News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

Shut down H&K banners

Started by twiggs, May 22, 2010, 11:34:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

twiggs

Two political banners used in a regular picket outside the gates of a Nottingham weapon factory came into the possession of Nottingham police following a protest which took place on the roof, rather than outside the gates. I have written to the chief constable Mrs Julia Hodgson, claimed ownership and requested their return.

This is the e-mail I have sent to the campaign group:

Following the conviction of an anti-weapons trade activist for climbing on
the roof of Heckler & Kock NSAF, the presiding magistrate (or "justice of
the piece", as they like to call themselves. But I fail to comprehend how
a human being can claim to be "justice") stated his intention to destroy
our banners.

These banners are lawful property of the shut down h&k campaign and can only be destroyed lawfully
with the lawful owners consent. If they are destroyed without the lawful
owners consent an offense will have been committed under unwritten 'common
law' (the law of common sense and the law of the common man) and under
statute legislation (the rules written down by parliament and given the
force of law by the consent of the governed).



Although there is a government statute which gives the magistrate the
right to destroy property used in commencement of a crime, it dose not
give him the right to destroy property owned by another. In this case many
of us completely law (and statute) abiding human beings.

I have stood outside the gates of the gun factory with these banners on
many occasions and never climbed on the roof, and I don't see why I should
be deprived on them.

QUESTION 1: Dose the magistrate have our permission to destroy our property ?

I understand that there was no objection to any of the court proceedings.
That means all present in the court consented to all of the proceedings by
aquiescence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence

QUESTION 2: Are ALL OUR RIGHTS worth asserting ?

Henry

M O'D

Quote from: twiggs on May 22, 2010, 11:34:08 AM

QUESTION 1: Dose the magistrate have our permission to destroy our property ?

I understand that there was no objection to any of the court proceedings.
That means all present in the court consented to all of the proceedings by
aquiescence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence

QUESTION 2: Are ALL OUR RIGHTS worth asserting ?

Henry

Hi Henry. The first question answers itself: clearly he does not. If you have notified the Chief Constable of your claim of right on the banner, then that's a good start. You may like to follow it up with a notice to the Clerk to the Justices, GB HOOPER, may be with a claim for damages should they go against your wishes and destroy the property.
2. Claim them, rather than assert.

You'll have to do some research on this but section 37 of magistrates code of  conduct MagistratesCourtRulescrim-pr-2010-part37

may be a good place to start. And www.freetheplanet.net

Remember though, it's something that should be fun as well challenging. Stay light in the face of their ridiculous postering..

Peace, sohun ::)

"The more a man knows, the more he forgives." Confuscious
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted