NOTTINGHAM: EPOCH DEFINING EVENTS

REVIVED GRAND JURY OF AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE SHIRE OF NOTTINGHAM UNANIMOUSLY FINDS CASE TO ANSWER THAT CRAWFORD EVICTION WAS UNLAWFUL.

•  How much attention is being paid by the judiciary and the CPS and all the associated ‘solicitors’ who tout for business in the lofty heights of the Nottingham Magistrates Court to the developments in the continued matter of the Crawford family’s violent eviction?
• How much do they truly understand about the financial and legal deceptions at the heart of TGBMS?
• How cognisant are those individuals of the fact that they too are labouring to pay off void mortgages?
• How aware are they of the inevitable rise of Grand Juries? 

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PROSECUTE?

Monday 27 July, 2015. Nottingham Magistrates’ Court #01: Going by the proceedings of the six individuals arrested from the roof of the Crawford bungalow on 25 July, 2015 for a charge that was later trumped up to ‘conspiring to commit affray’, the answer to each of the four questions above would, on a scale up to ten, be zero. It’s as though the entire contents of the nearby canal are about to descend on the court and no one has even so much as got out an umbrella yet…

Are the charges trumped up?

Trumped up charges: adjective
invented as an excuse or a false accusation: he was arrested on trumped-up charges | trumped-up claims | a trumped-up story.

Friday 31 July, 2915. Nottingham Magistrates’ Court #02: In this case, both defendants (as well as the other ‘defendants’ arrested in connection with the unlawful eviction of 02 July, 2015) are facing trumped up charges, that are being brought in order to distract from the elephant in the room: namely, that ‘Operation Hooper’ was an act of terrorism against a family.

20 days subsequent to the events of that day, A GRAND JURY OF AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE FOUND A TRUE BILL: THAT THERE WAS A CASE TO ANSWER THAT THE CRAWFORD EVICTION WAS UNLAWFUL. (SOURCE)

Now, whatever it was that compelled the alleged actions (or not) of those individuals who are currently being charged/put through the ringer by a man acting as a ‘District Judge’, Timothy Devas, remains a matter for each of them.

However, if the man or woman knew in his heart and mind that what was unfolding was entirely unlawful (which it self-evidently was) then his/her response, in whatever form it may have taken, has a heroic quality to it, that is in sharp contrast to the shameful ignorant complicity of each of those who stood in the day-glow uniform of the police and assisted in the unconscionable divestment of a family home of 26 years.

Consequently, those paid naysayers who bash away at their keyboards with nary a thought for the bigger picture, are exercising a perverse desire to justify the criminal aspects of the state and pour scorn and derision on those who take action in the face of its tyranny.

And, let’s remember too, any one who mistakenly places his faith in the ballot box and participates in the fake general election in the false belief that there is such a thing as a ‘democracy’, has simply endorsed the system’s ‘authority’ to lock people up in cages if they choose not to consent and/or not pay towards any more of the state tyranny, including any and all of its illegal wars and the use of unlawful violence against anyone who dares to critique or stand up to said actions.

Apparently, there is a military saying that when one is close to the target, then that is when one receives the most flak.

With that in mind, it is interesting to note the amount of attention being paid to these matters and the associated attack of the ‘shill’ keyboard warriors, many of whom are undoubtedly in the employ of whatever ‘alphabet’ agency to cause defamation, distraction and to decry the attempts of those who are on the ‘front-line’ in the civil war that is being raged by the Banks against the People.

There is a plethora of material across these pages and on the other Self-Realisation Community websites that documents the first hand accounts of the writers’ experiences with the rigged system known as the Crown House of Rothschild’s (CHR) Courts and Tribunal Service. Only an imbecile would see such criticisms of its tyranny and take them as encouragement to enter into its grotesquely one-sided carnival of deceit, where the odds are so massively stacked against the individual, particularly when he is up against one or more of the corporate entities controlled by the CHR.

So to all those faceless enemies who believe that a blog website that has never had more than 644 hits in day, is worthy of their attention, RM asks this question – which side are you on?

The banks or the People?

And, yes, it is as stark as that.

