longdog wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:07 am
I can say I'm surprised at the convictions given the defendent's testimony. The words 'selective' and 'amnesia' spring readily to mind and her 'I still believe the children' attitude with the implication that she was, and still is, justified in her course of action will have done her no favours at all.
Whilst I've no doubt that she does hold to those views, EC's reporting would indicate that the defence barrister knew the gig was up and was trying to use the only one of the three available defences available, namely:
* that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;
In that respect, sticking to the still believing it story was essential as there is no way she could have argued it was either unavoidable or reasonable behaviour.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
AnOwlCalledSage wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:12 pm
Whilst I've no doubt that she does hold to those views, EC's reporting would indicate that the defence barrister knew the gig was up and was trying to use the only one of the three available defences available, namely:
* that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;
In that respect, sticking to the still believing it story was essential as there is no way she could have argued it was either unavoidable or reasonable behaviour.
As she had already been told by the judge during the previous court case there was no crime to prevent or detect and the whole thing was complete bollocks that defence was never going to work. I assume such a defence would involve the usual 'reasonable person' clause but a reasonable person who had been told by a judge that it was all bollocks, and was ordered not to continue with their course of action, would have knocked it off. By trying that defence while simultaneously admitting that she knew about the court order she was proving either that she was not a reasonable person or that she didn't care. Either way the defence would fail.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
I couldn't agree more that the reporting of Sabine's trial by El Coyote has been absolutely superb. I'd only really followed the Hampstead Hoax business peripherally, but reading the trial reports every day gave me a real feeling for what the poor parents have been through. The level of detail in the daily reports is astonishing. El Coyote must be able to write shorthand to have got all that down. A brilliant piece of work.
longdog wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:10 pm
By trying that defence while simultaneously admitting that she knew about the court order she was proving either that she was not a reasonable person or that she didn't care. Either way the defence would fail.
Agree 100% but a defendant is entitled to their strongest defence, and that was the only one open to her.
It is telling that the jury found her guilty of all 4 of the offences where her barrister tried to use it. The 11 she was acquitted of were specific charges of breaching her restraining order which would always come down to opinion of whether particular action was a breach of the wording of the order rather than a point of law. Even so, they still found her guilty of 6 breaches which justified the time on remand.
Where it could get interesting for Quatloos is that we already have one conviction for contempt and potentially another next week in this case for far less than Neelu has been posting for the last three years. As of now she has not been charged with anything, so we are currently free to impunge her character!
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
AnOwlCalledSage wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:32 pm
The 11 she was acquitted of were specific charges of breaching her restraining order which would always come down to opinion of whether particular action was a breach of the wording of the order rather than a point of law. Even so, they still found her guilty of 6 breaches which justified the time on remand.
I got the impression that some of the restraining order charges related to links to links to links to previously published stuff while others were more direct breaches. Given the number of charges it would only be human nature for the jury to bring in guilty charges for the easily decided charges and not consider the more difficult ones for very long or in much depth.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
longdog wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:01 pm
I got the impression that some of the restraining order charges related to links to links to links to previously published stuff while others were more direct breaches. Given the number of charges it would only be human nature for the jury to bring in guilty charges for the easily decided charges and not consider the more difficult ones for very long or in much depth.
It is hard to tell. I don't think anyone has a list of the charges to compare against the ones that she was acquitted on. Some were to do with publishing more links. Some were about calling the CoE help line. Some were attending synod and handing out leaflets. We will probably get more clarity at sentencing on Wednesday.
An interesting point a work colleague made to me when he was on jury service was that given the responsibility of the consequences of a verdict, even he as a hang 'em, flog 'em, throw away the key sort of person found it difficult to find the defendant guilty.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
For me the strongest part of the defence argument was nitpicking the restraining order’s terminology by questioning what counts as “publishing” versus “republishing” versus “making available”. Especially when the link isn’t directly to the material in question but to something else which contains a link to material. I see that argument as seeking to induce a reasonable doubt as to whether what Sabine did actually breached the letter of the restraining order or not.
Overall I thought the defence did a pretty good job given what they had to work with and who their client is.
I was very impressed by both the defense and the prosecution. Both sides had excellent lawyers acting for them.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Burnaby49 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:12 am
Another big difference between El Coyote and myself is in one word above "objective". While El Coyote has strong opinions on the Hampstead harassment issue she is completely objective in her reporting, subsuming her purple-haired personality into the role of the objective fly on the wall and injecting nothing of herself into the reports. As my readers know that's not my style at all.
Don’t undersell yourself. Your reports make for excellent reading about what must sometimes be pretty tedious hearings. Even for someone with a particular interest in the field hearing yet another sovereign tax protestor idiot trot down the same well-worn road to destruction travelled so unsuccessfully by many before them must get wearing at times.
