THE LATEST NEWS, AS IT IS RECEIVED, OF THE
Persecution of an Old Campaigner
SATURDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2001 YORKSHIRE EVENING POST
Race hate case is halted
THE former leader of the extreme right-wing British Movement, Colin Jordan, has succeeded in halting a court case against him on charges of inciting racial hatred.
A judge at Leeds Crown Court ruled that Jordan, 78, of Greenhow Hill, Pateley Bridge, was unfit to stand trial because of a serious heart condition.
However, the Recorder of Leeds, Norman Jones QC, said the ruling would continue providing Jordan did not improve to a condition where he was no longer medically unfit, or “engage in any activity either political, social or personal, that demonstrates to the satisfaction of a court that he is able to stand trial, irrespective of his medical condition.”
Jordan said he may appeal over the conditions.
He faces 11 charges of the publication or distribution of written material which was threatening, abusive or insulting and was either intended to or likely to stir up racial hatred.
A co-accused, Anthony. Hancock, 54, of Hove, Sussex, faces two charges of aiding and abetting Jordan by printing the material.
Leeds Crown Court Case T 2000 1984
R. v. J. C. C. Jordan and A. J. S. Hancock
APPLICATION FOR WRITTEN RECORD OF JUDGE’S DECISIONS AT HEARING 23 NOVEMBER, 2001, REQUIRED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN LONDON AS PART OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
At the hearing on 23 November, 2001, Judge N. Jones laid down two decisions which the Defendant is going to challenge by way of an Application to the High Court of Justice in London, Queens Bench Division, for a Judicial Review, as he gave notice at the hearing he would be doing.
Those two decisions are as follows:–
(1) The second of two conditions the Judge imposed in promulgating a stay of prosecution of the Defendant in the light of the reports from three cardiac consultants that the Defendant is definitely unfit for trial; this second condition laying down that he is not to engage in political or other activity that a court could reckon to demonstrate that he has become fit for trial, a condition which has been reported by both the Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post of Saturday, 24 November, 2001, and which the Defendant holds to be equivalent to a suspended sentence for the rest of his life, detached from and by-passing and obviating professional medical opinion, vesting courts with a power to act without recourse to a doctor or medical consultant. As the Defendant immediately told the Judge in court as soon as he imposed this condition, he, the Defendant, would not at any time in any court in the land accept such a purely political imposition. Such an imposition is tantamount to an act of surveillance, censorship and prohibition conflicting with the purpose of the Human Rights Act of the U.K. under Article 6 of which the Judge has been obliged to stay the prosecution in consequence of the Defendant’s submission in this precise respect.
(2) The evasion, and thereby in effect the rejection of the Defendant’s Application of 18 October, 2001, for the court to censure the seizure of and order the immediate return to the Defendant of ‘Special Procedure Material’ (‘Journalistic Material’) in excess of 790 items unlawfully seized without the requisite authority of a circuit judge in disregard of the-Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court had been reminded of this outstanding Application by a ‘Final Submission’ from the Defendant of 20 November, 2001, just before the hearing on 23 November. Yet at that hearing the Judge held the matter over, unresolved, till next April, four months ahead, when a co-defendant may be put on trial, accepting the spurious argument from the Crown Prosecution Service that the material might be required for that other trial, whereas, if the ‘Special Procedure Material’ was illegally seized, it should clearly not be retained for any possible future use – and with such use at least most unlikely if not utterly unimaginable. Therefore it can but seem that the Judge’s treatment of the Application is a wrongful attempt to evade the issue of the Application. The Defendant insists that this property Application can be and needs to be dealt with and decided now without months of further delay, the Defendant having already been deprived of the material in question, needed for his work as a journalist, for three years and four months.
The Application form for Judicial Review, N 461, issued by the Administrative Court in London, specifies as one of the documents required in support of an Application: ‘Where the claim for judicial review relates to a decision of a court or tribunal, an approved copy of the reasons for reaching that decision.’
