Quote:
Originally Posted by murnut
Go back and look at the post I was replying to.
Martian said all men are created equal.
I was only implying that men are equal under the law.
In fact all men (and women) are given equal protection under the law.
All men and women are not equal...other wise we would all be the same.
Gary is entitled to due process.
If you want to conclude that the UK law allowing his extradition is against the law...then okay.
I understand your point.
Gary has had numerous appeals and lost everyone.
But your problem should be with the UK govt.
|
OMfG, equality does not mean sameness. You have a lot of growing up to do, murnut!
My problem
is with the UK government - I have repeatedly said the politicians who pushed the extradition act through committed treason. I also consider the US government/Shadow government and military establishment of the US & UK to be committing crimes in this whole situation, not least of which is the surpression of the existence of extraterrestrial life and free-energy technology.
On a down-to-earth level it is the free-energy technology that is the real reason for the surpression of the existence of ETs. On a higher level it is the loss of control over us - spiritually, mentally and emotionally - that is the reason for the surpression.
"Gary is entitled to due process."
You are absolutely right. For nearly eight centuries prior to 2004 Gary would have had due process. The Extradition Act 2003 circumvents his right to due process and gives the prosecution the 'right' to demand his extradition without the need to burden themselves with providing evidence against him.
How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you, murnut?
How would you defend yourself in a court if the prosecution wasn't required to provide evidence that you committed a crime? i.e. the prosecution's CLAIM that you committed one was enough for the judge to sentence you? How do you defend yourself against that?
I would like an answer to this question, murnut. You have repeatedly dodged this question and instead sprouted out self-righteous bull5h1t.
How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?
You are spot on that Gary is entitled to due process.
How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?
This is the key question, IMHO, in the whole matter.
How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?
The current legal situation violates PRINCIPLES of law and justice that have been around for nearly EIGHT CENTURIES!
How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?