In England/Wales it’s only after the presumed innocent defendant has been transformed into the prisoner in the dock that the informal commentary can start, which makes for dry facts-only reporting of ongoing trials.
Tedious? Michael Millar almost defeated me. Day after day after day of endless ranting about capitalization and jurisdiction. Even with the benefit of my invaluable training in enduring boredom through a 35 year career as an income tax auditor I almost gave up and hit the pubs. Sabine's trial was much more focused and to point.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Burnaby49 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:04 am
Tedious? Michael Millar almost defeated me. Day after day after day of endless ranting about capitalization and jurisdiction. Even with the benefit of my invaluable training in enduring boredom through a 35 year career as an income tax auditor I almost gave up and hit the pubs. Sabine's trial was much more focused and to point.
Imagine how the poor judge felt, but then again he let it happen, so maybe not so much. Sometimes I think you Canadians are just too darn polite. I think Millar could have benefited from a judicious application of Judge Roy's favorite learning tool.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Neelu's latest 'thoughts delusions of the day'. The old system is about to collapse anytime soon. Just like it always has been about to.
Thoughts of the day 17th December 2018
I can't remember when I did the last thoughts of the day but it seems like a long time. There doesn't seem to be very much more I can add without seeming to give more bad news. The question is when do we start giving good news? The State the Law Courts and Parliament have been put on Unfitness Notice to provide Mass remedies or step down because all they have been doing is denying remedy and proving themselves as unfit. The entire structure is imploding all by itself simply because a structure which promotes crimes can only eat itself up into nothing. We are just watching the precipitation and a culmination of all the criminal cover-ups which are no longer invisible. These impostors are wearing masks and uniforms as a camouflage thinking we won't notice the crimes because they changed the colour of their hats. Not only is the mainstream Media deliberately excluding the implosions of the corporate structure but the low quality of stories and computer-generated images it is turning out from archived old footage is becoming a comedy. We have many geniuses amongst us who chose the tortuous path of poverty and honour at the expense of an easier life in a job with more luxuries and Status. These people are Gods and goddesses and there are hundreds of thousands of them, they all work for nothing, they work for honour, they work for others, they work 24/7, they risk everything for honour, for the children, for the babies, for the whistleblowers, for those who have no voice. Well there are many women amongst them, Sabine McNeill, Melanie Shaw, Carol Woods, Susane Kellner Johnson, Tracy Thier, Sabra Muhammad, Dorothy Gardiner, Innis York, my late sister Sadhana Chaudhari, and her little 5 month old baby Sunaina ...come to mind, are all Witnesses of State Corruption, State Terrorism and Denial of Remedy in the Law Courts, blessed by Parliament.
This tiny little Island called England is a champion in piracy, pirate money, pirate health, pirate costumes, pirate public servants, pirate judges, pirate parliamentarians, pirate governments, pirate laws, pirate services, pirate policies and pirate law enforcers. The world has been watching how the Clowns have been doing their puppet dances with the puppeteers hiding behind a black curtain.
The world has now taking its attention from the puppets to the puppeteers in the Vatican, in the banks, in the secret societies... The individuals have no backing. The individuals have Personal liability. They can no longer get away with hiding their name badges behind their uniforms.
There will be mugshots of those who have committed the most serious crimes against babies and children and they will be banished from communities and countries.
Their days are numbered and their monkey dances are over
This tiny little Island called England is a champion in piracy, pirate money, pirate health, pirate costumes, pirate public servants, pirate judges, pirate parliamentarians, pirate governments, pirate laws, pirate services, pirate policies and pirate law enforcers.
Ahoy!! ye best be readin' up on this then me hearties!!!!
As ye scurvy gentlemen and wenches o' fortune know well - these be only......guidelines....
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
This tiny little Island called England is a champion in piracy, pirate money, pirate health, pirate costumes, pirate public servants, pirate judges, pirate parliamentarians, pirate governments, pirate laws, pirate services, pirate policies and pirate law enforcers.
This tiny little Island called England is a champion in piracy, pirate money, pirate health, pirate costumes, pirate public servants, pirate judges, pirate parliamentarians, pirate governments, pirate laws, pirate services, pirate policies and pirate law enforcers.
That sounds totally kickass.
The ultimate solution to the Brexit clusterfuck... Leave the EU... Go full on pirate. Even I'd vote for that
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
This tiny little Island called England is a champion in piracy, pirate money, pirate health, pirate costumes, pirate public servants, pirate judges, pirate parliamentarians, pirate governments, pirate laws, pirate services, pirate policies and pirate law enforcers.
Ahoy!! ye best be readin' up on this then me hearties!!!!
As ye scurvy gentlemen and wenches o' fortune know well - these be only......guidelines....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
