Legal Battles

My understanding is the County Court can advise if you can serve at places of work. Or an agency can serve for you.

Fred,

The police have ALL the addresses for service from the pension fund recipients but no welsh court will ever order their release.

I was refused bail by 10 judges on the pretext I could be seen standing outside a school somewhere in a trilby, dark dark glasses and very little else...read the transcripts yet to be posted.

Teach yourself some legal tricks - lesson number 139311525/131521195/31521182021

For the awakening sheep - you can beat them at their game and with their "Acts".

Subject: The Case Summary / Indictment

Case Summaries and Indictments as a rule or should that be misrule ....? are generally written up at the outset of a case. They are written in the 'strongest' format - with the prosecutor knowing that it is his Summary Indictment (Inc: Counts / Charges) which will be "The LAST THING HEARD" by a presiding jury or in the Magistrates court the counterpart of placemen/women JP's (being all PC) or as some might say the 3 wise monkeys?

Nevertheless the Prosecutor knows that the d..evil is in the detail of the last few things that the jury really hear - the summary indictment.

The vast majority of criminal cases Crown and Mags Courts are 'showcased' by professional actors 'doing what has become their business trade'.

The club of professionals do however have a problem with those who assert their inalienable rights to conduct their own defence.

The leading Precedent case of the 21st Century of course being that of Mr Kirk.

Undeterred and unable to drop the Kirk case Mr Tombstone still had hope to rely on, in that he could 'persuade' the jury to 'see' things as he desired them to.

Due to Mr Kirk's resilience and the strength of the public grapevine exposure and attention given to the case (Forget the D-noticed Media Law suborned Press & Media) Mr Tombstone's attempts to bluff the jury with wild assertions as if they were facts "backfired" like a machine gun gone wrong!

So ... was it any suprise that Mr Tombstone COULDN'T do his case summary when it was required of him? Of course he couldn't; because the strongly worded summary and the counts / indictments had been blown away.

Blown away ... because Mr Kirk defended himself and there wasn't another actor acting for the defence.

So many sheep are misguided to rely upon their actor front - but little do they know that their actor is only there to grandstand & showcase the probity of the Actors' Union - The Flaw Society.

Mr Tombstone couldn't summarise the indictment, plus note: Mr Kirk was charged under the Firearms "ACT" 1968. An "ACT".

The real lesson is - it is possible to beat them with their "Acts", "Statutes" and "Legislation" - and it doesn't half show them all up for what spineless creatures they have become.