Thus the Defendant here requests and requires Judge N. Jones now to arrange the issue to the Defendant of a written record of his rulings in the above two respects, certified by affixture of the court stamp. He does so having understood from having spoken to a clerk of the court after the termination of the hearing that a written record of judgement is not provided without an approved application.
26 November, 2001
J. C. C. Jordan
Copy:– Administrative Court, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
‘When I went to court on 25 October, it was to find that the judge was ill, and the hearing postponed till 23 November, at which time these preliminary hearings will have been going on for almost a year, and the whole business for well over three years since the first police raid on 4 August 1998. On 23 November I expect a decision as to whether they intend to persist in the prosecution and stage a trial, despite the medical evidence of three consultants to the effect that because of my heart condition I am unfit for a trial estimated to take up to a month, or discontinue proceedings. They are sitting on a submission of mine of months ago that to put me on trial would be a violation of Article 6 of the UK Human Rights Act requiring a fair trial which cannot come about if the Defendant is unfit to conduct his own case.
‘The CPS has recently asked the Attorney General if he will issue a warrant of Nolle Prosequi terminating the prosecution but he – the Jew Lord Goldsmith – has responded that the continuation of the prosecution is “in the public interest.”’
1 November, 2001
From Gothic Ripples, September 2001:
“THE CASE CONTINUES. The 4th preliminary hearing at Leeds Crown Court in the prosecution against me took place on 11 May, concerned with my medical condition. At it the Crown Prosecution Service produced a cardiac consultant of their own arrangement who had examined me and reported me to be currently unfit for trial, but proposed various treatments which might render me fit. Under cross-examination by me he admitted they involved the possibility of harmful side-effects. The judge thereupon ruled there should be a further hearing on 3 September to consider a further report to be required from my own consultant. Shortly afterwards I sent in a report from another consultant I engaged, a Dr Boyle, who said like my first one, Dr Williams, that I am unfit and expected to remain so. On 3 September the awaited further report from Dr Williams had not yet reached the court which thereupon fixed yet another hearing for 4 October to consider it.”
HEARING AT 2pm AT LEEDS CROWN COURT 11th MAY 2001: Colin Jordan challenged for a Stay of Trial on health grounds. After a 45-minute summing up the judge ordered the proceedings to continue but with further medical reports of Jordan’s heart condition in August. “The Attorney General is adamant that the trial goes ahead.”
Jordan is to apply for a Judicial Review under Article 6 of the Human Rights legislation in regard of his fitness to endure the expected 30-day trial.
TRIAL POSTPONED in pursuit of medical reports
The trial in the case of R. versus Jordan & Hancock (the ‘R’ stylised as standing for ‘Regina’ – the Queen – but more appropriately standing for ‘Renegades’) was originally set to start on 7 March 2001, then put back to 12 March, and has now been put back till 3 September in pursuit of medical reports. The case number, recalling George Orwell’s book, is appropriately T2000 1984. We have indeed nowadays Orwellian thought control.
Continuing the story, at another preliminary hearing at Leeds Crown Court on 27 February I presented – in relation to a submission under Article 6 (1) of the UK Human Rights Act, of denial of a fair trial because of medical unfitness – an interim report from a cardiac specialist, Dr Gordon Williams, indicating unfitness due to congestive heart failure. The judge thereupon called for a final report from this specialist to be obtained for a further preliminary hearing on 14 March. At that hearing the specialist’s final report definitely pronounced me unfit for a trial the court has estimated will last a month, where I would be preparing and conducting my own case, and with a long journey to and from the court each day.
There and then the Crown Prosecution Service demanded a second opinion, presenting a list of specialists of its choosing. I challenged this choosing by an adversary in the case, and the Judge adjourned proceedings while he went off to try and telephone my specialist as to what he had to say about those choices. After about an hour he returned to say that Dr Williams had not spoken against the CPS choices, but had suggested another one on which the judge and I agreed as first choice.
