Is anyone able to be at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EH on Tuesday, to take notes?
The case in question is: Case ref: T20177401 / Jack Andrew Renshaw. As you will see (below) last August, Jack withdrew his Guilty Plea – as is his right – and the judge has now chosen to ignore that withdrawal! According to the law, a plea may be withdrawn as long as the sentence has not been imposed, and the sentence STILL hasn’t been imposed, but Judge X (AS IN “x”!) has chosen to ignore the rule of law.
I have heard on the grapevine that Jack Renshaw is in court on Tuesday 19th February 2019, and maybe with some more of our friends. The courts and prison authorities continue to act unlawfully and withhold information to and from prisoners, which makes it nigh on impossible to have a cohesive discussion with a prisoner. In this instance, you will see from the notice below and the Withdrawal of Guilty Plea, attached, that Jack Renshaw is being treated unlawfully (and by association, all the other former NA people).
It’s absolutely crucial that the treatment of these defendants is witnessed and recorded, as the charges against all of them are non-existent crimes, and they are test cases for the tyrants to put whistle blowers behind bars for a very long time. Despite all the gossip, as to who did, or said, such and such a thing, you must take it all with a (large) pinch of salt, because no crimes have actually been committed. Regardless of any Race Act; Public Order Act; Immigration Act; so-called Terrorism Act (for exposing the truth!) or ANY other Legislative Act, if such an Act contravenes our Constitutional Common Law is bad law and as such it requires the consent of the sovereign people to make it law, and WE DO NOT CONSENT!
PLEASE DO NOT DOUBT THIS, AS IT IS A FACT!
With regard to the legislative power in England, one the greatest stalwarts of the English Common Law, Sir Edward Coke (“Cook”) said that: “When an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void.”
The above statement is just one of hundreds of such statements and it means that ANY Act of Parliament which contravenes our Constitutional Common Law can be ruled null and void – and that includes the so-called Race / Immigration / Hate Laws.
You may be wondering how we will go about this; and it starts with people being present in court during such cases to witness the proceedings and take notes. Whether or not your hearing is good, you have the right to request a Hearing Loop, and wearing one of those will enable you to hear every word. If the judge, prosecutor or even the defence counsel says or does anything unlawful, the subsequent Court Order can be declared Void. Also, if the judge tells the jury that they must NOT judge the law in question and must only consider the facts of the case – he will have broken the law! It is the jury’s job to consider BOTH the facts AND the “law” in question and if just ONE JUROR believes that the legislation is unfair, then he should find the defendant Not Guilty. Under our Rule of Law, such a decision by a jury MUST cause that unsafe Legislative Act to be ANNULLED. Also, the jury’s decision MUST be unanimous – so, it requires all 12 to agree on a Guilty verdict, otherwise the defendant is Not Guilty. If the judge accepts 11 to 1 or 10 to 2, or if he does anything else which is unlawful (AND THEY NEARLY ALWAYS DO) then he has broken the law and the court order can be voided.
We must start to believe that such things are true, because if we don’t demand justice, we will never get it! Remember, it could be any one of us in the dock and facing 20 years in a gulag, for doing nothing unlawful! Please get to the court if you can and take lots of notes.
Thanks very much.
M ” [ends]
“From: M, Common Law Advocate to Jack Andrew Renshaw
Date: 15th February 2019
In the matter of the legal person Mr Jack Andrew Renshaw
Case number: T20177401
To Mr Justice x and Officers of the Court at the Old Bailey
VERY URGENT NOTICE – WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA IGNORED!
Mr Justice x; ladies and gentlemen, Officers of the Court,
You will recall that, on 14/9/2018, you were all issued with a copy of the notice shown below, which was signed and dated by Jack Renshaw on 05/09/2018 (copy attached); it is a lawful Withdrawal of Guilty Plea. It has now come to my attention that the Court has decided to ignore that notice and proceed with the case, as if that Guilty Plea had NOT been withdrawn. However, you will ALL be well aware that to ignore that document would be an unlawful act and I request that you all obey the Constitutional Common Law of the Land and uphold the natural rights of Jack Renshaw, regardless of any unlawful directions.
