Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Justice seen to be done

The Certificate of Birth ('Short Form')
belongs to the Man 
Well the trial is over and I remain Not Guilty of course the question of my guilt or innocence has now been answered in open court.

I was distressed to see a number of people pay up rather than take a day in custody... I am not entirely sure what a day in custody entails, but it would seem to me that it means that you walk straight out of Court.

They count the day of your conviction as a full day and you cannot be held any longer than your sentence, they also only release at 9am on the morning of your release date. This of course means that if you have a two day sentence then you are released at 9am the next morning with £3 to get the bus back to town. Why anyone pays parking fines is beyond me.

I refined my strategy, I really am not good in chaotic situations and I still don't see the benefit of stating the obvious (i.e. that I am a man not a person etc., etc.), nor do I enjoy making a scene or playing a part in a pantomime. I am afraid that in these situations adrenaline gets the better of me. I am much more comfortable being obsequious but firm.

Particularly of note, when asked whom I was, I simply stated that I was appearing in the person of MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE and ensured that the Magistrate was aware that I considered that this person was a distinct entity from me, this was accepted and not questioned. I was not required to submit my affidavit. My plea was notated as being entered by DJP representing MR. PEARCE.

As a side observation I do wonder why they ask you how you wish to plead, the default must surely be, not guilty, as we are all not guilty till proven guilty (despite what the JEP would have you believe), and usually the person charged enters a guilty plea rather than any Court reaching a conclusion. Surely the question should be; do you wish to plead guilty?

Had I not agreed to represent MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE in person I would not have been able to speak at the hearing, which would have harmed myself, as it transpired.

The important thing you see is not to question whether MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE was present in Court or not, that is something of an irrelevance. It is not to question whether statutes apply to MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE, they do. But to question whether MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE was the driver of the vehicle who parked in such a manner as to breach statute. Free Man common mistake #1 - If you are not appearing in the proper (summoned) person during the hearing then you cannot be heard, you are not a party to the proceedings, it is as simple as that.
The Certified Copy ('Long Form')
 is for the Legal Fiction and is the only form
accepted for passports, for example 

The Crown advocate did make reference to the distinct identities MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE and Darius*Pearce on several occasions and made a final statement to say that he did not wish to see any further long e-mails of nonsense which wasted his time... you can tell he was lying, lawyers like nothing more than to have long e-mails of nonsense which can justify hours of their time at £500 per hour.

Of course I can prove that they are distinct entities - and I have two different sorts of birth certificate to that effect, as per the images embedded in this post. Although being born in the actual City of London, I have the distinct privilege of having an A4 sized long form birth certificate.

The Magistrate made no comment in support of or against the Crown Advocate's assertions.