Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara
The following reminiscence was written from my notes of last year’s trial against John Anthony Hill, the DVD mailer, which I attended. It shows the reality of court, which is nothing like the logical Hollywood or TV fiction courtroom dramas the public are given to watch.
To sum up quickly what John did: He posted a DVD documentary to a UK court. A documentary that was already widely available in the public domain on youtube and google videos. Almost the entire documentary is from the BBC, ITV, New York Times and other mainstream news. The UK trial involved Muslim men who were accused of terrorism (who were found innocent after John’s trial). The documentary mentions four other men and not the men on trial in Britain. The British government obtained a European Arrest warrant for John’s extradition to the UK to face a new trial and face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. John originally helped produce the documentary that shows British government officials making major and embarrassing contradictions.
I never expected it to be anything like how it was. At times it was similar to being in a court with Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver describing his travels. At the first moment of the trial I saw that the defending barrister had his black robe hanging down around his elbows that was perfectly upright before the start. I had a strong urge to pull it back up like helping a disorderly four-year-old child with his coat. It remained dangling around his elbows for the entire hearing, for over one hour.
Every time the defending barrister stood up he was hunched over and limp. When it was the prosecuting barrister’s round to argue he stood up straight, firm and confident but I could not believe he actually said the things he did. One of his arguments brought up the fact that John used a pen name in his documentary and he cynically added that everyone has freedom of expression… but why was it done anonymously? Aha! I did not know whether he was trying to prosecute John or the literary establishment, George Orwell aka Eric Blair, and most journalists who use a pen name. This imaginary dark cloud that now hung over John was not challenged by the Judge or by the defence. It was not difficult to sense we were no longer in the realm of critical thinking. From my memories of wasting time with online forums I thought these guys would not last four minutes before they were laughed out of any online forum with their cloaks between their legs. However, I thought, they do not seem like the type that embarrass easily; after all they do wear dresses and wigs.
The drooping defence barrister did make a couple of good points, however I noticed they were followed quickly by the term “park it”. I do not know whether “park it” has any legal definition other than don’t contemplate that for the moment. The defending barrister was stuttering a lot but he sputtered even more when he called the judge a judge, which was followed by “respectfully your lordship”. In Ireland the judge does not have to be addressed as lordship any more, but I see old pseudo dogma worship dies hard. There were male twins in the room who worked for the court, one on the left and on the right; it reminded me of Gemini which did not help lessen the bizarreness.
The small remainder of John’s documentary that is not from mainstream media is his political opinion. On the European Arrest Warrant it says no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments and the term “freedom of expression” brought up and how there are limitations to that such as not going into court with a machine gun and killing everyone. I wish I was the one who brought that wretched machine gun point up in this article but unfortunately that was stated in court and not by the prosecuting barrister but by John’s defending barrister. Again and again I could not believe what I was hearing. The prosecutor said something very revealing when he quoted Mark Twain, “It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.”
The prosecutor mentioned that John must have sent the DVDs to the court with the intention of thinking the accused men where innocent! I never heard that countered with the law states that every person is innocent until proven guilty. As far as I know that right has not been taken away… yet. Actually scratch that last sentence, Guantanamo bay and other similar U.S. and UK rented facilities worldwide temporarily slipped my mind. John is charged with a common law offence, attempting to pervert the course of justice. If you take the non-law society meaning of that (our society’s meaning) it implies that there is a predetermined course/destination and any relevant information could pervert or change that course. The accused men are Muslim (the modern persecuted Jews), so what might you think that course of justice was? The legal common law definition of perverting the course of justices is: “1) Fabricating or disposing of evidence, 2) Intimidating a witness or juror, 3) Threatening a witness or juror”. There was no fabricating of evidence, over 80% of the film is from public main stream media and the rest is John’s political opinion relating to that information. His film was also in the public domain on youtube. The film never even mentions the three men on trial, it is about four different men. Intimidating or threatening was not mentioned on the European Arrest Warrant of course as no letter was sent and John is a peaceful spiritual man. I fear John might be sent to prison in the UK to set a new precedent taking away even more little freedoms we have left.
As a small few outside the court were handing people entering the four courts copies of John’s DVD the judge inside said what John did is not a crime in Ireland. Another one of the conditions of the European Arrest Warrant is that the charge must be a similar offence in Ireland. It would be like posting a newspaper to a court or handing a DVD to a person entering a court, who could well be a jury member. Western governments over the past few years have dismantled a lot of rights that protect innocent people under the guise of terrorism. We are told the terrorists want to take away our freedoms, well look at who is taking them away, if it quacks like a duck… Do you really think Muslims are jealous of John’s freedom to post a DVD to people he is sure would be interested in the topic?
Posting a bomb was also mentioned and then they discuses hypothetical scenarios that could arise. There is no need for hypothetical folly, that scenario is covered in the European Arrest Warrant, a bomb is terrorism and that is a more serious type of European arrest warrant that falls into what is called the “European framework list” which has different conditions for extradition. John’s warrant says, “the extradition offences specified does not fall within the European framework list”.
John living in Ireland is afforded the rights of the Irish constitution, which the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) also states. Despite this the confident prosecutor twists us into fantasy land by saying the Irish constitution dose not stretch in to England or anywhere else outside Ireland. Yes, we know this, John mailed the DVD in Ireland, John and yourself are in a court in Ireland, the EAW says John is under the Irish constitution and the offence must be a similar offence in Ireland. He then goes on to talk about raping a woman in another part of Europe. At this point I am wishing for the case to end as if we stay here any longer our brains could be twisted into a pretzel.
A few days before the case John wrote a great statement highlighting articles of the Irish constitution and the European Arrest Warrant. John said he made sure his barrister had this a few days beforehand, about 10% of it mentioned god but even that involved the law as it highlighted the fact the Judge swore an oath to god under the constitution. However, near the end of the trial John was still requesting that his barrister represent him by reading this out. After many attempts the barrister finally gave in and asked the “lordship” if the could do so. The judge said if it’s just about John’s beliefs he does not want to hear it and John’s barrister said yes it’s about his beliefs and it was not read. Throughout the trial the judge referred directly to the John Hill’s barrister as Mr. Hill himself, it’s standard practice as the barrister imaginarily represents another person. The prosecutor while making his closing statement sticks up his leg and rests his knee on the short table in front of him. After that the judge said he will decide in a few weeks after watching John’s DVD (7/7 Ripple Effect). John, desperate to have the articles of law he wrote down in his statement heard in court, stood up and asked the judge if he could please read it and the judge told him the trial is over.
I can’t say I enjoyed the show.
After a few weeks the judge said he did not watch the DVD and found John guilty. John is appealing the verdict. And since then the Lisbon Treaty was put into force making the Irish constitution redundant, not that the constitution was followed beforehand (in significant cases).
7/7 Ripple Effect