You may feel that, as Jack Renshaw now has a new law firm representing him within the legislative statute framework, you were not required to inform me, the issuer of the said document, of the Court’s decision to ignore that Withdrawal Plea. You may believe that it was just an oversight, but it could be argued that it was a purposeful oversight, in order to keep a lid on unlawful actions. Therefore, I would like to make it very clear that, although Jack Renshaw has engaged a statute law firm; that fact does not preclude me from advising him on matters of Constitutional Common Law and indeed the Natural Law, and also making him aware of actions that should and should not be carried out by Officers of the Court, regardless of their position. The general public are now becoming much more aware of the unlawful methods which proceed in British Courts on a daily basis, and the fact that any such unlawful action may render the Court Order as null and void.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ENTIRELY UNLAWFUL, BUT CONTINUE ON A DAILY BASIS:
Fact1: “Lawyers cannot present defence or evidence which exonerates defendants if it disputes the legality of the law.”
Fact 2: “Lawyers must abide by the court’s authority whenever judges rule out exonerative evidence.”
You are reminded that any ‘cosy deals’ which conceal evidential truths and lead to the unlawful prosecution and incarceration of innocent people, will be exposed for the fraudulent actions that they are. While the general public believes that truth and justice takes place within judicial buildings, the truth is often quite the reverse and the once-great and just Trial-By-Jury-System-Of-Justice-And-Democracy, has been abandoned in the government’s tyrannical desire to ensure the subservience of the British people. In shameful meek obedience, lawyers do not dispute the ‘law’ even when its enforcement is manifest injustice. Where the law is unjust and the defendants are innocent of any crime (no mens rea), lawyers nevertheless ‘advise’ people to plead guilty and make plea bargains, rather than their pleading Not Guilty.
The report, ‘The Progenitor of Crime’, puts it thus:
‘The educated people who comprise the ‘legal profession’ are, by their acquiescence and continued participation in the unlawful, perverted processes of today, more to blame than any other group in society for the destruction of the Constitutional Justice System; and for all the inevitably ensuing totalitarian injustice that results therefrom: the enactment and prosecution of ex parte, money-motivated statutes; the abuse of innocent citizens; wrongful penalisation; and the mass incarcerations at the highest per capita in history.’
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, LORD DENNING, FAMOUSLY SAID THE FOLLOWING:
“A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing.” Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. 1961.
Officers of the Court, please understand that the eyes of the world are taking notice of what is currently happening in British courts and not least in this particular case and the many other ‘stitch-ups’ that have taken place in recent years; all of which are designed to silence the multitude of voices opposing the tyrannical governance and Judicial System. You will all be aware of the Constitutional Common Law of the Land and the fact that the Withdrawal of a Guilty Plea is a natural right, if submitted prior to sentencing, as indeed it was. Therefore, any action to disregard it would render any subsequent Court Order Null and Void and the Court has now been made aware that any such action would be a wilful unlawful act.
COURTS MUST UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW OF THIS LAND:
The Court must act in accordance with Magna Carta 1215 Articles 39 & 52; and the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6; Right to a Fair Trial: Sections 1; 2; 3(b) (c) (d) and 3.66.
MAGNA CARTA 1215:
…‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.’ -Magna Carta 1215 Article 39.
…’To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals … or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite… we will at once render justice in full.’ – Magna Carta 1215 Article 52.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998:
…’Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.’ – Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 Protection of property.
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS AS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A FAIR TRIAL:
‘The Court, using the privilege of the “elements that are always present within a right” theory, has significantly enriched the content of the right to a fair trial, governed by Article 6 of the Convention.’ – Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 Equality of Arms.
BLACKSTONE ON JURIES:
“Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts, without the intervention of a jury… is a step towards establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.” – Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws of England.
THE JUROR’S DUTY:
“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law. That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree, He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.” U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone: Harvard Law Review.
TRIAL BY JURY IS THE GLORY OF ENGLISH LAW:
“The trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals.”
Sir William Blackstone; Book 3: Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England.
THE DEMISE OF JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY:
“Look at the orators in our republic’s assembly! As long as they are poor, both the state and the people can only praise their uprightness; but once they become fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack democracy.”
Those who witness the proceedings of this trial will remain watchful for any unlawful actions, inactions and directions which may take place and we trust that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will transpire.
I write without ill will vexatiousness or frivolity,
NOTICE – WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA
This document is presented to the court as a declaration of a Withdrawal of a Guilty Plea for reasons explained herein.
Presented by email to:
The Central Criminal Court
The Court Officer
Central Criminal Court
The Crown Prosecution Service
102 Petty France,
Also copied to: z
In the matter of the legal person Mr Jack Andrew Renshaw
Case number: T20177401
DATE OF RE-TRIAL: NO DATE SET
PREPARING ACTS OF TERRORISM; MAKING A THREAT TO KILL; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER; AND INVOLVEMENT IN A PROSCRIBED ORGANISATION.
