James Colton - Justice Online

English Justice is Injustice

Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum

(‘no one is obliged to accuse himself)

youyube icon

Youtube Channel

email: jamescolton1943@hotmail.com

Justice-Online

A JOINT TO THE RESCUE

Arrested Again by Dorset Police

Its 8.30am the 10 May 2009, Norfolk Police raid my home on the orders of Dorset Police who charge me with sexual offence against two stepdaughters, Tracey Gore and her sister Fleur Thompson. The charges are the very same allegations used at my divorce. Still wearing my dressing gown, I am pushed into the lounge. They discover I am growing one cannabis plant so more cops are called for.

The police are everywhere in my apartment, going through my belongings, bagging up the cannabis plant and seizing my kitchen scales and other items of evidence. I ask if I can make a phone call and firmly told no. I have two phone lines so I press the quick dial number on one, which dials a friend in Canada. Standing by my desk. I can hear her saying hello several times. She then dials my other number it rings, Can I answer that? Yes states the cop. Whats up she asks I tell her I have been arrested again and will be taken to Bournemouth. We have a short conservation; agree to keep in touch we hang up.

I sat down on an armchair, before me is my coffee table which is strewn with papers, cups and other junk. I spy a small heap of powered cannabis, which I had emptied the night before from my grinder. Can I smoke? I ask the officer, sure he replies.  With all the hassle of what I knew was an unlawful arrest, I needed calming.

They want it to be true.

Pathological lying isn’t a clinical diagnosis, though it can sometimes be a symptom of other issues, such as a personality disorder or a manic episode.

But some people get so accustomed to lying that they do so even when there is no clear purpose, and when their lies are  easily disproven, leaving everyone scratching their heads over the point of their deceptions.

Dorset Police execute a fake search warrant that has been issued unlawfully by Weymouth Magistrates Court.

hqdefault

When does a criminal trial become so overwhelmingly corrupt that its exposure would likely lead to a breakdown of the entire justice system.

Perhaps this is an emphasised claim; nevertheless, it does highlight the question of how safe are criminal trials in England? There is no transparency in English Courts.

In proving corruption, it is first necessary to provide evidence. Something may look like corruption; it may smell like corruption; it may feel like corruption. And hell, it may even taste like corruption. Nevertheless, to prove that it is corruption goes beyond outward appearances or senses.

Corruption can pollute any level of the justice system (UK), including the police and the Court administration. Proving a charge of corruption against someone or in my case a whole bunch of people can often be tricky because the people involved will naturally be secretive about their actions.

Let me put it this way. You are, arrested on criminal charges. Held on remand when you have the legal right to bail. You have the right to legal representation, but your lawyers will act against you as the second prosecutor, in doing so they refuse to have any contact with you.

The trial judge has evidence that fully exonerates you of the alleged crimes, which he withholds at your trial, he also orders every reference you made in your police interview that refers to this evidence be removed from the transcript.  The jury is rigged.  This is the basics of your trial. You are not fully competent in the law but you know you were being set-up, the trial was unlawful, what do you do?

I was, charged for alleged sexual abuse of two stepdaughters some 20-30 years previous. The charges were the same used at my divorce in 2000. However, this was, a smoke screen to cover-up my Internet activity, which exposed the lies told by my ex-wife and her two daughters. I produced a video Crooked Cops and Lame Horses and distributed this throughout Dorset some week earlier.

However, providing evidence of possible corruption, became a whole lot easier by exposing answers to my complaints against those involved in my trial. Following on It becomes necessary to establish the law, legal procedures in matters related to my trial

Simply put my lawyers refused to represent me by refusing to make a Defence Statement, call witnesses etc.

 

Dorset Police

Dorset police are happy protecting fraudsters

 

Malicious prosecution (tort) the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not carry out their functions honestly and with integrity. The actual prosecutor, actively instrumental in setting the law in motion. The defendant is able to prove bad faith.

NOTE  Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising from one party making a malicious and   deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified   by the underlying legal action. It is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from   malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access   to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows:

  •   (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and
  •   (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the    proceedings. [1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that   abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring   issuance of the process, or a termination favourable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential   to a claim of malicious prosecution

 

    • [2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e.    an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used    to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the    official seal of a court.
    • [3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some    improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that    offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution.    Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property,     garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process"    considered capable of abuse.

The principles which lead to a finding of an abuse of process in the UK were stated in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [4] by Lord Bingham.

     “The underlying public interest is … that there should be finality in litigation and that a party  should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis  on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as  a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defense in later proceedings may, without more,  amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or  defense should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not  accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a  collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the  later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless  the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however,  wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been,  so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic  an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of  the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing  attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the  process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one  cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule  to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not … Properly applied, and whatever the  legitimacy of its descent, the rule has in my view a valuable part to play in protecting the interests of  justice.”

Home | About | Probation | Dorset Police | Downloads | Disclaimer | CPS | Big Lie | Theresa May | My Case |