WEST LONDON MAGISTRATES: KAFKA NOT LAW.
DAY 4084: TUESDAY AUGUST 7TH 2012.
A Pig Sty called Downing Street.
The tent show "trial" is on Wednesday August 8th 2012. at West London Magistrates at 10am.
So yesterday we ended up at West London Magistrates as part of the typical pre-trial process of ambush.
The CPS had only made some of the necessary disclosures on July 25th 2012.
Before my lawyer did the inevitable.
Of doing a runner, at the last minute.
This time, after exclaiming "What have I got myself involved in ?"
None of which suggests that I gave done anything unreasonable.
After I went to see my lawyer last week, I pointed out that contrary to what the police custody record said, PS Miller had not charged me or given me an opportunity to give a reply to caution (the reasonable excuse) before he blathered on about something called "Gravity Factor 3", so I wanted him and the CCTV to be called.
Because frankly he had acted in bad faith, which had ended up with my being in court.
The lawyer said it was "irrelevant" that the polio officer had acted in bad faith when he ignored due process.
And so it came to pass that we discussed my belief that it was for the police to prove that it was unreasonable for me to have a tent.
Because the crime is not failing to comply with a direction.
Where you can then provide a defence of reasonable excuse.
The charge is failing without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction.
The lawyer explained that it was well settled in DPP v Sheldrake 2003 that I had to prove I had a reasonable excuse.
I asked to see the Sheldrake ruling but the lawyer could not produce it.
So it was agreed that because the point about who had to prove what was so fundamental to the case, we needed to go to court if she wanted to withdraw, because in the absence of her showing that I had done anything wrong I was not agreeing to her withdrawing.
My position is that if the state want to take me to court, I must be entitled to legal representation.
Anyway, we duly turned up at West London Magistrates on Monday morning.
And it went something like this.
The Judge first babbled on about bail.
And I pointed out I was not bailed to the hearing on Monday.
And when asked for my address gave Parliament Square, which he said was not a proper address.
I pointed out it had been for six years.
In fact it was for example, recognised as such by a Judge at Southwark Crown Court in 2007 when illegal bail conditions had been challenged.
Then my lawyer made an Application to withdraw from representing me.
The Judge refused saying she could withdraw on Wednesday if necessary, but the fact she did not agree with something I might say, did not preclude her representing me.
The lawyer pulled out the old chestnut of being professionally embarrassed without explaining why.
And told the court that she was thus according to the code of conduct allowed to withdraw whether the court liked it or not and said she was withdrawing.
So the Judge agreed to revoke my legal representation.
After listening to this, I pointed out that a hearing into the removal of legal representation had not actually taken place, because I had been excluded from making…err representations, before the Judge made his ruling.
And my position is that a lawyer cannot withdraw unless it can be shown I have done something wrong, and that was not the case.
Lawyers cannot simply pick and choose what cases they take.
However the Judge who had already made his decision, didn't want to then lose face.
And not knowing what to say to what I had said, The Judge tried ignoring I had said it.
So while being threatened with contempt of court, I enlightened the Judge about the fact that what was really at issue was who had to prove what.
According to Sheldrake.
And he said he was well versed about Sheldrake.
But he wasn't.
Because Sheldrake says it is not an absolute over who has to prove what.
And I said the PRSR Act 2011 could not be read down to be compatible with the Human Rights Act if I had to prove in a court that peacefully campaigning was reasonable - after - any one working for the state took our campaign property.
The Judge said that after the trial I would be able to make a case stated or ask for a Judicial Review.
I pointed out that my point was I should not be in the sausage machine called the criminal justice system now.
And when I asked him for his reasons as to why he was saying Sheldrake was an absolute. He went into a tailspin over the cognitive dissonance, in him over-ruling a House of Lords ruling, which he knew he could not do.
And when I asked to make my application for a witness summons for PS Miller he refused to hear the Application saying I could not make it.
Without giving any reasons !
We then left the cloud cuckoo land of Kafka.
The police witness statements do not even say that having a tent is unreasonable.
So what do I stand accused of ?
Being reasonable !!
It's remains a mystery to me why I have to be in a criminal court, "defending" being reasonable.
What on earth do they want me to talk about ?