ACCforum: The “Fitzie” files, a cursory glance - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The “Fitzie” files, a cursory glance https://laudafinem.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/accforum-the-fitzie-files-

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7864
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:56 PM

View PostHemi, on 13 January 2018 - 05:07 PM, said:

Presenting personal attacks with what is outright libel does your case no good at all Thomas
However to be expected as what else could you do to continue the charade of writings and your litany of LIES


Since when were questions ever libellous?

However accusing me of being a liar most certainly is libellous as I have never made any statement of fact other than I had not been working and had never plan to blow up ACC.. There is absolutely no evidence of any sort that would say otherwise.
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7864
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:02 PM

View PostHemi, on 13 January 2018 - 05:09 PM, said:

LIE,s
You post the glance at fitzi by someone else but you never raised the glancing info in court which by the way you had the same information as lauda to use in court.
Why not?
There is no doubts that You and your barrister had the context wordings of the fitzi file in your possession Well before your trial started and the actual fitzi file itself before the trial.
Whom provided you with the context wordings of the fitzi thomas??


I don't think anyone would ever refer to the glance at Fitzy report as being evidence. Only a moron would think that.

In any event I had no knowledge of the so-called Fitzy report and had never seen anything called the Fitzy report until after the trial. I am aware however that Douglas weal had provided a variety of copies to David Butler who refused to hand them over to the police. What the have to hide ? Apart from trying to protect weal from Himself.

Evidence is not about reporting that some form of evidence existed and here is a few excerpts or copies of that something as only the original real deal will do with either the author presented to the court or the recipient presenting to court. This means that either Douglas weal or David Butler with the only individuals capable of presenting such evidence of the court so as to enable the court to question the authenticity, meaning and suchlike to the court. As I had no knowledge of the authenticity or the meaning and have never been the recipient from the author I would be the very last person the court would allow to hand in such a document to the court and call it evidence.
0

#23 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:28 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 January 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

I don't think anyone would ever refer to the glance at Fitzy report as being evidence. Only a moron would think that.

In any event I had no knowledge of the so-called Fitzy report and had never seen anything called the Fitzy report until after the trial. I am aware however that Douglas weal had provided a variety of copies to David Butler who refused to hand them over to the police. What the have to hide ? Apart from trying to protect weal from Himself.

Evidence is not about reporting that some form of evidence existed and here is a few excerpts or copies of that something as only the original real deal will do with either the author presented to the court or the recipient presenting to court. This means that either Douglas weal or David Butler with the only individuals capable of presenting such evidence of the court so as to enable the court to question the authenticity, meaning and suchlike to the court. As I had no knowledge of the authenticity or the meaning and have never been the recipient from the author I would be the very last person the court would allow to hand in such a document to the court and call it evidence.

You think that the fitzy and info accompiaming it is evidence of importance So you are the moron then as what’s in the “glance at the fitzie” is a main part of what you have demanded be to be given to the police.
Interesting that your barrister questioned Weal on the contents of the fitzie file in court.
He have magical powers to do that without knowledge of the context.
To those that know here your post above of wordsmithing shows you did indeed know of sndhave the files wording context in your possession
Again you received that from whom?
Police maybe thomas B)/>
0

#24 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 January 2018 - 02:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 January 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

Since when were questions ever libellous?
when thomas -you have to show proof of fact as to what youve written

However accusing me of being a liar most certainly is libellous as I have never made any statement of fact other than I had not been working and had never plan to blow up ACC.. There is absolutely no evidence of any sort that would say otherwise.
YOU ARE Read your own writings in here :lol:/>


Your Not much at all, of an intelligent one you publicly claim to be re laws of the land there Thomas
0

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7864
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted Yesterday, 10:28 AM

The Fitzy report was withheld from the gaze of the court.

My lawyer did not have a copy of the Fitzy report and simply raised a number of papers as if he possessed the report in front of Douglas weal, the author of the report, into thinking that he was going to be questioned on that report. The only purpose of the stage was to confirm that such a report was produced by Douglas weal and that it did exist. Obviously as the police had not yet carried out an investigation into the existence of this report and Douglas weal had quite clearly falsified a statement to the police by withholding information from the police and therefore misleading the investigation while at the same time his accomplice David Butler also refused to provide the police with a copy of this report so as the report could be entered into evidence by one of those individuals either producing or having possession of the report so as they could be questioned concerning that report.

Quite obviously as I was never any party to that report even if I did possess the report I was not in a position under law to present the report to the court and if I did the report would be thrown out aand not be considered by the court. David Butler trying to run defence for Kenneth Miller and Douglas weal with regards to this report simply confirms that he continued to be an accomplice to the false allegations described with that report and likewise sought to pervert the course of justice. Of course he is busy trying to convince everyone otherwise but convinces nobody.
0

#26 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted Yesterday, 08:11 PM

[quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1515968886' post='255019']
The Fitzy report was withheld from the gaze of the court.

