Monday, February 28, 2011

7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT: Possible life in prison for mailing DVDS

11/11/2010 Dublin—The Irish Supreme Court ruled today to uphold the extradition of Anthony John Hill, also known as Muad'Dib, for sending DVDs of the widely popular "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the jury foreman and judge, in c/o a British courthouse.
The Irish Supreme Court's decision was to facilitate the British government's demand, through Westminster Magistrates Court, and an European Arrest Warrant, and surrender Mr. Hill to face charges for simply mailing DVDs of the "7/7 Ripple Effect” (with no letter) to the Kingston Crown Court, during the original trial of Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and Mohammed Shakil. The British government had hoped to use the trial to lend credence to their "official story", which they failed to do when the 3 young men were found innocent.
About 35 to 40 supporters of Muad'Dib attended the extradition hearing at the Irish Supreme Court. The hearing was heard in a small courtroom known as the Hugh Kennedy room, rather than the primary Supreme Court room, probably to limit the publicity and room for supporters. The room was full, with about half a dozen supporters standing at the back.

The following is an account of what took place in the Irish Supreme Court. It is not a verbatim account, and has been transcribed from rough notes taken by Richard D. Hall during the trial, and added to by others, so the quotations and statements are not word for word.
Muad'Dib represented Himself in front of the panel of 3 Irish Supreme Court judges, and was immediately and rudely questioned by the presiding judge about His Written Submission. The presiding judge felt it necessary to question which aspects of Muad'Dib's Written Submission Muad'Dib would be presenting to the court, as if the other points would not be considered, even though the presiding judge claimed that everything was being considered.
Muad'Dib opened by stating that it needed to be established that neither the Irish Supreme Court, nor any other court on this prison planet, has any jurisdiction over Him, and that the ONLY Law which applies was The Law given by Moses, at Sinai, in Horeb as stated in The Bible. He held up a copy of The Bible as He made this statement to the court and the judges.
The presiding judge felt the need to then ask if that was the only point that Muad'Dib wished the court to consider or if He was planning on presenting any of the "legal" arguments from His Written Submission. The presiding judge presumably asked this question because Muad'Dib's Written Submission thoroughly covered all angles, using the Irish law and Constitution, the laws of the European Union, and also God's Law, which is recognized by the Irish Constitution and by British law as the Supreme Law, superseding all others.
Muad'Dib informed the judges that one really precluded the other, because He was The Supreme Authority and that The Law expressly forbids men from making up man-made legislation, like the legislation that was being used against Him in this case.
Muad'Dib then told the court who He really is, prompting His friends and supporters to vocalize their support for Him.  An officer of the court then quickly shouted at everyone to be quiet and extra security then entered the courtroom.
Muad'Dib pointed out to the judges, that a statue of Moses resides on top of “this building” (the 4 Courts building in Dublin) and that Father and He had given Moses The Law and that it is The ONLY Law on this prison planet. Therefore all legal arguments, which are all based on fraudulent man-made legislation, are not lawful according to The Law, and this applied to the EU arrest warrant served, which had no authority.
In an effort to skirt the issue of jurisdiction, the presiding judge then stated that Muad'Dib had made legal arguments in His Submission to the court and then asked Him “Does that mean you are not going to present legal arguments to the court?” with the same attitude as before.
Muad'Dib paused to consider this, and stated the obvious, that the legal arguments were irrelevant and there was no point to it because the court had no jurisdiction over Him. The judges initially seemed baffled by this line and again asked, did that mean his legal arguments were not to be considered, proving that they had not read and studied His Written Submission.
Further proof of this came when Muad'Dib asked the judges if he had watched the DVD, to which the presiding judge replied “No the court has not”. He went on to say “The court has been asked to consider a European arrest warrant. The court will not look at the DVD for the same reason that the judge in the previous hearing did not look at it." The presiding judge then stated "we are only interested in legal argument at this hearing". The previous lower court judge (Peart) had promised to watch the DVD and then broke his promise by refusing to do so (because he was ordered/threatened not to watch it?).
Muad'Dib then replied to this “So, not lawful arguments, just legal arguments, which are legislation and are therefore unlawful”.
