Sit John Nutting QC & John Kelsey Fry QC persist with their judicial lies
Mike Smith
continue to boast about the way that they lied to get me convicted at
the trial in which they were prosecutors. It was obvious at the time
that Dame Stella Rimington, Oleg Gordievsky and Professor Meirion
Francis Lewis were acting as professional perjurers by giving
testimony at my trial in 1993. However, I cannot understand how the
British legal system works when it is possible for these high-ranking
lawyers to manipulate evidence to falsely convict a defendant:
http://parellic.blogspot.com/2009/08/sir-john-nutting-qc-john-kelsey-fry-qc.html
Perhaps I am simply a naive idiot for believing that British Justice
is a fair system, that aims to present the truth to a jury. What
cannot remain hidden is that the lies that were told at my trial will
remain hidden from public view forever. Let the public read what
really happened and let them decide.
Colin Peters
"Mike Smith" <pare...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b9489429-a863-4915...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
From what I have seen of this newsgroup,(uk legal ) I may well be the only
person to respond to your honest and open and legitimate posting.
The 'system' and so many of its members are perverse, interested only in,
not what is truth, not what is justice, but how much they can screw it for
financially.
It makes no difference if it is a criminal court or a civil court.
The main criteria is, how much filthy lucre can be screwed out of a
situation, for the benefit of lawyers, and to hell with justice.
http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com
Colin Peters
Janitor of Lunacy
How refreshingly naive, to both of you. Have you ever watched "Spooks"? It
may be dramaticised for entertainment, but in my experience the underlying
issues are not that far from the truth. Barristers are bound by their
instructions and do not go behind them. "Judge John Deed" is almost pure
fantasy. That you impute improper motives to people who were doing their job
fails to realise that that's all they were doing: an advocate puts forward a
case and is not briefed on behalf of "the truth". Finding the truth lies
elsewhere, but neither of you seems either prepared, or equipped, to realise
that that is the case. Grow up and move on, please. If you were shafted,
chances are you deserved it, because your defence teams singularly failed to
dent the cases against you, and if appropriate, neither did the CCRC.
Mike Smith
>
> How refreshingly naive, to both of you. Have you ever watched "Spooks"? It
> may be dramaticised for entertainment, but in my experience the underlying
> issues are not that far from the truth. Barristers are bound by their
> instructions and do not go behind them. "Judge John Deed" is almost pure
> fantasy. That you impute improper motives to people who were doing their job
> fails to realise that that's all they were doing: an advocate puts forward a
> case and is not briefed on behalf of "the truth". Finding the truth lies
> elsewhere, but neither of you seems either prepared, or equipped, to realise
> that that is the case. Grow up and move on, please. If you were shafted,
> chances are you deserved it, because your defence teams singularly failed to
> dent the cases against you, and if appropriate, neither did the CCRC.
I have no problem with any professional following instructions, and
performing their job according to the rules of the Bar Council, or
whatever the professional body is that oversees that particular field.
What I object to is when the professional (lawyer) concerned is well
aware that they are running a false case in order to win in a
thoroughly unprofessional manner. Nobody is entitled to use false
evidence in order to gain a conviction, because to do so means that
the professional concerned has no integrity, and has no right to be
practising in that sort of profession.
Colin Peters
Agreed, and very well put.
Colin Peters
Mike Smith
wrote:
>
> From what I have seen of this newsgroup,(uk legal ) I may well be the only
> person to respond to your honest and open and legitimate posting.
> The 'system' and so many of its members are perverse, interested only in,
> not what is truth, not what is justice, but how much they can screw it for
> financially.
> It makes no difference if it is a criminal court or a civil court.
> The main criteria is, how much filthy lucre can be screwed out of a
> situation, for the benefit of lawyers, and to hell with justice.
>
> http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com
>
> Colin Peters
Colin, I can see that you have also suffered at the hands of "the
system", and it takes an experience like yours to fully understand how
these things work in practice. Too many people on this forum are
apologists for corrupt lawyers, and they would rather tell us that we
are the ones who don't understand what we are doing.
If you have a bucket full of money to give these lawyers, then they
are only too willing to help you - but if we don't have the money, or
are unwilling to pay the costs of this protection racket, then we are
denied justice.
Colin Peters
You said it Mike and you're spot on.