The judge then withdrew, leaving the CPS to draft the letter to the agreed Dr Stoker, requiring my signature of sanction. There was then a heated argument between the two CPS barristers present and myself as to the wording of the letter, the CPS craftily trying to so word the question of fitness as to give no indication of the length of the trial, the fact of preparing and conducting the case without legal services, and the fact of the daily travel, all three of these factors obviously needing to be put before the specialist for him to give a relevant opinion. I refused to sign a waiver of medical confidentiality in this respect and required the judge to be recalled to resolve the matter. He came back and I got my way, so the letter was revised to my satisfaction.Since then the guileful CPS has held back from sending the letter to Dr Stoker on some excuse of waiting to see if medication improves my condition, whereas Dr Williams has clearly said that it can only ‘contain’ that condition, not cure it. I have therefore told both the court and the CPS that unless the letter goes to Dr Stoker by 5 April I will withdraw my necessary sanction for it. Thus the state of play at the moment. There is yet another preliminary hearing set for 14 May.
Earlier was reported the two Judicial Reviews applied for. Both of them have been refused. Also the formal complaint of an offence under the Genocide Act by the person known as ‘Jack Straw,’ this surname it may be presumed having been adopted in keeping with the common Jewish practice amounting to false pretences. The complaint was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Harrogate Police Station at the beginning of December last, and ignored as have been two succeeding letters concerning it. The matter of this dereliction of duty is now being put before the Police Complaints Authority, although I am aware that this resolves into the police judging themselves.
From Gothic Ripples No 43, May 2001
At the Pleas and Directions hearing on the 14th March, Colin Jordan’s quite favourable medical report was not accepted by the judge. There is now to be another Pleas and Directions hearing on the 14 May, by which time another medical report – by a court-appointed physician – will have been obtained. If the trial goes ahead, it could be around October or November. It is expected to last 3 – 4 weeks.
Tony Hancock, who is Jordan’s co-defendant, accused of “aiding and abetting” by committing the heinous crime of printing his material (probably the first case in British history of a printer being prosecuted for what he prints), applied to be excused attendance at the next Pleas and Directions hearing on the grounds that he had to travel hundreds of miles to hear matters which did not concern him. The judge, who was very antagonistic, refused.
On 27 February Colin Jordan made five submissions under the Human Rights legislation and requested that the trial be transferred back to York Crown Court. All his applications were rejected. He now faces commuting a long distance to court every day for the trial.
In Blair’s Britain ‘democracy’ is a fraud whereby the parasitic and renegade politicians – the gang ruining Britain by policies and practices amounting to genocide, and prosecuting Colin Jordan for exposing this – pretend that the ordinary people decide matters whereas they and their masters behind the scenes do that.
As part of the fraud, Blair has brought in a Human Rights Act prominently advertised for example in the London Daily Telegraph on 30 September, 2000, three days before it came into force.
Experience told me to suspect that it would never work for racial patriots, but this had to be proved by putting it to the test, so three days after it came into force I put in an application at Harrogate County Court accusing Harrogate Magistrates Court, the North Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service of violating Article 6, laying down trial ‘within a reasonable time,’ by delaying it for over two years; Article 8, purporting to protect one’s correspondence, whereas mine has been seized indiscriminately and in bulk in police raids; and Article 10 which gives everyone the right of freedom of expression, whereas I have been raided and am being prosecuted for exercising that right.
I put in my application having beforehand been assured by the County Court office that, if I set my claim as not exceeding £5,000 damages – which I did – this would put me in the ‘small claims’ category which excludes the cost of professional legal services as either an award, if you are successful, or an imposition, if you fail. I even double-checked the information later at the same court office.
