VICKY PRYCE: Perverting
the course of Justice; and, the sheer travesty of a rigged criminal trial....
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY today lectured, admonished, and condemned VICKY PRYCE for, "Perverting the course of Justice"; and, he sentenced her to eight months imprisonment, in what has turned out to be, naught but a sheer vindictive travesty of a criminal trial. A rotten and corrupt trial, where, in spite of a first jury, in a first trial, who could not agree a verdict; both, Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service, would not accept that verdict; because, they were hell bent on securing a conviction; in order to set an example.
VICKY PRYCE was accused of accepting speeding penalty points on her driving licence even though it was her husband, CHRIS HUHNE, who was driving the car. She claimed in her defence 'marital coercion' and presented evidence in court demonstrating that her husband had forced her to admit that it was she who was driving the car.
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY in his sentencing of VICKY PRICE specifically proclaimed that he did not believe her. He said, specifically, referring to this assertion by her, that, "The Jury had seen thru this", indicating, that this was the reason they had found her "GUILTY".
But, this jury were not able to "see through anything"; their verdict of 'guilty' was a wholly corrupt verdict because whilst the trial was in progress and whilst 'evidence' was being submitted to the Court; at one point, the Judge even had to suspend that progress of the trial, in order to open windows and doors to permit more air to enter the Court; because Members of that Jury had been seen sleeping. This means that, during the giving of this 'evidence', some Members of the Jury had not even heard what had been taking place. The Judge ought to have dismissed the Jury and stopped the trial.
Now, the interesting thing is this: To, any that, asserts and claims, that, the verdict of this jury is correct and valid; then, that very same assertion, must also apply, to the first Jury hearing the trial. That, first Jury, could not agree a verdict; which means, that in stark vivid reality some Members of that first Jury were wholly convinced that VICKY PRYCE was innocent of the charge. If the second Jury's verdict has the validity of truth; then, so does the verdict of the first Jury.
IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BRITISH LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL, THAT, JURORS MAY ONLY RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED OF THAT GUILT, "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT".
In the first Jury some Members could not deliver a verdict, “beyond all reasonable doubt”; and, therefore, that benefit of doubt, ought to have been given to the accused. Thus, there was no need or right for a 'retrial' at all. VICKY PRYCE should have been immediately been set free, to go home.
The only reason, at that point, for the Judge to order a retrial, was because, both Judge and the Crown Prosecutions Service, were disappointed by the first Jury's failure to deliver a verdict; and, they were both hell bent on securing a conviction, in order to set an example.
The rationale being: "Keep putting her up for retrial until a Jury delivers the verdict we require"
This case places the bright beam of a searchlight upon an anomaly in the British Courts and Jurisdiction system. Once a Judge has summed up in a trial and the Jury has been instructed that they must deliver a verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt'; NO RETRIAL SHOULD EVER TAKE PLACE. Because, the sole criterion of, 'innocence' or 'guilt', then, lies entirely in the Jury's hands. If the Jury fails to deliver a verdict; the accused should go free.
RETRIALS should only be ordered by a Judge, if at any stage in the trial, important new evidence comes to light, which was not heard before the Jury left to consider the verdict; or, where there have been grave legal technical errors during the trial.
VICKY PRYCE has been entirely 'stitched up'. In the days immediately following the first trial the entire press and media in the country turned heavily against her, hurting, wounding, and vilifying her at every opportunity. The reporters and female columnists of the 'Daily Mail' tore her to pieces. All the politicians and 'all the boys' of the establishment, were expressing sympathy for CHRIS HUHNE's plight. It was a guaranteed certainty; the second Jury would find her guilty.
Finally, there is one other aspect, in respect of this trial: VICKY PRYCE has been forced to stand trial accused of "Perverting the course of Justice". Well, I assert that, no British Judge has the right to make a judgment on that matter; because, every British Judge in the entire British Judiciary has been "CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" for more than three hundred and twenty four years. Ever, since the, "Bill of Rights 1689", first was granted the, "Royal Assent"; on the 13th day of December 1689.
For three hundred and twenty four years the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other to "pervert the course of justice"; by repeatedly and constantly denying the British People access to the Courts in order to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’ Parliament from within, LAW. And, for this denial, the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other, in order to deceive the British People, that, true valid and just "LAW"; is the reason for that denial.
YET, CORRECT READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689" PROVIDES THAT, ANYONE MAY CHALLENGE PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS, WHENEVER PARLIAMENT 'PREJUDICES' THE PEOPLE.
How is it right that any Judge of the British Judiciary shall try anyone for "Perverting the course of Justice"? When every Judge, throughout three hundred and twenty four years of British history, has been guilty of committing the same offence?