Mike Smith
wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <parel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
The lack of any serious debate on this forum - a premier legal forum -
just proves that anybody with a vested interest in the British Legal
System is just too tame and too biased to ever criticise the way the
great British system of Law is administered. It's just a bonus that we
aren't living under the rule of Henry VIII, or we would be heading for
a torture chamber or the executioner's block. It seems pretty certain
that any barrister who becomes a QC has already sold their soul to
automatons who administer justice behind closed doors.
I am helping to publish the trial of John Alexander Symonds, and
luckily this will show how the system works in practice: judges (Angus
Stroyan) illegally editing his summing up to prevent the defendant
from appealing, and the Prosecutor Geoffrey Rivlin QC (now a judge no
less) omitting his closing speech from the official transcript,
because he used arguments that were based on evidence that had not
been used during the trial.
These corrupt lawyers will never learn, unless people like us come out
and rub their noses in their own shit. They will not learn until they
have been humiliated before the general public - they must have
learned this love of humiliation from their public school beatings and
related homosexual experiences. Why are we ruled by such a corrupt
bunch of cretins?
Mike Smith
really works:
Mike Ross
wrote:
>I cannot understand why Sir John Nutting QC and John Kelsey Fry QC
>continue to boast about the way that they lied to get me convicted
If they boast about lying at a trial, they're running a serious risk of jail for
perjury; lay a complaint. Or consider a private prosecution.
>What
>cannot remain hidden is that the lies that were told at my trial will
>remain hidden from public view forever. Let the public read what
>really happened and let them decide.
I've tried to parse that and failed. It sounds like you're saying that, up until
today, a fact has been hidden. That particular fact being, that the lies will
remain hidden. Are you saying the lies will remain hidden forever or not?
I trust you see my difficulty. Why not just state briefy and in plain English
what your fucking problem is?!
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mike Smith
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Mike Smith <parel...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I cannot understand why Sir John Nutting QC and John Kelsey Fry QC
> >continue to boast about the way that they lied to get me convicted
>
> If they boast about lying at a trial, they're running a serious risk of jail for
> perjury; lay a complaint. Or consider a private prosecution.
>
> >What
> >cannot remain hidden is that the lies that were told at my trial will
> >remain hidden from public view forever. Let the public read what
> >really happened and let them decide.
>
> I've tried to parse that and failed. It sounds like you're saying that, up until
> today, a fact has been hidden. That particular fact being, that the lies will
> remain hidden. Are you saying the lies will remain hidden forever or not?
>
> I trust you see my difficulty. Why not just state briefy and in plain English
> what your fucking problem is?!
>
> Mike
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
I apologise if this matter sounds rather confusing, but it is not
really a difficult situation to grasp.
When I was arrested I had expected to be charged with a particular
offence under the Official Secrets Act, i.e. it was alleged that I had
given the Russians information about Britain's free-fall nuclear bomb,
which I had worked on at EMI Electronics Ltd in the 1970s. When the
Police/CPS reviewed the evidence they decided that they didn't have a
provable case regarding that allegation, and so they abandoned this
indictment because it was likely to fail when it came to trial.
Because MI5 were keen to have me tried for "something" (it appears
that Dame Stella Rimington needed a conviction to bolster her position
within MI5), I was charged with other offences regarding the work I
had been engaged on at GEC Marconi in the early 1990s. The evidence
for these counts was rather weak, and so the only way that the CPS
could succeed with a conviction was by withholding their main evidence
until near the end of the Prosecution case. That is why I believe it
is quite clear that Sir Derek Spencer QC, Sir John Nutting QC and John
Kelsey Fry QC (the 3 lawyers responsible for the Prosecution case)
were guilty of underhanded tactics, because they relied on an "ambush"
of the defence - they only revealed their main evidence at the last
possible moment, when the key witness was in the witness box. A link
was made between an exhibit in my case and the ALARM missile, but this
link relied on the use of hearsay evidence. It is now obvious why no
expert witness could be called to give first-hand evidence, because
the link to ALARM was tenuous.
Many years passed before I finally discovered the truth, which was
that the evidence presented to my jury was in fact false - the
document claimed to have been used on ALARM was made obsolete in 1984,
8 years before my arrest, and it could never have been used on any
ALARM missiles. I was denied access to this truth for 15 years, but if
I had known the facts I would have instantly recognised their value
and have used them in my Defence case before my trial.
