Day 1, 23.Oct.2008 a unreported portion of trial
Tonight I decided to write some thing about the trial which had been excitingly foul.
A side story is famiLEE LEEgime AGC came to court 5 to try to serve document to Rizal & Shaffi to have them charged in high court for kangaroo T-shirt matters. I think calling the famiLEE LEEgime's courts Kangaroo disgraced the hopping Australian symbol.
When the trial proceeded until about 3-4 PM, the DPP began to make application for a joint trial for whole lot of few dozen charges faced by all the activists. ALL the accused persons objected the joint trial.
I pointed out at that point that, entire trial since 9:30am that morning had already been unlawful in violation of CPC section 168, that the trials had been already proceeded in illegally joint manner since 9:30am, in that trials are supposed to be separated until, application for joint trial had been made and ruled for. In the entire proceeding since 9:30am, 1 presiding judge, and 1 prosecutor had already jointly dealt with dozens of charges involving 19 accused persons, TOGETHER in COLLECTIVE instead of individual manner, and matters such as copies of video evidence had been handled by court in joint manner, all these took place before any application nor ruling of joint trial had been made.
I knew since before the trial began that they were going to proceed in that unlawful manner, but I had just awaited until they started to make application of joint trial under CPC section 176, at about 4PM.
I asserted that the trial is thus already a mistrial, and all the unlawful proceedings this morning in violation against CPC section 168 are illegitimate and thus VOID. However, the famiLEE LEEgime court entirely ignore this and proceeded on as if nothing happened.
I reiterated to judge by likening this illegal trial to Pre-Marital Sex, that people had sex first and then go to ROM later to legitimize their sexual joining. :-)
Consider this: if famiLEE LEEgime's court could unlawfully join the trials first and then later legitimize it by an application, why can activists protest first and then make application for license of assembly and procession later?
What illegitimacy has the famiLEE LEEgime court got to try activists for assembly and procession without a license when itself had already broke law in similar manner at the very beginning of trial?
Sammyboy.Com thread
A side story is famiLEE LEEgime AGC came to court 5 to try to serve document to Rizal & Shaffi to have them charged in high court for kangaroo T-shirt matters. I think calling the famiLEE LEEgime's courts Kangaroo disgraced the hopping Australian symbol.
When the trial proceeded until about 3-4 PM, the DPP began to make application for a joint trial for whole lot of few dozen charges faced by all the activists. ALL the accused persons objected the joint trial.
I pointed out at that point that, entire trial since 9:30am that morning had already been unlawful in violation of CPC section 168, that the trials had been already proceeded in illegally joint manner since 9:30am, in that trials are supposed to be separated until, application for joint trial had been made and ruled for. In the entire proceeding since 9:30am, 1 presiding judge, and 1 prosecutor had already jointly dealt with dozens of charges involving 19 accused persons, TOGETHER in COLLECTIVE instead of individual manner, and matters such as copies of video evidence had been handled by court in joint manner, all these took place before any application nor ruling of joint trial had been made.
Separate charges for distinct offences.
168. For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in sections 169, 170, 172 and 176.
I knew since before the trial began that they were going to proceed in that unlawful manner, but I had just awaited until they started to make application of joint trial under CPC section 176, at about 4PM.
I asserted that the trial is thus already a mistrial, and all the unlawful proceedings this morning in violation against CPC section 168 are illegitimate and thus VOID. However, the famiLEE LEEgime court entirely ignore this and proceeded on as if nothing happened.
I reiterated to judge by likening this illegal trial to Pre-Marital Sex, that people had sex first and then go to ROM later to legitimize their sexual joining. :-)
Consider this: if famiLEE LEEgime's court could unlawfully join the trials first and then later legitimize it by an application, why can activists protest first and then make application for license of assembly and procession later?
What illegitimacy has the famiLEE LEEgime court got to try activists for assembly and procession without a license when itself had already broke law in similar manner at the very beginning of trial?
Sammyboy.Com thread
posted by uncleyap at 2:14 AM
<< Home