In accordance with rule 39.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, I now wish to withdraw my Guilty plea for the following reasons:
• I now believe that pleading Guilty was wrong, because I am not guilty and that plea was certainly not in my best interests;
• I have now had time to reflect on my plea and have discovered that merely having guilty thoughts does not constitute a crime;
• I cannot be convicted for my thoughts; therefore it would be unjust for the guilty plea to remain;
• Also, as I have not committed a crime, there is no case to answer……
redacted file: NOTICE TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA sent to court / officials + connected
An alleged member of a banned neo Nazi group has admitted planning to murder a Labour MP in an act of what he termed “white jihad”, a jury has heard.
Jack Renshaw, 23, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to preparing an act of terrorism by buying a machete to kill West Lancashire MP Rosie Cooper.
He also admitted making a threat to kill police officer Victoria Henderson.
Renshaw, of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, is one of six men on trial who deny being in the group National Action.
The other accused are: Christopher Lythgoe, 32, and Michal Trubini, 35, both from Warrington; Matthew Hankinson, 24, from Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside; Andrew Clarke, 33, from Prescot, Merseyside, and Garron Helm, 24, from Seaforth, Merseyside.
Mr Lythgoe also denies encouragement to murder by allegedly giving Renshaw permission to kill Ms Cooper on behalf of the group.
Renshaw had previously denied the two charges, but changed his pleas at the start of his trial.
Prosecutors said Renshaw wanted to take hostages to lure Det Con Henderson to the scene so he could kill her too.
But the court heard the plan was foiled after a disenchanted former member of National Action reported the threat to Hope Not Hate, an organisation seeking to combat extreme right-wing political racism.
‘Sought his blessing’
Prosecutors told the jury that National Action had supported the murder of MP Jo Cox in June 2016.
Duncan Atkinson QC, said the defendants were “not being prosecuted for their racist or neo-Nazi beliefs, however repulsive they may be, but for their participation in a banned organisation that sought actively through fear, intimidation and the threat of violence rather than through free speech and democracy to shape society”.
He said Renshaw was preparing a “politically and racially motivated murder”, and had sought the “blessing” of Mr Lythgoe.
Mr Lythgoe, the prosecutor added, was effectively the national leader of National Action and “nothing significant” happened without his approval.
He said National Action had engaged in a “campaign of virulent anti-Semitic and homophobic propaganda” since 2013.
It was formally put on a government list of proscribed organisations in December 2016, but the defendants’ active participation in the group did not stop with the ban, Mr Atkinson said.
Jurors were told that Mr Lythgoe sent an email to others members just before the ban, saying: “Long term we’ll keep moving forward just as we have been” – and the next day he wrote: “We are just shedding one skin for another”.
Mr Atkinson told the court that Robbie Mullen had been a member of National Action before the ban but became disillusioned with the group, particularly after the murder of Jo Cox.
Jurors heard that, on 1 July last year, at a meeting attended by most of the defendants and Mr Mullen, Renshaw said that he planned to kill Rosie Cooper.
The court heard Renshaw said he had already purchased a 19-inch (50 cm) long machete, and it was later found at his home.
Mr Atkinson said Renshaw’s “objective was not simply to make a political point, as he put it to kill for National Action and white jihad, but to revenge himself on those he considered to be persecuting him”, namely Lancashire Police, and Det Con Henderson in particular.
Renshaw told the meeting that after killing Ms Cooper, he would take hostages, and demand Det Con Henderson attend the scene, the prosecution claimed.
“His plan then would be to kill that officer who was, he said, his real target,” Mr Atkinson told jurors.”
The court heard Renshaw had been arrested in January 2017 on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over two anti-Semitic speeches he had given.
He was interviewed by Det Con Henderson and another officer and then for a second time after analysis of a seized mobile phone “revealed what the police considered to be evidence of child sex offences or grooming”.
Renshaw had talked about how police were trying to destroy his life and make it sound like he was a paedophile, prosecutor said.
He said after he had killed the officer he would commit “suicide by cop” by pretending to be wearing a suicide vest and would also make a video to say the attack had been done on behalf of National Action.
Jurors were told Mr Mullen believed Renshaw was serious and there was an imminent threat to life, and reported what had been said to his contacts at Hope not Hate.
Hope not Hate director Nick Lowles alerted the MP Ruth Smeeth – who once worked at the charity – and she in turn warned Ms Cooper, leading to the police inquiry, Mr Atkinson said.
The trial was adjourned until Wednesday.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: DISCLAIMER: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.
“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”