We are dealing with technical evidence here, which had been asserted
by the Prosecution at my trial. This is not a matter of opinion, but
rather can be simply accepted or rejected by an expert with knowledge
of the engineering issues involved.
I have assembled all the relevant facts to prove that the evidence of
the key witness, Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, was false and
deliberately designed to mislead the jury. I will publish this
material in the near future, and I shall continue to campaign for the
truth to be widely circulated. The culprits in this legal corruption
will also be fully identified.
Mike Ross
wrote:
>On Aug 21, 11:17�pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
<snip to get to the meat>
>> I trust you see my difficulty. Why not just state briefy and in plain English
>> what your fucking problem is?!
>...the work I had been engaged on at GEC Marconi in the early 1990s.
Curious coincidence there; I was a regular visitor to GEC Marconi in Chelmsford
in the mid-late 90s, and removed some old computers from GEC Marconi in
Leicester in the early 90s.
>...they relied on an "ambush"
>of the defence - they only revealed their main evidence at the last
>possible moment, when the key witness was in the witness box.
I'm not entirely clear; is it presently the case that both prosecution and
defence are obliged to disclose the substance of their cases and their evidence
to each other prior to the trial? I was under the impression that this is indeed
the case. Is it also true that, at the time of your trial, the rules were
different and both 'ambush' defence and 'ambush' prosecution were allowed?
>I have assembled all the relevant facts to prove that the evidence of
>the key witness, Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, was false and
>deliberately designed to mislead the jury. I will publish this
>material in the near future, and I shall continue to campaign for the
>truth to be widely circulated.
Would it not better serve you to furnish the evidence to your solicitor, and
seek leave to appeal your conviction, on the gounds of significant new evidence?
Mike
--
Mike Smith
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Mike Smith <parel...@googlemail.com>
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
I worked at Hirst Research Centre in Wembley between 1985 and 1992,
but I don't think our paths crossed during that time. I was made
redundant during the period when GEC was collapsing, and the HRC site
has now been demolished.
You are quite right that the Prosecution and Defence should disclose
their case to the other side, in order for both to prepare for a fair
trial. Unfortunately, in practice, this doesn't seem to happen when
the lawyers try to keep their powder dry. If my Defence had been
informed of the evidence about the ALARM missile, then we could have
at least tried to find an expert who could have advised us, but as
things turned out the evidence went virtually unchallenged at my
trial, and as I say I only learned years later that it was based on
false evidence.
I have yesterday had an audio interview published, where I discuss
some of the issues in my case - published on a Russian website,
because in the UK nobody will even talk about my case for fear that
the authorities will jump on them. You may care to listen to it to see
what I am saying:
http://www.jar2.com/2/MikeSmith/MikeSmith.htm
On your point about going through the legal route, this is effectively
blocked when political cases such as mine are involved. MI5 and the
MoD do not want somebody like me to prove my innocence of the offences
I was convicted of. That would only prove that they acted
unscrupulously in presenting false and exaggerated evidence at my
trial.
Take for example the trial of John Alexander Symonds in 1981. He is
able to prove that the Judge's Summing Up was deliberately edited to
prevent him being granted an appeal against his conviction. He was
only able to prove this underhanded tactic by the judge, because he
obtained a tape recording of what the judge actually said in that
Summing Up, and it didn't agree with the official transcript - which
was signed as a true copy of the speech by the official court
reporters:
Mike Smith
changed the official transcript of his Summing Up speech to interfere
with the course of justice - we know that is a fact, because we have
the official transcript of his Summing Up, plus the Police tape
recording made during the trial. This is a criminal act in my opinion
- can a judge change the transcript and get away with it??? What the
hell is going on in the British Justice system?
To add petrol to the flames ... there is Geoffrey Rivlin QC saying
stuff that doesn't even appear during the course of the trial. Who is
Rivlin? Is he immune from the normal justice system in the UK? Why did
he remove his closing speech from the official transcript from the
trial of John Alexander Symonds? It seems Rivlin is afraid of the way
he behaved during that trial.
