Friday, January 6, 2012

Angiolini As Witness

Today, I met my legal team again in Glasgow to discuss the forhcoming trial and the witnesses required for the defence.

I had made it clear that Elish Angiolini is probably the most important witness for the defence and must be called. However, after deliberations, Senior Counsel Gary Allen QC felt that Angiolini`s appearance in the witness box would prove damaging to the defence, on the grounds that she would refuse to answer questions that may incriminate her and in that, her position would be supported by the sheriff.

I stated that whilst I had never held any great expectation of Angiolini breaking down under cross-examination and confessing, I considered it valuable both to the defence and in the public interest for her to be seen in court, failing to answer pertinent questions about her conduct in public office in connection with both my case and that of Hollie. It has been her failings and private interventions with the media, using public funds, that led to me taking the course that has resulted in the prosecution that she in fact personally authorised.

Thus I regard her as a key witness. I also failed to see how Angiolini being cross-examined could possibly harm the defence.

As a result of our difference of opinion, we have mutually agreed that I would be best served by instructing another Senior Counsel to represent me. I accept that Mr Allen and Junior Counsel, who supported his view, were acting professionally in what they deemed to be my best interests and there is hence no ill will of any kind. It is just that an impasse was reached on a single important issue that could not be resolved.

My solicitor will try to find a new team to represent me in the future, but it must be on the fundamental basis that Elish Angiolini is called as witness for the defence. I will not accept any deviation from that position.

It appears obvious that given the complexity of the case, it would be unrealistic for the trial to still go ahead on 16th January, as it would take a new team, even if it were to be assembled quickly, a considerable amount of time to examine the vast amount of documentation and to have the appropriate consultations, but I must await advice from my solicitor on that point.

I am anxious to emphasise that no criticism should be made about Counsels` decision today. It was a honest but irrevocable divergence of view.

22 comments:

  1. I, for one would ask that Elish Angiolini, is arrested for misconduct in public office. Indeed, there is enough evidence to support this.

    The above is a very serious Indictable offence and should not be overlooked or ignored.

    They don't get it, they are accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Agent and Agency, Incompetence, and Guilt:


    (i) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and

    (ii) The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and

    (iii) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartialty and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and

    (iv) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and

    (v) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands; and

    ReplyDelete
  3. (vi) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and

    (vii) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court); and

    (viii) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and

    (ix) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both the true general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate) or you are an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim against you; and

    ReplyDelete
  4. (x) The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law you have expressed and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of such words as "recognize, understand" or "comprehend" and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as "I do not receognize you", to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, prosecutor or clerk as agents, the presumption stands and you agree to be contractually bound to perform at the direction of the judge or magistrate; and

    (xi) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient; and

    (xii) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affadavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.


    without understanding what is happening in the court system you cannot win, you cannot get justice and you will not hold them accountable.

    http://euro-union-court.org/info_roman_court_procedures/info_roman_court_contents.htm

    go the links above and learn what is going on....

    ReplyDelete
  5. the fundamental principles of law are the ten commandments. The use of this words relates to the god concept created my man.

    this is the fundamental principle which the roman court system operates.

    the principle below this is trust, without understand what your standing is you by default submit to the roman court system. This system is full of lies and liars and the only way to protect yourself against this is by using the the laws which exist to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

    5 fundamental points which always must be acknowledged are;

    1. consent
    2. oath of office, at the moment in time of action.
    3. penalty of perjury for liars, always only conditionally accept their words under the penalty of perjury and full commercial liability.
    4. breach of trust, trust in under god. Breach of trust destroys individuals and entire nations and countries.
    5. due process and rebuttal, if you do not rebut you AGREE, remember this.

    Know your standing, your natural rights which cannot be rebutted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well done for holding out Robert. Imho theres absolutely no way Mackaskill, Salmond, Buchanen and all the rest of this pack would want Angiolini in that dock under oath, even if she did choose to remain silent when asked perfectly simple questions. She is responsible for so much pain inflicted on so many people when she should have been protecting them, and not raking in the over-the-top salary and life of privelege shes been rewarded with as a result. It is disgraceful hows shes getting away with what she is very much responsible for and the sooner she is made to pay for the crimes shes committed and put behind bars the better. She has fed off honest citizens hard earnt tax money for far too long like the rest of her criminal friends. It is an outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robert again dont give up we need to expose this child abuse by public figures hoping to meet you in edinburgh on march 6th for sams world of peace event andy

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Robert

    Good to see you are remaining implacable in fighting for truth and justice. You're absolutely correct that it is a plain public interest matter to get Angiolini on the witness stand.

    I've just been released from prison in Jersey after two months, for supposedly breaking the data protection law and contempt of court. The actions taken against me were a politicised malicious prosecution conducted by Jersey's oligarchy.