READ YOUR HISTORY. CHECK OUT THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
Gordon J Sheppard
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY today lectured, admonished, and condemned VICKY PRYCE for, "Perverting the course of Justice"; and, he sentenced her to eight months imprisonment, in what has turned out to be, naught but a sheer vindictive travesty of a criminal trial. A rotten and corrupt trial, where, in spite of a first jury, in a first trial, who could not agree a verdict; both, Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service, would not accept that verdict; because, they were hell bent on securing a conviction; in order to set an example.
VICKY PRYCE was accused of accepting speeding penalty points on her driving licence even though it was her husband, CHRIS HUHNE, who was driving the car. She claimed in her defence 'marital coercion' and presented evidence in court demonstrating that her husband had forced her to admit that it was she who was driving the car.
MR. JUSTICE SWEENY in his sentencing of VICKY PRICE specifically proclaimed that he did not believe her. He said, specifically, referring to this assertion by her, that, "The Jury had seen thru this", indicating, that this was the reason they had found her "GUILTY".
But, this jury were not able to "see through anything"; their verdict of 'guilty' was a wholly corrupt verdict because whilst the trial was in progress and whilst 'evidence' was being submitted to the Court; at one point, the Judge even had to suspend that progress of the trial, in order to open windows and doors to permit more air to enter the Court; because Members of that Jury had been seen sleeping. This means that, during the giving of this 'evidence', some Members of the Jury had not even heard what had been taking place. The Judge ought to have dismissed the Jury and stopped the trial.
Now, the interesting thing is this: To, any that, asserts and claims, that, the verdict of this jury is correct and valid; then, that very same assertion, must also apply, to the first Jury hearing the trial. That, first Jury, could not agree a verdict; which means, that in stark vivid reality some Members of that first Jury were wholly convinced that VICKY PRYCE was innocent of the charge. If the second Jury's verdict has the validity of truth; then, so does the verdict of the first Jury.
IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BRITISH LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL, THAT, JURORS MAY ONLY RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED OF THAT GUILT, "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT".
In the first Jury some Members could not deliver a verdict, “beyond all reasonable doubt”; and, therefore, that benefit of doubt, ought to have been given to the accused. Thus, there was no need or right for a 'retrial' at all. VICKY PRYCE should have been immediately been set free, to go home.
The only reason, at that point, for the Judge to order a retrial, was because, both Judge and the Crown Prosecutions Service, were disappointed by the first Jury's failure to deliver a verdict; and, they were both hell bent on securing a conviction, in order to set an example.
The rationale being: "Keep putting her up for retrial until a Jury delivers the verdict we require"
This case places the bright beam of a searchlight upon an anomaly in the British Courts and Jurisdiction system. Once a Judge has summed up in a trial and the Jury has been instructed that they must deliver a verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt'; NO RETRIAL SHOULD EVER TAKE PLACE. Because, the sole criterion of, 'innocence' or 'guilt', then, lies entirely in the Jury's hands. If the Jury fails to deliver a verdict; the accused should go free.
RETRIALS should only be ordered by a Judge, if at any stage in the trial, important new evidence comes to light, which was not heard before the Jury left to consider the verdict; or, where there have been grave legal technical errors during the trial.
VICKY PRYCE has been entirely 'stitched up'. In the days immediately following the first trial the entire press and media in the country turned heavily against her, hurting, wounding, and vilifying her at every opportunity. The reporters and female columnists of the 'Daily Mail' tore her to pieces. All the politicians and 'all the boys' of the establishment, were expressing sympathy for CHRIS HUHNE's plight. It was a guaranteed certainty; the second Jury would find her guilty.
Finally, there is one other aspect, in respect of this trial: VICKY PRYCE has been forced to stand trial accused of "Perverting the course of Justice". Well, I assert that, no British Judge has the right to make a judgment on that matter; because, every British Judge in the entire British Judiciary has been "CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" for more than three hundred and twenty four years. Ever, since the, "Bill of Rights 1689", first was granted the, "Royal Assent"; on the 13th day of December 1689.
For three hundred and twenty four years the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other to "pervert the course of justice"; by repeatedly and constantly denying the British People access to the Courts in order to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’ Parliament from within, LAW. And, for this denial, the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other, in order to deceive the British People, that, true valid and just "LAW"; is the reason for that denial.
YET, CORRECT READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689" PROVIDES THAT, ANYONE MAY CHALLENGE PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS, WHENEVER PARLIAMENT 'PREJUDICES' THE PEOPLE.
How is it right that any Judge of the British Judiciary shall try anyone for "Perverting the course of Justice"? When every Judge, throughout three hundred and twenty four years of British history, has been guilty of committing the same offence?
READ YOUR HISTORY. CHECK OUT THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
Gordon J Sheppard
No comments:
Post a Comment