My lawyer did not have a copy of the Fitzy report and simply raised a number of papers as if he possessed the report in front of Douglas weal, the author of the report, into thinking that he was going to be questioned on that report. The only purpose of the stage was to confirm that such a report was produced by Douglas weal and that it did exist. Obviously as the police had not yet carried out an investigation into the existence of this report and Douglas weal had quite clearly falsified a statement to the police by withholding information from the police and therefore misleading the investigation while at the same time his accomplice David Butler also refused to provide the police with a copy of this report so as the report could be entered into evidence by one of those individuals either producing or having possession of the report so as they could be questioned concerning that report.

Quite obviously as I was never any party to that report even if I did possess the report I was not in a position under law to present the report to the court and if I did the report would be thrown out aand not be considered by the court. David Butler trying to run defence for Kenneth Miller and Douglas weal with regards to this report simply confirms that he continued to be an accomplice to the false allegations described with that report and likewise sought to pervert the course of justice. Of course he is busy trying to convince everyone otherwise but convinces nobody.
[/quote)
So Cooke raised some papers as if he had the report
One would then question if he did not have the report how did he use the exact wordings within the report in asking Weal if it was written by Weal. Who by the way no dumb click simply asked to see this alleged report To then confirm or say no not his
You couldn’t produce the report as then Thomas
YOU WERE on the witness stand to be examined and that’s why You HID the fitzi file as It’s on record that you and your barrister has the file in your possession from two separate sources.
And When did the police ask for the fitzi report to which they were then refused that report
“Weal is on record as providing the Fitzi File to the authorities.”
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7864
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted Today, 09:55 AM

Hemi As I did not know anything I was not a witness in the trial and as such did not take the stand. People who don't know anything about what happened and had no actual connection with any exhibit of any sort cannot take the stand as they are not in a position to give evidence. This has been explained to you several times and I'm surprised that you persist with your arrogance in thinking otherwise. tthe only people that could presents the Fitzy report to the court would be the author, Douglas weal or one of the recipients of that report such as the ACC, David Butler or anyone else who is known to have a copy. The ACC acknowledged that they had received the Fitzy report but provided the court with something entirely different thus misleading the court. David Butler refused to provide his copy to the police and the police failed to court as a witness. Whether or not I or my lawyer ever received a copy of the Fitzy report during the trial or sometime after is entirely irrelevant as we were not legally entitled to present it as we were not a party to the document.

I trust that this now closes the door on the notion that I could in some way be responsible for the Fitzy report not being entered into evidence..

However such things as perjury never sleeps and is always available to re-enter the court system to overturn the original conviction but the advice that I have is that it is far better to achieve a more convictions of perrversion of the court of justice, perjury and suchlike prior to going back to court so instead of having the case dismissed I would instead be found not guilty.
0

#28 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted Today, 11:54 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 January 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

Hemi As I did not know anything I was not a witness in the trial and as such did not take the stand. People who don't know anything about what happened and had no actual connection with any exhibit of any sort cannot take the stand as they are not in a position to give evidence. This has been explained to you several times and I'm surprised that you persist with your arrogance in thinking otherwise. tthe only people that could presents the Fitzy report to the court would be the author, Douglas weal or one of the recipients of that report such as the ACC, David Butler or anyone else who is known to have a copy. The ACC acknowledged that they had received the Fitzy report but provided the court with something entirely different thus misleading the court. David Butler refused to provide his copy to the police and the police failed to court as a witness. Whether or not I or my lawyer ever received a copy of the Fitzy report during the trial or sometime after is entirely irrelevant as we were not legally entitled to present it as we were not a party to the document.

I trust that this now closes the door on the notion that I could in some way be responsible for the Fitzy report not being entered into evidence..

However such things as perjury never sleeps and is always available to re-enter the court system to overturn the original conviction but the advice that I have is that it is far better to achieve a more convictions of perrversion of the court of justice, perjury and suchlike prior to going back to court so instead of having the case dismissed I would instead be found not guilty.

Simple as this Thomas your bullshit is just an attempt to avoid

You could have presented the fitzie yo the trial. You never did that

You had the fitzie as pages of its actual context but refer to not having it as it was pages copied and not enclosed in Weals file.
You can legally present such as the fitzie to the court and ask the judge to examine it and if it’s showinf as relevant ask the judge to call witness of anyone on it
Cooke read out the EXACT words from it to Weal and no doubts Cooke had the fitzie contents in the courtroom. N
Problem was
You’d be called to the stand and be cannon fodder for the prosecution which is why you avoided at all cost in being in a position of being examined by the courts.
Your full of lies
You and Nigel Cooke had the actual Weal fitzy before the trial started ,as well as what
the police gave you from acc.
You’ll never be found not guilty. Even without Weal you provided the goods to be charged yourself.
0

#29 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7864
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted Today, 12:43 PM

View PostHemi, on 16 January 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

Simple as this Thomas your bullshit is just an attempt to avoid

You could have presented the fitzie yo the trial. You never did that

You had the fitzie as pages of its actual context but refer to not having it as it was pages copied and not enclosed in Weals file.
You can legally present such as the fitzie to the court and ask the judge to examine it and if it’s showinf as relevant ask the judge to call witness of anyone on it
Cooke read out the EXACT words from it to Weal and no doubts Cooke had the fitzie contents in the courtroom. N
Problem was
You’d be called to the stand and be cannon fodder for the prosecution which is why you avoided at all cost in being in a position of being examined by the courts.
Your full of lies
You and Nigel Cooke had the actual Weal fitzy before the trial started ,as well as what
the police gave you from acc.
You’ll never be found not guilty. Even without Weal you provided the goods to be charged yourself.