The flibbertigibbets who furiously pound away at their keyboards, pouring their own self-loathing and scorn on those who desire and work towards a remedy for all from financial and state tyranny, are beyond contempt. It is nothing less than an ill-founded attempt to justify the unfoldment of a totalitarian police state and one which ignores the fact that in the 20th Century, ‘governments’ were responsible for c. 200 million deaths of their citizens (not including the wars). Given that fact, it becomes ever clearer that ‘government’ is not the solution to Mankind’s ‘problems’:

It is also well-established that the so-called criminal justice service is weighted in favour of the well-heeled bankers and associated white colour criminals like Andy Coulson, one time close associate of Cameron, who invariably get off more lightly than the people:

 

Of course, it is the false god of ‘money’ that lies at the heart of the majority of Magistrates’ Court hearings and the expensively-educated men who presume to preside as Judges in the magistrates venues, are well-versed in the methodologies of extortion. ‘What? You won’t comply? Send him to the cells!’

On top of that, there is the manner in which an individual, who has been arrested and is facing charges, is hauled up in chains to appear behind the bullet-proof glass of the dock, with only a narrow gap in the screen through which he can address the theatre of the absurd into which he has been thrust.

Thus, there is no chance of equality of arms for a man defending himself in such circumstances; he finds himself at the whims of a well-oiled tyrannical system of extortion by way of torture. ‘Pay up or else’ is the modus operandi.

With many years of these bullying techniques behind him, and who knows what kind of childhood traumas to add spice to the stew of his own particular brand of extortion, the man, Timothy Devas acting as judge, on 27 and 31 July, 2015, readily took on the role of the over-bearing, scolding head-teacher, with threats of further caging, remand until trial and, of course, a threat to enter a plea on behalf of the defendants should they not do so themselves.

In both hearings, each and every black-robed agent of the Crown went nowhere near the cause of the arrests of the two defendants nor the 6’s assent to the roof of the stolen bungalow: not once did the question arise as to how and why the individuals came to be there, on a property that continues to be owned by Tom and Sue Crawford, as demonstrated by the entry in the Land Register. As stated in the Grand Jury of the Peoples of Nottinghamshire Declaration:

3. Upon hearing the bill of indictment #001GJPON, alleging that the Crawford family of Fearn Chase, Nottingham, were unlawfully and violently evicted from their home on 02 July, 2015, without just cause or lawful right; and that in the course of this attack they were subjected to acts amounting to state-sanctioned terrorism, genocide and fraud, both civil and criminal:

4. It is unanimously agreed that the allegations presented in the prosecution are to be answered by the accused and we make the following declaration under oath: There is a case to be answered and a TRUE BILL is therefore returned.”

On 27 July, 2015, the prosecutor and the clerk to the court were served with copies of said Declaration of 22 July, 2015.

Having been privy to a number of proceedings at the Magistrates Court, RM is well-aware of the cult-like aspects of these places whereby ushers in black gowns shuffle in and out of the ‘temple’, dolled-up ‘priestesses’ flutter around in black 2 piece suits and high heels and men acting as priests on a podium bully and deceive other men into accepting a false jurisdiction that places man’s law between them and their maker.

In the words of Sir David Andrew, a man who served two years ‘jail time’ as a result of his pamphlet, “The Temple of Baal”:

The Court is the synagogue. The Temple of Baal, enforcing Babylonian Talmudic Law. The gate (or bar) is the veil. {one enters to give sacrifice} The bench is the alter. The Black Robed Devil (the judge, administrative magistrate) is the high priest. {vicarius dei} The Attorney [from Latin, attorn = to twist or turn] is the mediator. {vicarius filii dei} The attorney’s job is to move one into Roman ‘Civil Law’ Jurisdiction and then quickly into Code and Rule Pleadings (Babylonian Law); remember he is a devil, too.

Common Law is moot, since these are not Article Three courts. The bailiffs, clerks, and stenographers are the high priest servants. [They are there to accept and make record of the sacrifice.] If one enters the veil, one is there (and is expected) to give sacrifices. The fine is the wave offering; given to escape the threat of punishment. The court cost is the heave (tribute or gift) offering.

If you enter voluntarily, then just give your sacrifices and be a good little slave and stop wasting the Court’s time. If you hire an attorney then you have volunteered, as sheople lead to slaughter and you will get what you deserve.

How can one plea, if they “do not understand the nature and cause of the charges”? And if one is coerced to enter a plea, then that plea would have to be “Non assumpsit, Without prejudice” or “Non assumpsit under duress”, “…a plea by which Defendant avers that “he did not undertake” or promise as alleged by the plaintiff” with “no rights…waived”. – Black’s Law 6th Ed. A better plea is “Plea in Bar”; however, one must know proper procedure well and how to set it up, to make this one really stick.

