Back Next Statment's
cameras or for that matter any other street clutter and are misleading the Court
into thinking that people MUST SUFFER THE POLLUTION OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT WITH
THIS TYPE OF STREET CLUTTER AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. Street clutter is deployed
for reasons only known to those who purportedly authorise their deployment. The
deployment of unauthorised street clutter is visible pollution and evidence of
a money making scam by way of criminal activity by local authorities that are
in reality void of any authority sufficient to take away a private persons right
to contract for suffering street clutter pollution and the police assisted by
the crown prosecution service mislead the Courts into ordering fines when in
reality neither the police, the crown prosecution service nor the Courts can
comply with the Theft Act 1968 S2b because the Police will only find the local
authority has permissive authority and permissive authority does not take away
a private persons contractual rights.
I am being accused of speeding, but the Police did not calibrate
the device properly. Failure to follow APCO or manufacturers rules on calibration/re-calibration
will
not make a prosecution invalid. What it will do however is give the
defendant excellent grounds for pleading not guilty and thereby forcing
the police to prove
their case beyond reasonable doubt.
On the question of right to legal aid or representation the court pointed
out that the key principle governing Article 6 is fairness and the Court
concluded that the parents in the case of P, C & S (Application no. 56547/00) did
not have fair and effective access to Court as required by Article 6§1.
In Ocalan v Turkey 2003 (Application No. 46221/99) the Court reiterated that
under the principle of equality and arms one of the features of a fair trial
is that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to
present his case under conditions which do not place him under a disadvantage
vis a vis
his or her opponent. I am of the opinion that without necessary documents and/or
MANDATORY NOT PERMISSIVE authorities requested, I will not get a fair trial.
Further, I am also of the opinion that I will not get a fair trial because
I am a beneficiary of the ICHOR Trust to which the Queen and the Office of
the Prime Minister as well as the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, amongst others, with vicarious liability due to their knowledge of
the ICHOR Trust Covenant as published at www.ichortrust.co.uk and the aforementioned
therefore owing to beneficiaries of the ICHOR Trust more money than their assets
are worth and taking into consideration that judges swear allegiance to the
Queen and all the unavoidable conflict of interest issues raised because in
reality citizens now have sovereign rights because we all have a right to vote.
Further requirement of the provisions of Article 6(1) is the right to be
heard, which includes the right to have the opportunity to present my case
and know the basis of the case presented by the other side, as well as the
right to
Back Next Statment's
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