Mike Ross
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Mike Smith <pare...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>On Aug 22, 12:52�am, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Mike Smith <parel...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 21, 11:17�pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip to get to the meat>
>>
>> >> I trust you see my difficulty. Why not just state briefy and in plain English
>> >> what your fucking problem is?!
>> >I have assembled all the relevant facts to prove that the evidence of
>> >the key witness, Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, was false and
>> >deliberately designed to mislead the jury. I will publish this
>> >material in the near future, and I shall continue to campaign for the
>> >truth to be widely circulated.
>>
>> Would it not better serve you to furnish the evidence to your solicitor, and
>> seek leave to appeal your conviction, on the gounds of significant new evidence?
>On your point about going through the legal route, this is effectively
>blocked when political cases such as mine are involved.
How do you mean? You claim to have new evidence that wasn't presented at trial,
and you claim it can show your innocence - correct? Now I'm not a bloody lawyer
but it seems to me you should be applying for leave to appeal; at the very least
your evidence will tested and you'll get a chance to see how things go. Have you
done this? If not, why not?
Mike
--
Mike Smith
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 22, 12:52 am, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Mike Smith <parel...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 21, 11:17 pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>
> >> <snip to get to the meat>
>
> >> >> I trust you see my difficulty. Why not just state briefy and in plain English
> >> >> what your fucking problem is?!
> >> >I have assembled all the relevant facts to prove that the evidence of
> >> >the key witness, Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, was false and
> >> >deliberately designed to mislead the jury. I will publish this
> >> >material in the near future, and I shall continue to campaign for the
> >> >truth to be widely circulated.
>
> >> Would it not better serve you to furnish the evidence to your solicitor, and
> >> seek leave to appeal your conviction, on the gounds of significant new evidence?
> >On your point about going through the legal route, this is effectively
> >blocked when political cases such as mine are involved.
>
> How do you mean? You claim to have new evidence that wasn't presented at trial,
> and you claim it can show your innocence - correct? Now I'm not a bloody lawyer
> but it seems to me you should be applying for leave to appeal; at the very least
> your evidence will tested and you'll get a chance to see how things go. Have you
> done this? If not, why not?
>
> Mike
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
I'm not a lawyer either Mike - that is why this is such a frustrating
issue for me to deal with. I would have thought that to show that
evidence was false would have led to the correct legal resolution, but
the way the British Legal System works is that they simply do not
accept that a prosecution witness could have given false evidence,
especially when that witness concerned was some sort of acknowledged
expert like Professor Meirion Francis Lewis CBE, Fellow of the
Institute of Physics and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering -
as well as being some sort of stamp-collecting expert.
I published all of Prof Lewis's evidence on the Web:
http://cryptome.org/smith-lewis.htm
Now, that may not mean much to you unless you have really read what he
says ...
I do not accept that his evidence was either accurate or unbiased, and
I shall be publishing my interpretation of his errors very soon.
Forget the lawyers, as they are not going to help resolve issues like
this. After all, Sir John Nutting QC was the guy who was asking Lewis
all the questions in court, and then the Judge John Blofeld starting
jointing in with new issues not previously mentioned by anyone. It was
clear that these lawyers had been briefed beforehand about what lies
were going to be put to the jury, and that they were going to sabotage
the defence case with the ALARM ambush tactic. Just read Lewis's
testimony and you will see how it unfolded.
Freddy
>
> How do you mean? You claim to have new evidence that wasn't presented at trial,
> and you claim it can show your innocence - correct? Now I'm not a bloody lawyer
> but it seems to me you should be applying for leave to appeal;
Bringing new evidence costs money, rocking the boat as this new
evidence will do will certainly rock the boat, so any barrister/
solicitor who may want to take an interest will ask a fortune to take
the case on simply because if he/she wins the profession will freeze
them out of practise, corruption is rife in the UK matey and justice
suffers for it, the toffs wont or cant pay any more, the so called
elite are pretenders to fair play, honesty, morality and ethics, in
other words shits of the 1st order.
Mike Smith
You put your finger on the problem there. I have been through the
normal legal routes and they all come to dead ends, because the powers
behind my case (MI5, the MoD, etc) are pulling the strings to prevent
me getting justice.
I have tried to interest lawyers in my case but they all give excuses
like they are "too busy", or they never give me a proper answer - all
because they are afraid to get involved in a case that could damage
their career by showing they are going against the Establishment.