If one enters plea of NOT GUILTY, one just might as well Plea Nolo Contrendere and get it over with; because one will loose anyway, since Not Guilty is a negative and it is impossible to prove a negative.

The proper Plea would be a Plea of Innocence, which is a positive Plea, something which can be proven. However, Devils seldom allow Plea of Innocence. Remember, too, that these are courts of controversy. Learn ways and methods of avoiding controversy. These courts can, only, proceed in controversy.” SOURCE

 

When is a plea not a plea?

Definition: “PLEA, practice. The defendant’s answer by matter of fact, to the plaintiff’s declaration.” Bouviers Law Dictionary

How does a valid plea of ‘No case to answer’ get turned into one of ‘not guilty’? From where does the judge acquire his statutory authority do such a thing?

Of course, in the topsy turvy Mad Hatter’s Tea Party that is the Magistrates’ court, such matters rarely are questioned, as whichever ‘Gradgrind’ is presiding railroads the individual into the court’s jurisdiction by falsely asserting he has the right to do so.

The fallacy of Common practice is the machinery that allows this to continue – no solicitor questions it, none of the lawyers wants to put a spanner in the works and not one would risk their job over it. For, after all, does the same individual also not have a void mortgage to service?

On 31 July, 2015, RM was witness, once again, to the machinations of Timothy Devas, a man acting as ‘District Judge’. Once again, this man, without any demonstration of his purported authority to do so, entered a ‘not guilty’ plea on behalf of the defendants, when both had stated the plea that there was ‘No case to answer’, on the basis that the eviction was unlawful and that, in any event, fraud vitiates everything (this being, originally, a fraudulent claim against the Crawford home, as the amount being claimed could not be verified, a fact determined by Nigel Godsmark, QC, below impersonating a Pharaoh?):

 

At the time of commencement of the possession proceedings arrears were said to total £1,802.90. That is not a figure which I could identify from the statements of account. When asked where it had come from Miss Sandells for Bradford & Bingley told me that it came “from the computer”. As computers should be our slaves and not our masters such a response is not satisfactory.”

Another salient fact that the parties are ignoring – at least for now – is the natural right of any individual to defend himself when attacked; it is self-defence and, of course, it matters not what costume the assailant is wearing and under whose purported authority he is presuming to act. If he attacks you, then one naturally has the right to use force to defend oneself:

… when someone attempts to subjugate you or otherwise coerce you into doing something against your will. This is known as self-defence.

Every organism in nature has means for self-defence or they would not survive for long. This is requisite for survival. Such means may include fangs, venom, claws, speed, camouflage, size, strength etc.

True pacifism is self-destructive. Obedience to authority is not a virtue. It is one of the most destructive characteristics a human being can exhibit. It is the cause of all of the horrific atrocities we read in the history books. It is the most dangerous superstition.” SOURCE

Notwithstanding the issue of self-defence, what is the statutory obligation of a ‘judge’ when it comes to the plea of a defendant?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES

“Case preparation and progression”

3.9. (2) At every hearing the court must, where relevant (b) take the defendant’s plea (unless already done) or if no plea can be taken then find out whether the defendant is likely to plead guilty or not guilty.”

On the simple basis that ‘no case to answer’ is a valid plea, then the judge, for and on behalf of the de facto court, is simply obliged to enter that. He has no statutory authority to enter anything else, irrespective of what he may falsely presume or assert.

It is worth noting also that the prosecution is obliged to anticipate what the defendant’s plea may be and fill in parts 1 and 3 of the Case Management file before the date or before the beginning of a first hearing – otherwise, how can the Defendant know what the case is against him and enter an appropriate plea?

3.12. (1) The case management forms set out in the Practice Direction must be used”

3. In accordance with current practice, the prosecutor will assess the likelihood of a guilty plea and prepare the case papers accordingly, serving under CrimPR Part 21 (Initial details of the prosecution case) proportionately more evidence and other material where a not guilty plea is anticipated than in a case in which a guilty plea is thought likely.

4. Where the prosecutor anticipates a not guilty plea then, unless otherwise directed by the court, the prosecutor must complete Parts 1 and 3 of the form and serve it on the defendant with the initial details of the prosecution case, or as soon after that as possible (and in any event before the first hearing)”  SOURCE

Similarly,

Rule 10.2 provides that the prosecutor must provide initial details of the prosecution case by:

serving those details on the court officer; and
making those details available to the defendant at or before the beginning of the day of the first hearing.” SOURCE

Thus, the initial case details must be served at or before the beginning of the day when the parties step into the court and not in or during the first hearing, as was the case on 31 July, 2015 when both Defendants were served with blank copies of the case management file after Judge Devas had falsely changed their pleas to ‘not guilty’.

