

Yes, all the people who don't agree with you are brainwashed fools. A very facile argument, makes it very easy not to argue your position if you can dismiss the other opinion as brainwashing.

"The European Arrest Warrant Act states no one can be extradited for political opinion"

But he isnt being extradited for his political opinion, he is being extradited for trying to influence a Judge and Jury.

author by Dannypublication date Thu Apr 02, 2009 15:41author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

http://mtrial.org/news/020409-020409-verdict

The verdict today by Mr. Peart was as follows:

Ordered surrender to the U.K.(extradited), and committed to prison for a minimum of 15 days in Ireland prior to extradition.

An appeal may be made to the Supreme Court in Ireland within the next 15 days. The appeal may include a bail request, and delay the extradition, pending a decision by the Supreme Court (in Ireland).

At this time, due to the order as stated, Muad'Dib (John Anthony Hill) was arrested (remanded) in court today after the verdict, and was taken to the prison again.

http://mtrial.org/news/020409-020409-verdict

author by Lawmanpublication date Thu Apr 02, 2009 16:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If he went over himself and appeared at the court he wouldn't be involved in all this ridiculous nonsense now.

(Good job he didn't send anything to an American court!)

author by Dannypublication date Thu Apr 02, 2009 21:59author email watchmanontherock5 at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear All,

Please read this informative article for more details on what has transpired:-

http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/020409-extradition-judgeme...ailer

During John’s trial in Ireland, March 19th, the judge said in his closing statement that he would watch the DVD before making a decision. Today we found out that the judge failed to uphold that promise/commitment made in court when he told the court he had not looked at that evidence. The Judge ruled against John, 60 years old, who was then put in to handcuffs and lead away by the police to a prison.

...

Despite John’s requests he was not allowed speak during his trial. The judge did not even watch the DVD which he said he would do before making a judgement. This is the justice system, it is not even close to most people’s vague ideas of it; the nicely distorted views given by law dramas on TV. When John’s rights were taken away so was everyone’s, instantly.


http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/020409-extradition-judgeme...ailer

author by Yeppublication date Fri Apr 03, 2009 21:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Everyone can attack me all they want but it doesnt answer my questions

1. Why was the dvd not given to the defendent and his defence team to use as they (the person on trial and his professional legal experts) saw fit?

2. Was the defendent or his legal team given the option of deciding if said DVD was to be used in their defence?

3. If you support sending a dvd without the defences permission where do you draw the line? Would you support sending a letter? Visiting in person? Simple logic dicates that third parties who dont understand the legal system or in fact the law and are not representing either party cannot enter anything into evidence.

author by Debrapublication date Sat Apr 04, 2009 18:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It appears the verdict to extradite and imprison was pre-determined, as the judge admitted to breaking his word and not even viewing the (film) evidence, and refused to listen to further defense including prohibiting John from speaking during the trial.

Summary: John Hill imprisoned and to be extradited, for sending a free DVD with the TRUTH to a court of "justice".

In this radio interview "Does YHWH´s Law Apply Today?" JAH explains why we must return to keeping only God's Laws. The ONLY Way to defeat the New World Order, is to get rid of all their legislation and get back to God's Royal Laws of Liberty:- http://100777.com/lawtape

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2019 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy