Common Law/Freeman arguements in Perth race hate trial

[Graham2001]

A member of the organization Friends of Hamas (Oops, Palestine) is facing court in Perth charged with racial hatred.

The legal arguments he is deploying though are straight out of the Freemen on the Land handbook.

When he entered the court on Monday, O'Connell refused to make the customary bow to Judge Henry Wisbey and became agitated during an opening submission in which he repeatedly referred to common law and the King James Bible.

About a dozen supporters sat in the public gallery cheering him on.

``Is this court sitting in a common law court?'' O'Connell asked Judge Wisbey.

``Do you want to say anything about the nature of your defence?'' Judge Wisbey replied.

O'Connell ignored the direction and instead demanded Judge Wisbey be indicted for treason.

O'Connell told the visibly shocked jury that he knew the law and was ``not a fool''.

Continuing to ignore the judge's attempted directions, he said he wanted the jury to become a ``grand jury''.

Gesturing towards the court emblem over the judge, he described the proceedings as a ``kangaroo court'' that could not proceed until his concerns were addressed.

He said it would take 40 days to process his concerns, to which Judge Wisbey quipped: ``And 40 nights?''

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/accused-racist-anthony-oconnell-demands-judge-fact-treason-charge/story-e6frg13u-1225989788593

See also:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/race-hate-accused-argued-with-jewish-protester/story-e6frg13u-1225990468453

[JimBenArm]

Well, it's settled then. He'll be free by the end of next month.

[WildCat]

A raging anti-semite in a Friends of Palestine group?

I'm shocked shocked shocked!

[JCM]

He said it would take 40 days to process his concerns, to which Judge Wisbey quipped: ``And 40 nights?''
I laughed. Not the biggest fan of judiciaries but this one has my support

[Dave Rogers]

``Is this court sitting in a common law court?'' O'Connell asked Judge Wisbey.

``Do you want to say anything about the nature of your defence?'' Judge Wisbey replied.

O'Connell ignored the direction and instead demanded Judge Wisbey be indicted for treason.

O'Connell told the visibly shocked jury that he knew the law and was ``not a fool''.

Continuing to ignore the judge's attempted directions, he said he wanted the jury to become a ``grand jury''.

Gesturing towards the court emblem over the judge, he described the proceedings as a ``kangaroo court'' that could not proceed until his concerns were addressed.

He said it would take 40 days to process his concerns, to which Judge Wisbey quipped: ``And 40 nights?''


This reads like something out of Myles na gCopaleen's humorous articles on the Cruiskeen Court of Voluntary Justice. Did the defendant suggest at any point that the judge was maintaining a 'housekeeper' down in Clongowes?

Dave

[timhau]

O'Connell told the visibly shocked jury that he knew the law and was ``not a fool''.

I don't know which one of these statements is more false.

[The Platypus]

Why aren't the courts forcing these lunatics into mental illness treatment?

[Horatius]

Why aren't the courts forcing these lunatics into mental illness treatment?



Because "Stupid and self-centred" isn't recognized as an illness.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Anybody else amused that a court in Australia is described "as a ``kangaroo court'' "???

[JimBenArm]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything...

[The Platypus]

Because "Stupid and self-centred" isn't recognized as an illness.

True... So if then why don't the courts throw the book at these idiots instead of giving em so many breaks?

[drkitten]

True... So if then why don't the courts throw the book at these idiots instead of giving em so many breaks?

Because being stupid isn't the same as being criminal. And being crazy isn't even the same as being stupid.

The trial has to be fair, and there's a long tradition of deference to pro se defendants to order to be scrupulously fair to them. In the end, all it costs the court is time; the effect of this legal grandstanding (as amply demonstrated in the "Freeman and England" thread) is usually to make matters worse as the nutcase talks what would ordinarily be a $500 fine into a six month term in jail or something.

But, frankly, aside from the appearance of unfairness --- "throwing the book" at these people wouldn't actually help anyone. The people crazy enough to try this "know" that the courts are corrupt, so they're not doing to be deterred by the prospect of punishment. And usually they just end up doing irrevocable harm to their own lives. Few judges want to take someone so clearly self-destructive and make him worse off.

[cwalner]

This seems to me to be a case of right for the wrong reason. I have issues with the fact that posting anti-semitic videos online is a criminal offense.

However, using Freemen nonsense does not seem like the best avenue to protest freedom of speech restrictions.

[jargon buster]

The people crazy enough to try this "know" that the courts are corrupt, so they're not doing to be deterred by the prospect of punishment.

I think the ideal solution to the problem is to actually give them what they want.
Total freedom from all statutory legislation.
A couple of conditions, they get no protection from the law and are stripped of their birth certificate and NI/SIN number and freed.
Oh and their photos on every street corner.

That would stop them in their tracks.

[Horatius]

This seems to me to be a case of right for the wrong reason. I have issues with the fact that posting anti-semitic videos online is a criminal offense.

However, using Freemen nonsense does not seem like the best avenue to protest freedom of speech restrictions.



And that's the worst part of all these woo beliefs. Some people have legitimate concerns about how society is changing, but rather than do things that might actually have a beneficial effect, they get diverted into this woo-woo nonsense. If he were to stand up and say, "I should be allowed to spew racist ********!" I'd agree with him, even while still thinking he's a slimebag. But this is just stupid.

But I suppose stupid really shouldn't surprise us coming from aguy like this, after all.

[Captain_Swoop]

Anybody else amused that a court in Australia is described "as a ``kangaroo court'' "???

It was an insult aimed the AUstralian Arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png

[Graham2001]

I've found the West Australians report on the trial. It would seem that our Freemen are not completely following the American script which quite amazes me.

I've quoted the relevant part below:

Mr O'Connell, who is representing himself in the case, made no opening argument referring to the actual case, instead using his opening address to the jury to declare the court had no authority to hear the case.


He asked Judge John Wisbey, who he referred to as an "adjudicator" if the court was a common law court.


When the judge did not reply he said the only lawful court in Australia was the High Court and that under the constitution all other courts had no jurisdiction.


He spoke for several minutes on this topic referring to the Westminster division of powers, the Commonwealth of Australia, the coat of arms, Queen Elizabeth II and the Director of Public Prosecutions. He then attempted to empanel the jury and have Judge Wisbey charged with treason.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/8665681/race-trial-starts-in-protest/

[akama1]

It was an insult aimed the AUstralian Arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png

go figure, I would of never of guessed it

from wikipedia
"The term "kangaroo court" may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The first recorded use is from 1853 in a Texas context. It comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo. Despite the association of kangaroos with Australia, the phrase is considered an Americanism."

[JCM]

It was an insult aimed the Australian Arms
go figure, I would of never of guessed it

from wikipedia
"The term "kangaroo court" may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The first recorded use is from 1853 in a Texas context. It comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo. Despite the association of kangaroos with Australia, the phrase is considered an Americanism."

I'm sure the quip refereed wittingly to both. This guy is not an idiot. That's never precluded someone from being completely wrong though

[akama1]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/perth-man-found-guilty-of-racial-hatred-20110128-1a892.html/

Guilty on 6 out of 7, no mention of any more FotL nonsense, but he did pull the "Free Palestine! Free Iraq!" card after being found guilty. Good to see the kangaroo court did not hop away