The case came up in court on 15 December, 2000. Conducting my own case, it was apparent to me from the start that Circuit Judge Cockcroft was prejudiced against me for who I am in a political case. He beamed amiability at the barrister for the other side, one of the monstrously overpaid legal brotherhood set above ordinary mortals by his fancy dress and wig, graciously allowing all his interventions while treating me with stern brusqueness. He lost no time in declaring that I had not sufficiently ‘particularised’ my allegations, though I had, beyond the restricted space the claim form allowed me, elaborated the details in two written responses to documents from the other side which I had sent to both the court and the other side before the hearing. Concluding the proceedings, he completely rejected my claim as I had expected from his demeanour, and then, to my surprise in view of the court office’s information to the contrary, declared that costs should be imposed on me, the assessment of which is to be made after the conclusion of the trial.
I protested, citing the information twice given me by the court office, and drew attention to the fact in support of this that in both my above-mentioned written responses I had before the hearing repelled claims of costs from the other side by citing the court office information, but this to no avail with the hostile judge who, when at the last moment I enquired as to an avenue of appeal against the imposition, curtly told me ‘You’ve had an appeal – to me!’
The total of costs claimed by the Defendants, who are agents of the persecution of patriots in the service of genocide, is £11,440.20. This is my punishment – part of the conspiracy to silence me – for having the temerity to try to make the Human Rights Act work for our sort of people. Since my modest means would not allow such a payment, even if I was prepared to make it, they will by way of Judge Cockcroft either have to render me bankrupt or consign me to prison for non-payment. Such is the cost of claiming your rights under Blair’s fraudulent Human Rights Act!
‘The British National Party is besotted with the belief that, having taken on its new look under the trimmers who have come to power, its current election results – such as the 2.73% in the Greater London Authority election in May, 2000 – show that it is making such progress that in the fullness of time it will get to power by the ballot box. This is sheer illusion. On the contrary, in the fullness of time the coloured electorate is bound so to increase by virtue of present and continuing immigration and the coloured birthrate that, added to the hostile white electorate, it is inconceivable that the BNP can get enough votes to win enough parliamentary seats at Westminster to form a government; even assuming that the old parties of “Democracy” allow it to operate to the point of being any real danger, which is virtually inconceivable also. The crucial fact is that however much the BNP vote may increase, at least for the present, the coloured vote is bound to increase in the future more rapidly, and within the context that coloureds are set eventually to become not so far into this century a majority of Britain’s population. Thus the BNP is putting all its effort into pursuing a hopeless and wasteful illusion.’
Colin Jordan, who is next in line for the Race Act “chopping block.”
My Human Rights Act case came up at Harrogate County Court on 15 December. The judge, with most specious arguments did as I expected and downed the case, but I considered it desirable to put the Act to the test, and can now say with experience that it is a confidence trick, a window-dressing act and no more.
In the prosecution against me, the ‘Pleas and Directions’ preliminary hearing took place at Leeds Crown Court on 11 and 12 December. My submission for a return of the case to York Crown Court (from which it had been transferred to Leeds Crown Court) was rejected. My submission regarding inadmissible evidence was held over, as was my application for a witness summons to Jack Straw, till a continuation hearing on 27 February, and the trial date was set for 7 March. On the issue of ‘abuse of process’ the judge asked if I was willing to waive medical confidentiality so that an enquiry could go from the court to two consultants and my GP as to my fitness or unfitness to stand trial, and I agreed to this. The three medical people are required to send their reports to the court by 1 February.
All this and other news of my case will be put in a new issue of Gothic Ripples which I hope to manage to produce by early January.
21 December 2000
In response to his committal on 2 November at Harrogate Magistrates Court to York Crown Court for trial concerning literature he produced alleged to stir up ‘racial hatred,’ Colin Jordan has launched five forms of counter-attack.
- An application to High Court in London for a Judicial Review respecting ‘abuse of process’ involved in the North Yorkshire Police taking 2¼ years to bring the case to committal.
- Another application for a Judicial Review respecting the continuing retention by the Police after 2¼ years of some 9,000 items of his property beyond that legitimately held as prosecution exhibits.
- An application to County Court citing violation by Harrogate Magistrates Court, the North Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service of three of the declared rights in the new human Rights Act of the U.K., namely freedom of expression, respect for his correspondence, and the right to trial without inordinate delay.