After being asked previously by Muad'Dib, and refusing to answer which points of His Submission the court was going to consider, the presiding judge eventually yielded that the court was considering only 3 of the numerous "legal" points (including the fact that the surrender of the Appellant is prohibited under the EAWA 2003 on the five distinct grounds) made in Muad'Dib's Written Submission. Muad'Dib began the discussion of the "legal" points by stating that the law of crime by embracery is fraudulent and reminding the court that mankind cannot legislate. He said under embracery any submission is illegal, because it can prevent the truth getting into a court.
Muad'Dib also pointed out that in the perversion of the course of justice there has to be dishonest intent, but again the presiding judge said that this hearing was not to consider evidence, but to consider the European arrest warrant.
Muad'Dib's representation at the previous high court hearing was also discussed. Muad'Dib stated that His Barrister, Mr. Kelly did not follow his instructions and didn’t present His Argument that the extradition request was malicious and politically motivated at the previous trials. The judges completely ignored this fact, as evidenced in the court's decision.
After about half an hour the 3 judges left the court to consider the case for about 20 minutes. About 1 minute before the judges returned to give their verdict, 5 Garda policy enforcers entered the court room. The presiding judge then summed up which took about 15 minutes.
He first dismissed the claim that the court had no jurisdiction over Muad'Dib, quoting that their authority over Him comes from the constitution, but the presiding judge did say that the court understood Muad'Dib's Position on this, which is impossible. He then said that they considered 3 of the numerous legal points which Muad'Dib raised in His Submission, and that he would address the 3 legal points.
The first was that the charge of perverting the course of justice was an infringement of His Freedom of expression under European law. The actual charge is “doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law”, which the presiding judge never correctly stated, referring to the charge as "perverting the course of justice". The omission of the "intention" portion of the charge is critical, as there was obviously no intent on the part of Muad'Dib to do anything but PREVENT a miscarriage of justice, which is what prompted Him to send the DVDs. The presiding judge dismissed this stating that, while they recognize the importance of freedom of expression, it is not an absolute right and that it is "universally recognized" that restrictions have to be placed on it. He then used the example of newspaper editors writing prejudiced material while a trial is under way, that could result in the jury being discharged, which is ridiculous. The DVDs were sent IN THE CARE OF THE COURT. Newspaper articles do not use the courts as a filter for what they print during a trial. The court proceeded by rejecting the first of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Written Submission under these false pretenses.
The second argument considered was that there is no such offence in Ireland as perverting the course of justice. Please pay special attention to this, for this also proves what a miscarriage of justice this hearing really was. This Supreme Court judge made it sound like Muad'Dib had stated the opposite of what was actually written in His Submission. It was, in fact, the prosecutor (Minister) in the previous High Court trial, who had stated there was no such offence in Ireland as perverting the course of justice, as part of his argument that Muad'Dib should be extradited to face trial in the U.K, instead of being tried in Ireland for the same alleged offence. The judge (Peart J) in this previous High Court trial also did nothing to correct the prosecutor (Minister).
Please read the following taken from Muad'Dib's Written Submission to the Irish Supreme Court:- 

43. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to submit the statement that, from the learned judge’s legal-experience, he must have known was a lie; for which the Minister should be charged with committing perjury; and the learned judge also erred by then accepting that lie into the hearing. That false statement/lie being that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice, as the Minister MUST know, is clearly defined in the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0010/sec0041.html#partvi-sec41

Section 41. – (1) Without prejudice to any provision made by any other enactment or rule of law, a person – who harms or threatens, menaces or in any other way intimidates or puts in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation by the Garda Siochána of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, or a member of his or her family, with the intention thereby of causing the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, shall be guilty of an offence.

44. Peart J. erred in law by then allowing the Minister to build on that lie; that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice; to introduce into the hearing, a different offence in English law, not Irish law: stating that we have to accept the English law, in an Irish court: that of attempting to influence a judge or jury. If it is a crime to attempt to influence a judge or jury, then every barrister and solicitor is guilty of that crime, in every case.

45. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to advance this argument when it is based on a lie and it is a different offence from that with which the Appellant is charged, and now the Minister is at it again having subsequently introduced embracery (from 1360AD) and contempt of court, that appear nowhere in the EAW that is the subject of this case, as is required by law. Who is he serving?

http://mtrial.org/node/38

Muad'Dib even quotes the section from the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999, for their benefit. The Supreme Court judge went on to state that the law goes back 100 years (so why not try Muad'Dib in an Irish court for it?) and also stated that "it is a common law". The presiding judge delivered this ruling against Muad'Dib never realizing that he had actually misunderstood the point(?) and was ruling in favour of what Muad'Dib had actually presented in His Written Submission. And these were allegedly "learned" and "impartial" Supreme Court judges?
The presiding judge also made a slip of the tongue when discussing the DVD by stating that it was "anticipated", which later he corrected to "intercepted".  He went on to say that "any approach to a jury may amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice".  The court therefore stated their rejection of the second of their three cherry-picked arguments, never realizing (or did they?) that they AGAIN misunderstood the point and had actually agreed with Muad'Dib's argument here whilst ruling against Him.
The third argument considered was that the crime was not committed in England. This was rejected on the grounds that the act of communication with the Jury took place in England, despite the fact that the DVDs were mailed from Ireland, AND despite the fact the alleged act of communication with the Jury never took place. They again used a far-fetched analogy, that it would be the same as if Muad'Dib had telephoned someone in England and asked them to do it, never taking into consideration that the DVDs were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, for the court to forward as they saw fit, and that THE DVDs NEVER REACHED THE JURY. The court therefore rejected the third of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Submission, again under false pretenses.
And that is how the "learned" Irish Supreme Court judges orchestrated upholding the extradition request.
Several shouts from the supporters could then be heard, "Traitors", "Injustice", "Cowards", "This is an outrage", "Shame", and "Look at the evidence, Servers of Satan”. Muad'Dib sat quietly on the bench for 3 or 4 minutes with a Garda policy enforcer standing over Him. He was not forced to his feet, the Garda policy enforcer could clearly see he was a very peaceful and elderly man. Muad'Dib's supporters tried to appeal to the Garda policy enforcer's common sense to reconsider what he was doing to no avail.
Muad'Dib was taken to the local Garda station first and then transferred to Cloverhill, where He had previously spent 33 days incarcerated for this matter. There is presently no update on when He will be moved from Cloverhill to the U.K. and no court date there has been set.
From what has transpired, it should be clear to anyone familiar with the case that there is absolutely NO justice in Ireland, nor was there ever an independent republic of Ireland. The Irish people are still subject to the fraudulent queen of England and the Irish judges and QC barristers are in fact traitors and nothing more than pawns carrying out their orders from the British crown. The British crown does not like being embarrassed, which is exactly what Muad'Dib/JAH has done with the "7/7 Ripple Effect" film, and why He is being made to suffer. The ludicrous nature of the charge against Muad'Dib/JAH should show everyone how desperate the British crown really is.
It is ironic that at the same time Burma was releasing the political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi; whom Prime Minister David Cameron has called an "inspiration"; the British "crown" was making further inroads towards turning Muad'Dib into a political prisoner right here in Britain, for sending a court DVDs of the "7/7 Ripple Effect".
What the British government doesn't seem to know is that in extraditing Muad'Dib/JAH to the U.K., they will not only be increasing the popularity of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" film, they are bringing home THE evidence that Elizabeth II is a fraud. This injustice and how it unfolds should hopefully help focus people's attention on Muad'Dib/JAH and get the world to take notice of The Example that He has set, to bring the Truth, Justice, Freedom and Peace to this planet.


Friends of Muad'Dib


AttachmentSize
Press Release-JAH Extradited-F1.doc46 KB



http://mtrial.org/pressrelease/15112010