Update on Roger Hayes plus Brian Gerrish speaks to "Ellie Smith" who has been subject to intimidation and corruption at the hands of Thames Valley Police.

Did Roger waive his right to trial by jury and say that it was ok to proceed in the magistrates court?
Its the first question everyone gets asked and if so then the whole lack of jury is explained thus.

However...if he did NOT get asked that question then it would certainly be an eyebrow raiser imho.

andyh wrote:
No Roger Hasn't waved any rights he is trying to maintain and reestablish due process as defined by our constitution. The constitution you don't seem to recognise, which is exactly what is expected after years of the State establishing the lie that we don't have a constitution.

Roger Hayes has been kidnapped by a rogue state without any representation! This situation is set to get far worse as Brian establishes in the segment about Roger Hayes.

Frog wrote:
That was very very disturbing.

Cheers for the link frog.

Frog wrote:
You've done a bit of a swerve there
I asked if he waived the right to a trial by jury, you don't get a trial by jury in a magistrates court, you know that yep?
Its been that way for yonks.

andyh wrote:
I never swerved anything! I suggest you get up to speed with Roger Hayes and what he stands for and has been fighting for, especially as he is one member of a small group or people and organisations actually getting off their arses and taking the fight to the corrupt State and their institutions of control.

No Roger Hayes didn't waive his rights period he is standing up for his and our rights! The fact is that the courts are operating outside our constitution, which is the only reason they are conducting legal proceedings without the presence of a Jury, which is the right of anyone on trial.

More details on the Roger Hayes illegal imprisonment.

There is a petition to free Roger Hayes running here www.thepetitionsite.com/491/885/604/free...-constitution-group/ .

Frog wrote:
I know ABOUT Roger frog....
Again you're not paying attention are you?
YES it is your right to have a trial by jury but you DO get asked the question at magistrates court if you would like to take the case to a higher court with that option at the start of the trial.

I'm not having a dig at you frog, I'm simply asking if Roger got asked that question at the start of the trial in magistrates court...OK?
lol :p

You can calm down now

andyh wrote:
I'm perfectly calm thanks.

If you were actually aware of Rogers stance on the issue of a jury trial then you would be aware of how foolish the question is that you are repeatedly asking! If you had followed and understood his current predicament you would also be aware of the process used to incarcerate him. The follow up video three posts back explains the circumstances which brought him to the position he now finds himself in.

Third time lucky, No Roger Hayes didn't decline the option to a trial by Jury. Considering that it's a fundamental part of our legal process and is one of the corner stones of our common law system, which Roger is an active advocate of, why would anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Roger Hayes and his stance on the British Constitution consider that he would refuse a jury trial? As the Chairman of the British Constitution group don't you think that refusing a jury trial would be a rather odd thing for him to do?

Frog wrote:
Did he get asked the question?
There's nothing in the vid that mentions that frog, hence why I asked...

andyh wrote:
I think this > video < makes it pretty clear how he was dealt with if you listen to it.
2:30 ish process not followed
6:45 ish statement
7.54 ish details 8:17 no jury
10:45 more about the jury and common law
11:45 more no jury
12:10 Rogers position

If you're still struggling to grasp Rogers position or the process used to convict him I have no idea what it will take to get it to sink in. There is more than enough information in this tread and else where on the web if you're actually interested if not then it would probably best not to tax yourself any further on the issue.

It just doesn't say if the court popped the question frog.
There's no way of knowing without asking either Roger or his defense counsel.

andyh wrote:
I really fail to see how you're failing to grasp what has been said and presented in this thread. Brian Geerish reads out Roger Hayes statement of truth which was taken from Roger in the prison post imprisonment. Roger is clear in his request and stance for trial by jury (do you seriously think he would refuse a jury?), it is stated multiple times that the court procedure wasn't followed, that only the judge was present and that no public or press access was allowed and no notification of the court hearing was posted on the court notice board! It is also stated that the court session was a Star Chamber court session. Some of the relevant time stamps have been provided for you and still you continue asking a foolish and pointless question.

If you still don't get it it's probably best not to worry about it. Try and moving on to something else and stop spamming this thread with nonsense.

Frog wrote:
lol well it is normal for there to a lot of things missing in a magistrates court
1 thing that should never be missing though is the invitation to go to a proper court at the start.
It seems that Roger does indeed want a trial by jury so I'll have to ASSUME that the question was never asked.
This particular ickle snippet IS missing from the dialogue, its not nonsense at all, its quite relevant frog.

As you know, I don't like assuming or inferring anything.
Did we get the judges name by the way?

It's hardly an assumption seeing as that is Rogers Stated position under the British Constitution and due process under Common Law. It's safe to say that that was not an option and everything else that was in breach of due process would also indicate that this wasn't a legitimate court. Yes the Judges name is given a number of times.

Frog wrote:
Actually 2 names are mentioned. Justice Higginbotton (no idea who that is) and Judge Abelson.
Abelson is listed here-
www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary...iary/dj-mags-ct-list

www.crosbyherald.co.uk/news/crosby-news/...nker-68459-28473903/

www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-n...5-100252-29790463/2/

Its obvious that some local papers consider this worthy of note but not Roger's case...

Dannys statement about the council going bust wouldn't surprise me either, if a local health authority can go down the tube why not a whole council?

I don't think this made Roger Hayes the most popular defendant among Judges.
It made national press www.dailymail.co.uk

That Judge has apparently retired from the bench.

The whole country is effectively bankrupt so it would stand to reason that councils would be financially unsound. That's what our treasonous parliament have been striving for in order to open the doors for the IMF/World Bank and bring-about total consolidation with Europe.

Frog wrote: You gotta love the way that gremlins favourite newspaper twisted that eh?
"rescued the judge' sheesh

Morally bankrupt too no doubt
You have to marvel at how the press is beginning to pick up on all this now and its everywhere and what do the people do?
Nothing

The MSM isn't giving these issues the attention they deserve and they generally avoid presenting them where possible or they spin the shit out of the story and avoid getting deep in to the stories.

Or they simply do a really poor job in an effort to throw some bread out to the circus crowd with lame crap like this...

www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of-dave

When they could be presenting this...

If they covered the full story of the Lawful Rebellion, The Lawful Bank, A Case for Treason and Common Purpose they could give a much clearer picture of what is going on in the country.