- An application to the Attorney General for his requisite consent for a private prosecution against the publishers and distributors of the Jewish ‘Talmud’ as containing material which stirs up racial hatred against non-Jews, the Police having refused to prosecute themselves.
- A formal complaint to the Police against Home Secretary Jack Straw, accusing him of an offence under the Genocide Act, and calling for his prosecution. (Copy of complaint here attached)
3 December, 2000
Harrogate HG3 5JQ
The Officer in Charge
North Yorkshire Police
Harrogate Police Station
North Park Road
Harrogate, HG1 5PJ
COMPLAINT OF OFFENCE UNDER THE GENOCIDE ACT 1969
By a person known as ‘JACK STRAW’ (Original family surname unknown) his present business address being The Home Office, Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT
Statutory Authority:– The Genocide Act 1969 lays down that a person commits an offence of genocide if he commits any act falling within the definition of ‘genocide’ in Article II of the Genocide Convention as set out in the Schedule of the Act.
Article II says:– ‘In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part.’
Details of Relevant Offence:– In his capacity of Home Secretary this man has been a principal party to measures the ultimate consequence of which is the destruction in whole or in part of a national and racial entity: namely the indigenous Anglo-Saxon and Celtic folk of the United Kingdom. On the legal principle of mens rea, he can be presumed to have intended this ultimate consequence.
In this he has been a principal party to the entry of and continued presence of a huge number of persons of Afro-Asian origin, amounting to a Coloured Invasion, regardless of the many times expressed opposition of the authentic British people, and thus conflicting with his professed adherence to ‘democracy.’ As part of this he has failed in a Home Secretary’s duty to round up and remove a massive number of illegal immigrants, including bogus asylum seekers who have absconded; doing so as an illegal immigrant himself in terms of the still extant law of 1290 permanently expelling Jews from England, and his own Jewish ancestry.
He has been a principal party to measures to persuade or compel the integration of the native population with the Afro-Asian immigrants, promoting familiarisation and intimate association with the latter, at a colossal cost and with colossal subsidisation of them at the expense of the native taxpayer, and with the elevation of them to a privileged and protected position.
He has used legislation for the benefit of the Jewish and Afro-Asian newcomers to deprive Englishmen of their ancient freedom of speech, persecuting them with a political Thought Police raiding their homes and seizing their property, followed by fines and imprisonment, if they speak out for a Britain for the British. Currently he is behind a prosecution to put 77-year-old Colin Jordan behind bars for speaking out against him and his genocidal practices.
He has done all this knowing that, as recent statistical studies have shown (reported for instance in The Observer 3/9/2000), the Afro-Asians will by their far higher birthrate and their continuing influx come shortly to outnumber our own people and be the dominant majority in the course of this century.
Thus this man’s actions and policy as a whole amounts to nothing less than wilful genocide in the terms of Section (c) of Article II of the Genocide Act. I am fully prepared to witness to this against this man and his offence in any court in the land at any time.
3 December, 2000
Harrogate HG3 5JQ
R. (Renegades) v. JORDAN Committal Proceedings Disrupted by Submission
After many months of suspense, the renegades of repression finally moved to prosecute Colin Jordan. On 19 April, 2000, the North Yorkshire Police charged me in respect of the following 11 items of my literature:– Gothic Ripples Nos. 28/29, 32, 33/34, 36, 37 and 38; the booklet ‘Merrie England 2000; the leaflets ‘Election Special,’ ‘Only a Change of Management in a Regime of Ruin.’ ‘Jack Straw’s Jewish Justice’ and ‘Our Stephen Lawrence Report.’ I replied: ‘I reject these charges as the material referred to is not an offence in terms of the relevant sections of the Act in question. Furthermore I reject the Act in question as illicit, being an offence against our ancient freedom of speech and the European Convention on Human Rights now embodied in this country’s Human Rights Act.
