My strategy: carry on singing!

Peter Coulson, presiding judge at yesterday’s High Court hearing, when relying on the Crown’s citation of authorities from the 2012 Twitter joke trial (R vs Chambers), stated wrongly that, unlike YouTube videos that are available for to everyone to see, it was necessary to be registered with Twitter to see tweets. The ruling also states, also wrongly in my view, that – as with a tweet – my videos were “immediately streamed” as a result of anyone accessing them.

Also sitting, Bobbie Cheema-Grubb, admonished my barrister, Adrian Davies, for his analogy – coherent in my view – that the ‘sending’ of a message to an inanimate object, as in to a server in California, fails to come under the legislation of S. 127.

Whilst Cheema-Chubb noted that it was unhelpful to compare old forms of communication with the Internet, she appeared not to take into consideration the fact that legislation contained within S. 127 has a history dating back decades, first for ‘offensive, menacing or threatening’ letters and then for similarly abusive phone calls.

Final business of the day was an agreement between both sides, in court, that my costs were to be covered by the tax payer: a pretty clear admission that this entire farce has been a huge waste of precious court time and of public resources.

Continue reading

Second round of appeal: Chabloz vs CPS tomorrow October 31st in London.

Back in court
I’m back in court
Twixt Brexit Day and Halloween
My case will likely go unseen
 
Back in court
For crime of thought
It’s Halloween, it’s Brexit Day
Good time to throw free speech away..?
pumpkin
Pumpkin soup in prison for Halloween?

Tomorrow’s appeal hearing for my main case will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, Holborn, London WC2A 2LL, Court 1, at 10.30 am. The nearest tube stations are Temple and Holborn.

The two presiding judges are Mr Justice Coulson and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE.

(((The People))) Attempting to Stab British Voters in the Back

By Dr. Andrew Joyce.

Much ink has recently been spilled on the efforts of the Mischon de Reya law firm to “derail” Brexit. Considerably less attention has been paid to its very Jewish origins and ethos. The firm was founded by the son of a rabbi in 1937 and has made a habit of finding its way into influential cases dealing with facets of cultural marxism including, but not limited to, the redefinition of marriage, ‘racial discrimination,’ and ‘race relations.’ The Daily Mail (link below) reports that the firm, which has been accused of “treason,” “would not name any clients linked to its Brexit action – and would not confirm if it had worked for free.” However, it also reports that one of the most influential figures in the current effort is Jewish property speculator Alex Chesterman.

The Jewish Chronicle reported back in June that one of Mischon de Reya’s directors, Lord Pannick QC, who is also Jewish, complained to the Royal Courts of Justice that his staff had been subjected to “anti-Semitic abuse” for their actions against Brexit (the majority of de Reya partners being London or New York Jews). It is truly a sign of the times that Pannick’s panic was, sadly and predictably, heard by the equally Jewish Sir Brian Leveson. Pannick asked Leveson whether the names of claimants should be redacted, given the abuse, saying: “People have been deterred from [making legal claims].” By this, Lord Pannick must surely have inferred that Jews have been hindered in the attempts to co-ordinate an influential assault on Brexit. The Jewish Leveson of course acceded to the request of the Jewish Pannick, with the result that the anti-Brexit backstabbers are now operating behind a legally imposed veil.

What is Mischon de Reya hiding? Who comprises their client list? Who is stabbing the British in the back?

Of course, one of the more infamous of Mischon de Reya’s current crop of lawyers is Anthony Julius. While studying English literature at Cambridge University between 1974 and 1977, Julius placed himself “among those Jews who have sought out anti-Semitism.” He admits to becoming part of a “radical faction” which emerged in the humanities at that time, and that he was heavily influenced by his reading of “Freud … and the line of Western Marxist thinking that can be traced from the Austro-Marxists through to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.” After graduating Julius went to law school and, when he finished there, he started his career as an ethnic activist by becoming chief lawyer to the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization comprising elements of both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. In 1983 he successfully defended the Board of Deputies when it was sued by a Conservative Party candidate. The Board of Deputies had conducted a propaganda campaign, distributing flyers in the candidate’s constituency during a General Election detailing his previous involvement with the National Front, an association the Board of Deputies claimed was evidence of the man’s anti-Semitism. In 1992, after he was expelled from Canada, David Irving applied for access to the documents which provoked his expulsion under Canada’s Access to Information Law. Among these documents “Irving claimed, was a dossier on his activities compiled by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and sent to the Canadian authorities. Irving wanted to sue for libel, but Julius, who acted for the Board, said that Irving was ‘sadly too late’ in filing the proper papers.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901568/Top-City-law-firm-led-High-Court-bid-stop-PM-triggering-Brexit-won-t-reveal-fat-cats-working-for.html