heretical.co.uk
|
||
IN THE CASE SUMMARY
|
Simon Sheppard and Luke O’Farrell spent four days at Leeds Crown Court recently hearing legal arguments put by our counsel to Judge Grant. Those submissions were under three heads:
The most complex issue was that of jurisdiction, there existing three separate theories of the power of a court to preside over acts done wholly or partly overseas. The only distribution of the Heretical website is done from a web server in California, and the Act under which Sheppard and O’Farrell are charged does not extend to Northern Ireland, never mind the USA. In other Acts, e.g. the Obscene Publications Act, which with the Child Protection Act covers child pornography, specific amendments were made to include internet data. No such amendment exists to Section 19 of the Public Order Act under which the defendants have been charged.
The novel situation was that unlike real criminality involving murder, fraud and the like in which matters of jurisdiction are contested, the “terminatory act” – in this case, the distribution via the world wide web – took place in a jurisdiction where that act was incontrovertibly legal.
Regarding the second topic, it was argued that transient electronic impulses on a computer screen with no permanence did not constitute “written material.”
Although there have been several abuses in the treatment of Sheppard and O’Farrell, the defence argument in respect of Item 3 centred on the fact that the only demonstrated “publication” and basis of the prosecution case was a print-out of portions of the Heretical website by a police officer. This was done solely for the purposes of the prosecution, and so constituted an abuse of process.
The judge disregarded the persuasive and cogent arguments of the defence in all three matters.
It’s not surprising that Britain’s prisons are full when heroin production rockets wherever the British Army goes; when the government is importing heroin dealers as fast as it can manage; and apparently the only time judges stand up to the government is to stop the deportation of foreign criminals, or to apply EU law above our own.
Then an entirely different standard of proof is required. For example, Britain has no “asylum seekers” or “refugees” whatever, because to be such, a person must stop at the first safe country. The “asylum seekers” and “refugees” in the UK have flown over or passed through half-a-dozen other countries deliberately to get to “soft-touch Britain.”
One of the more ludicrous aspects of the case is that the prosecution counsel is a member of the Lawyers’ Group of Amnesty International. Yet he seriously proposed during the hearings that a US citizen hosting material for a UK citizen could be extradited to the UK and prosecuted for attempt and/or conspiracy. In his prosecution submission was included:
“Publishing material onto the world wide web knowing that such material will be available everywhere amounts to a publishing to the world at large including the jurisdiction of England and Wales.”
To which Defence Counsel responded:
“The proposition... is alarming. It amounts to an assertion that anyone who publishes material on the internet anywhere exposes himself to prosecution under the criminal laws of every land from Albania to Zimbabwe.”
The example was quoted of an owner of a webhosting company who, innocently hosting some material which the British government did not like, then travelled to Denmark. His plane lands at Heathrow during a stop-over. Theoretically, by the prosecution argument, he could be hauled off the plane and prosecuted, because the material was available in Britain.
Another implication of the prosecution’s proposal is that people must familiarise themselves with the laws of every country in the world before putting something on the internet.
Presumably a member of the Lawyers’ Group of Amnesty International is a campaigner for the release of political prisoners. However, here he is actively working for the creation of a whole new class of prisoners of conscience, vigorously seeking to set a precedent for application the world over!
On the last day some supporters turned up to hear the judgement and frankly the impression they made was such that it would have been better had they stayed away. This in fact is the third incident where supposed “supporters” have caused embarrassment if not downright harm. The first occasion was when Tony White arrived at Hull Crown Court during my 2000 trial and proceeded to follow jurors and witnesses around outside the court with a video camera.
This can thus be described as an ongoing problem which has now to be addressed. Hence the following is stipulated, for the notice of supporters:
If you are not to arrive soberly dressed, appropriate to a court, PLEASE STAY AWAY.
If you are not to arrive in a sober frame of mind, PLEASE STAY AWAY.
It is said that all political activists, including those in “mainstream” parties, are oddballs of one sort or another. We may be aware that our supporters are basically good-intentioned and well-meaning, but that is not always the impression given.
Nor is our court appearance an excuse for a “day out.” If supporters want that, and to dress extravagantly, by all means stand outside the courthouse with a placard or banner or something, but please don’t come near the courtroom.
It is the case that during the course of this long legal process several police officers have expressed sympathy for our plight. To protect the officers involved we will not detail when this has occurred or what was said.
Recently we received some donations unasked, for which our thanks to those generous donors once again. Since we do not have to pay legal fees, we consider that the best application for donations is to circulate copies of The Don’t Be Sheeple free newspaper, which sets out our (and the general nationalist) point of view in as humorous and informative way as can be managed. The second edition has just gone to print and is hugely over-budget.
The judge said he was satisfied that we could receive a fair trial. He might be satisfied but we are not. For nationalists, a fair trial in a British court has been a chimera for decades. The following is a listing in general of why it is currently impossible for British nationalists to obtain a fair trial:
What the precise state of the law at present is, is unclear. Our own case will not be determined until the jury trial due to take place in 2008. However, what is evident at this stage is that one can be prosecuted, even when the server hosting the material is located in a jurisdiction where the hosted material is entirely legal. Therefore the advice would seem to be, that if you are to criticise the Chosenites, stay anonymous.