The apparent attempt to force the individuals to trial is one which may blow up in the faces of those who are manipulating it this way.

In 2010 at Nottingham Crown the case against a number of individuals who had been arrested for an anticipated mass ‘trespass’ of a power station collapsed when it became clear that the duplicitous Mark Kennedy aka ‘Stone’, an undercover metropolitan copper had engineered the events and that the Crown Prosecutor had withheld a recording made by Stone himself, which proved he was complicit in the organisation of the event. To reiterate – the CPS actually attempted to hide crucial evidence that, ultimately, led to the case against the accused collapsing in spectacular fashion:

When police pre-emptively arrested 114 climate activists at a 2009 meeting to plan the shutdown of a coal fired power station, one of them was Mark Stone, aka police officer . Charges were brought against 26. A first trial of 20 activists saw all of them convicted.

The remaining six pointed out before their trial that, in the meantime, they’d uncovered Kennedy’s true identity. They asked to see his undisclosed evidence but, rather than hand that over, prosecutors dropped the charges.

It turned out Kennedy had recorded the meeting, securing evidence that exonerated the six but which the prosecutors and police had withheld from the defence.

The initial 20 had their convictions quashed afterwards.” SOURCE

With regard to the incompetency and/or malfeasance of the the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS):

[…] barrister Felicity Gerry was forced to withdraw the case against the activists after Kennedy confessed to the set-up, evidence of which the CPS had withheld from the defence.

The CPS also withheld the fact that Kennedy was giving testimony under the false name Mark Stone using a false passport supplied by the Police. Secret tapes recorded by Kennedy were also withheld by the CPS.

The Guardian Reported that “Kennedy’s tapes were secret evidence that could have exonerated six activists, known as the “deniers” because they claimed not to have agreed to join the protest” and “evidence gathered by the Guardian now suggests it was the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police that withheld the tapes.”

CPS lawyer Ian Cunningham faced dismissal after a report by Sir Christopher Rose criticised Cunningham for failing to ask questions about Kennedy’s involvement in the Ratcliffe plot.” SOURCE

All of which, along with innumerable other examples of police malfeasance, Judicial irregularity and the CPS being like an oil tanker heading down a Suez canal of common practice that ploughs on oblivious to the facts of the bigger picture, unable to turn round even if the captain wants to, serves to further illustrate the failures of those parties to apply anything approximate to due process of the law.

In the meantime, it behoves the individual to cognise that, contrary to the assertions of any and all gatekeepers who operate in the service of the CHR and any of the purported ‘Crown’ agencies, the ‘State’ is not and can never be legitimate. The autonomous individual is is his own master – no man made law comes between him and his creator:

All of which is in marked contrast to the machinations of the Grand Jury of and for the People of Nottinghamshire which apparently applied reason, morality and justice when presented with the facts of the matter.

Had such an entity been convened by the people of Liverpool to the question of police negligence and allegations of criminality by certain coppers at Hillsborough in 1989, then does one seriously believe the truth would have taken 25 years to emerge?

 

Similarly, had a Grand Jury been formed to determine whether there was a case to answer that the Blair government fomented and carried out illegal wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, would it have fannied about as much as the Chilcot report has?

 

And what of other issues in which the official inquiry has only served to muddy the waters and protect miscreants from trial?

The reader is encouraged to consider how a Grand Jury of the People would go about dealing with, for instance, the facts of any and all child abusers/rapists, the bias of the BBC, the tyranny of ‘austerity’, the illegal machinations of the banksters, what really happened on ‘7/7’, or the anomalies pertaining to, say, the 2013 Woolwich ‘beheading’?

How about a Grand Jury presentment on the purported right to sell off national assets for private gain, geo-engineering, water pollution, fracking, the use of radio-wave technologies against the people, the use of pesticides and poisons, vaccinations and any and all health/NHS issues?

Or the fraudulent use of the Annuity attached to the birth of a child who is registered, without full disclosure to the parents of what the consequences of registration are?

How might a Grand Jury of the People find when presented with the facts of those matters?

Whose determinations are to be trusted? Those of the privately-educated elites whose paymasters and ‘oaths’ are pulling the strings behind the fake veneer of its ‘justice system’?

Or those of the people, whose determinations are based on their natural common sense and powers of critical thinking?

Seriously, dear reader, which side are you on?