    I tried - throughout the various court stages - to subpoena as witnesses the relevant Jersey officials. The judges - friends of the people who's failings and malfeasance I had exposed - would not even let me call the witnesses at all. So look on the bright side - at least you can get some of these people on the witness stand. It could be worse - you could be facing a Jersey-type situation - where the court refuses to call the key decision-maker - because that person e-mailed the summons issuing authority, and told them not to summon him, because he didn't think it would be a good idea.

    For all that Britain imagines itself to be a model of law-abiding democracy - the unspoken truth - which is all the more remarkable for the deferential silence exhibited by the UK's mainstream media - is that some elements of British judiciary are politicised and corrupted.

    How come the people of, say, Egypt are allowed to speak that truth about their judiciary, and are praised for it by institutions such as the BBC - but casting a searching, critical eye over the conduct of the British judiciary in politically sensitive cases remains taboo?

    Whisper it low - the British judiciary is not above supporting political repression.

    Good luck Robert.

    Stuart.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am still praying for you Robert, and I am also praying for Elish Angiolini. I am praying that after she makes her court vow to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that God blesses her so that she can only do just that. Keep the faith xx

    ReplyDelete
  10. We will all be judged by the Good Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is all getting a bit silly, and I should imagine very expensive for the tax payer. After the last debacle with your 'excellent' defence team, we now have another debacle. Surely these matters should have been discussed with them before they agreed to take on the case. Why not give Joe Pesci a call, his last court performance was very successful.

    It would appear that the legal profession in Scotland are scared stiff of the system, so you'll probabley end up representing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree in part John, and his referenced to 'my legal team' is misleading as it is the tax payers legal team.

    I don't see the point in employing a 'legal team' if -and not for the first time- he isn't going to take their advice.!! If he know best then he should just get on with it himself, instead of wasting the time and money of others. Something tells me that if he were paying the legal bills himself then the stalling tactics would not be utilised.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have followed the cases of child abuse on Jersey as well as that of Hollie Greig. There appears to be strong parallels in the way those who have sought justice have been treated (or more accurately mistreated) by the corrupt and pestilent people in the estabilshments in both places.

    It seems that both involve establishments whose members either engage in horrific child abuse, or are content to allow it to happen without censure. Sick socieities which have existed for very many years. We need to change things.

    Jo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Robert,it seems once again that Elish A ngiolini has once again been allowed to position her self above the laws she swore to represent and defend.Herself,Alex Salmond and all the rest involved are in for one mighty fall.As I wrote and told Mr Salmond this WILL NOT go away and the whole web of deceit surrounding the abuse of our children WILL be exposed."The arc of the moral universe is a long one but it bends towards justice"

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stick to your guns Robert. Angiolini must be brought to court to answer the many questions on why she failed to carry out her duty to prosecute these wrongdoers and who she was protecting.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hmmm, criticism of counsel besides, Robert, I've come across some odd delaying tactics in Third World Asian, African and South American courts but this is getting to be a pantomime. Every defence legal team seems 'okay to go' then comes up with some obstructive point or other.
    To quote Shakespeare "Something stinks in Denmark" - albeit the smell's probably coming from Holyrood and the COPFS offices.
    There is no reason Angoilini cannot be called - or subpoenaed - and whatever her responses in the witness box they'll be condemning - even if she stay schtum. Subpoena her and maintain your stance of Not Guilty and call every sod and their dog as a witness.
    This Breach of the Peace prosecution (read 'persecution') fiasco is eventually going to get bounced - due a combination of potentially very embarassing witnesses joining the evidence queue - plus the widening public interest factor - and the overall costs of the case surpassing Scotland's GNP.
    If this 'Groundhog Day' case goes on any longer at least it will be come eligible for an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records.
    Keep the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Perhaps this case should be submitted to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yep, perhaps Eng65 has a point - on several counts. For a simple Breach of the Peace case -committed in broad daylight by one person - in which no violent action occured, no-one suffered physical injury and no property was damaged. Yet here we are looking at a case going on for 23 months and still no nearer conclusion. Costs have gone through the proverbial roof already and every time the witness list (prosecution and defence) gets read out it's total has taken a quantum leap - 90-odd at the last count.
    I believe Robert was advised in November that the case was estimated to last for two weeks as there would be no jury to waste time contemplating the complexities of the case.
    Anyone up to running a book against that - more like two months if the COPFS ever get their act together.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, David Cameron et al, want the Scots to have a quickie referendum, which could divorce the Scots from the Supreme Court. What a bunch of NIMBYs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't understand why people who are not involved in the paedophile ring are covering up for them. I cant understand why they dont just dob them in. It might seem scary, but theres only only a few of them compared to all the ones who detest child abuse.

    ReplyDelete