The mood at Hull Crown Court was set by foreign translators parading about in loud dresses; at Leeds it seems to be Asian heroin dealers and their victims and strange accents over the Tannoy. Such is the atmosphere of the court building that I fail to see how anyone working there can sustain any confidence in the Establishment at all. One woman security employee complained that she had not a “safe working environment,” obviously oblivious that she was paid precisely to keep it safe for others. Another was told that he was enforcing an illegal regime, for which Sheppard had in mind the Act of Settlement of 1700 (which prohibits foreigners occupying the Houses of Parliament, amongst other things). It turns out however that the argument is even stronger. This is from the forthcoming edition of The Don’t Be Sheeple:
The EU Reform Treaty planned for mid-2009 concerns three main areas. First, the Treaty is to give the EU a legal personality; second, the EU is to acquire its own President and Foreign Ministry, with a diplomatic corps and Public Prosecutor; and third, it will abolish the distinction between ‘Community’ and ‘National’ bodies. The EU will become a superstate, although not able – yet – to impose taxes directly or declare war.
But perhaps the most significant aspect of the Reform Treaty is that it will render all British subjects citizens of the EU. Citizenship was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, but it was attached to membership of one of the nation states that constitute the Union. It had no practical effect because the EU did not exist as a separate legal entity.
Now the Reform Treaty is superior to the constitutions of each member state. It codifies a body of law to which each EU citizen shall be subject. Citizenship is imposed and may not be renounced. Yet the treasonable nature of this Treaty has received no scrutiny at all, for it undermines the constitutional position of our Monarch and renders her impotent to the new suzerain power.
Treason is ‘violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the state.’ The offence of Treason Felony (S.3, 1848) is committed ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen... from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’
By giving the EU a legal personality, the Reform Treaty makes our Queen subject to a foreign body and indictable by foreign courts. Her role as a constitutional monarch will thus be annulled: her new status as a citizen of the EU will render her, like the rest of the British people, ‘subject to the duties imposed thereby.’
All Cabinet Ministers are Privy Counsellors who must swear an oath to ‘bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities... against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.’ They are all guilty of treason.
Defence Counsel pointed out that before the 1960’s it would have been inconceivable to have a law restricting free expression of opinion in Britain. No concept of it existed in England and there is no precedent for it in common law.
This was, by implication, how the divergence arose between the American jurisdiction, where the defendants’ acts were completely legal, and England and Wales, where the judge now says their acts are potentially illegal (pending the decision of a jury).
This divergence from the centuries-old English common law is utterly alien and the result of alien influence.
That alien influence seeks to make normal behaviour unlawful, as a recent incident, which was featured in the British media, may illustrate. A young woman student, aged 19, “a Cub Scout leader who also works with disabled children,” was travelling on a train in Merseyside. A goon squad with CCTV cameras in their hats came along and despite her apologies, she was marched off the train and later prosecuted for putting her feet up on the seat opposite.
I shall pass over the issue that the last thing young boys need is a female role model, or another commentator’s remark that if she had been a member of a black gang riding the train she could have got away with anything short of murder.
It turns out that surveys have demonstrated that people putting their feet on the seats is a major concern of train passengers, and this is what has prompted the train company to act to try and suppress the practice.
The case provoked great media interest and debate (search for “Kathleen Jennings”), with photos of the young woman appearing in the press. She was obviously being billed as a “pillar of the community” (or at least, a potential one). She was given an absolute discharge by the court, but hundreds of other people are facing similar charges and will not be so fortunate as to get off scot-free as a result of extensive media coverage. A spokeswoman for the company said that “We have already prosecuted nearly 250 people for smoking, drinking and other forms of unacceptable behaviour since February and in every case the magistrates have found in our favour.”
This whole mess is a result of the (Jew-sponsored) feminist attack on men. Formerly, people policed each other – minor instances of anti-social behaviour (such as putting feet on seats) would be met with a stern, almost invariably male, voice telling them to desist. But in the world of Big Sister, men may not apply authority independently. The men who had formerly limited anti-social behaviour found themselves accused of paedophilia and harassed by a police force which spends more time attending ‘race awareness’ courses than fighting crime. Should their rebuke be met with outright defiance the man must countenance being hauled before a court charged with assault.
We and thousands of other men have met it ourselves, right up close and personal. Sheppard particularly recalls a strapping six-footer whose mantra was “You can’t touch me I’m 15” and sitting in a darkened railway carriage while two insufferable youths tore up a newspaper and strewed the pieces all over the carriage. Like many things, the solution may not be attractive but the alternative is far worse.
One may ask, perhaps in the style of Judge Grant, are we then to allow men to go around boxing the ears of any young tearaway they choose?
No, says Sheppard, that’s not the way it works at all.
The most common game in nature involves two players, with each player adopting either “Hawk” or “Dove.” Hawk is escalate, Dove is retreat. The confrontation may involve a morsel of food, a piece of territory, or a place in the status hierarchy. One need only to look at feeding birds to see this game being played out countless times. Horses also seek to continually test and assert their position in the pecking order. There are probably very few animals that do not.
What is surprising about these conflicts – which take place almost continuously – is the infrequency with which any real physical harm takes place. Perhaps one hundred confrontations occur before any pain is inflicted, let alone injury. All that is required, in the vast majority of cases, is an escalation and the matter is settled. It’s simply a matter of posture and threat.
Now, for a man attempting to limit disorderly behaviour, the force of his threat is removed and he is completely disabled. Hence the streets and public transport are dominated by unruly and anti-social behaviour. No wonder youngsters run amok, because to confront them is not only to take on the offender but also the State. Without the ability to back up a threat, the male is powerless. An ever more intrusive State fills the void.
Sheppard says he has been on both sides of the fence: first as a confused youngster who now as an adult wishes he had formerly been guided by the masculine influence which is now more generally lacking.
To destroy a society, attack it at the top. Infect its church and academics with a false religion, buy its politicians and control all information. Attack all male authority. The prosecution of Sheppard and O’Farrell is an expression of that attack upon males.