The following day a postponement of the case till 6 July, to permit previously made arrangements, was granted. The day before that date the court informed the Defendant that the hearing was put off (not at his request) till 3 August. Meanwhile the Crown Prosecution Service had delivered to me case documents extending to some 3,000 pages and weighing around 50 kgs. More recently the CPS has sent me another box with a further 1152 pages of documentation.
So cam 3 August at Harrogate Magistrates Court. The Defendant took his seat and immediately placed upright in front of him in full view of magistrates, press and Prosecution personnel a large filing box which had held his papers and to which he had selotaped front and back, covering the whole expanse of the box, a reproduction of the wartime government poster ‘FREEDOM IS IN PERIL DEFEND IT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT.’ The magistrates and their clerk shrank from demanding the removal of this prop of propaganda.
He then seized the initiative with a number of prior submissions, including an application for reporting restrictions to be lifted (granted) and that the CPS be obliged to supply copies of certain missing documents as legally obliged, and a submission that there had been ‘abuse of process’ meaning inordinate delay in bringing the case to prosecution – 2 years since the initiating raid on 4 August, 1998 – which had prejudiced the Defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
Since such a submission entitled the Defendant to present evidence, it provided the opportunity to go into all the details of the case so far, and to relate it, as a record of police revenge, to the previous search and seizure in 1991, instigated by Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman. Then the police used an invalid because outdated warrant, and the then Attorney General, the government-appointed highest law officer in the country, overlooked the illegality by sanctioning a prosecution, which had to be stopped and the seized property returned when Colin Jordan secured at High Court in London leave for a judicial review, and a few days before which the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire wrote to the High Court admitting the raid had been illegal and pledging that the prosecution would be abandoned. He had to pay £10,000 damages and £4,000 costs.
The malicious North Yorkshire Police resolved on revenge, and executed it on 4 August, 2000, initiating the present case. They seized indiscriminately in bulk, and regardless of protected ‘special procedure material’ requiring a judge’s order for seizure, this contrary to the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and condemned by the judges in the recent High Court case of R. v. Chesterfield Justices & The Chief Constable of Derbyshire. Not content with this measure of revenge, they went further and on 31 March, 1999, arrested me wile out shopping, so as to avoid having to procure a warrant to ransack my home yet again, this time in my absence in a police cell, and take more of my property.
Complaints to the Police Complaints Authority have been shelved and not acted on.
After waiting in suspense for 18 months, I applied on 22 February, 2000, for the return of property not relevant to and required for prosecution, this under the Police (Property) Act 1897. Dealing with it, the Deputy Clerk at Harrogate Magistrates Court liaised with and deferred to the police, sidetracking my application for 6 months. (Only now, as a result of disclosures in my submission of abuse of process, have the police been required to return shortly all irrelevant and unneeded property.)
Within the two years I have been kept in suspense, there have been for 16 months of this repeated renewals of police bail related to repeated requirements for police station attendance; all of this to hamper and harass and maintain tension.
The resulting stress has had its effect, I submitted, on my health in my old age, worsening my osteoarthritis and my heart condition of atrial fibrillation, and thereby reducing my ability to conduct my case. Thus there has indeed been in respect of the inordinate delay and other aspects of the conduct of the police and the other authorities an abuse of process requiring a dismissal of the case.
The magistrates, after withdrawing to consider, turned down this submission which nevertheless was thoroughly worth putting as a means of managing to express my denunciation of the authorities, despite at an early stage some attempt by the Clerk to shut me up which I overrode as I was entitled. The value of the move is well proved by the press publicity obtained, with reports in the Yorkshire press appearing with headlines such as ‘“Police raided home to get revenge” claim.’
What I had to say monopolised the proceedings till about midday, when the CPS person got up to say there was insufficient time left for the committal proceedings that day, and to request an adjournment. In the outcome of some argument, the case was put back till 1 November, probably continuing on 2 November.
So far it could seem that it is the revengers and renegades who are on trial!
From Gothic Ripples No 41, August 2000