Douglas weal, Kenneth Miller and David Butler together with numerous others are in fact the ones that are seeking to avoid the elephant in the room. Douglas weal produced a document and published that document amongst a number of people. In fact there are numerous copies of the document. The questions that arise from that document start with what was the purpose of the document through to what within the document was false. There needs to be an explanation as to why one document contained a terrorist plot while the other did not. The fact that once a terrorist plot was disclosed why didn't any of the individuals involved go directly to the police. The fact is not one person went to the police!

As I never had any involvement of any sort with the so called Fitzy report there is no possibility whatsoever for me to present such a document to the court. It simply would not be allowed.. The starting point being that I could not even speak to the documents authenticity, in other words weal would simply say that I had produced the document myself to implicate him in His own terrorist plot to frighten the ACC by using my name. There could be no possibility for me to defend such an allegation but rather it would simply add consistency with the original allegation of weal.. Weal Being the architect of the fictitious allegation of a bomb plot would be given more weight if I was to produce the Fitzy report with weal and self accusing me of being the author. Obviously I am not so stupid.

Further if the Crown prosecutor was to ask me even one single question about the Fitzy report I would not be able to give any answer with the result being that the prosecutor would have the document thrown out as being a fictitious document. That would then be the end of the matter.. Why would David Butler attempt to lovely into some kind of false sense of security and encourage me to make such a presentation. What kind of a person would set such a trap to support is very very very close friend Douglas weal.

Once Douglas weal was tricked into acknowledging the existence of the Fitzy report and him being the author then it was a simple matter for my lawyer to ask the court to instruct the police to acquire a copy of that report aand bring Douglas weal back to court questioning aalong with the recipients of the report, Kenneth Miller and David Butler. In an honest court hearing the police would have complied with the court's direction and David Butler would have been squealing on his good friend Douglas weal to avoid being put in prison himself.. but nonetheless it is not too late for that as the Fitzy report has not yet been dealt with as it was never submitted to the court by the police or anybody. As the police disregard of the instruction from the court it is the police that have corrupted the process of justice. So what is needed is for David Butler to come forward and provide the police with a copy of the report which will also assist him avoid prison For his Ongoing collusion Designed to protect Douglas weal.

My lawyer did not read out a single word from the Fitzy report For the simple reason at no stage did he ever have opportunity to even see it.

There is also no possibility of my being ever called to the stand to describe a single thing for no other reason than I have entered a plea of not guilty and as such have absolutely no knowledge to contribute to the court. If any reason beyond my understanding of the law found me in front of the fourth in the dark only answer can be that I don't know, I don't know, I don't know,, I have no knowledge of that, et cetera. What else could I possibly say when I have never had anything to do with Douglas weal's plot to blow up ACC.

The only evidence and I'm to mean only evidence in this case originated from Douglas weal. There was absolutely no other evidence. For example items placed on my computer after the police obtained a search warrant but before they exercised it were proven by the ACC's own forensic IT specialist that there was no possibility I had ever seen those documents as they had not even been opened as well.So the evidence is without any qualifications or knowledge about computers you are claiming to know more than the police and think you can argue the police's case for them. This is not only arrogant but also evidence in itself that you are still attempting to pervert the course of justice, Plan to commit perjury And last but not least continue in your conspiracy to make false allegation for the purposes of frightening ACC. Perhaps we should look a little bit more closely into your beef with the ACC that would cause you to have such fury and desire for revenge given the fact that you cannot possibly have any hatred towards myself as you don't even know me.
0

#30 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted Today, 04:42 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 16 January 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

Douglas weal, Kenneth Miller and David Butler together with numerous others are in fact the ones that are seeking to avoid the elephant in the room. Douglas weal produced a document and published that document amongst a number of people. In fact there are numerous copies of the document. The questions that arise from that document start with what was the purpose of the document through to what within the document was false. There needs to be an explanation as to why one document contained a terrorist plot while the other did not. The fact that once a terrorist plot was disclosed why didn't any of the individuals involved go directly to the police. The fact is not one person went to the police!

As I never had any involvement of any sort with the so called Fitzy report there is no possibility whatsoever for me to present such a document to the court. It simply would not be allowed.. The starting point being that I could not even speak to the documents authenticity, in other words weal would simply say that I had produced the document myself to implicate him in His own terrorist plot to frighten the ACC by using my name. There could be no possibility for me to defend such an allegation but rather it would simply add consistency with the original allegation of weal.. Weal Being the architect of the fictitious allegation of a bomb plot would be given more weight if I was to produce the Fitzy report with weal and self accusing me of being the author. Obviously I am not so stupid.

Further if the Crown prosecutor was to ask me even one single question about the Fitzy report I would not be able to give any answer with the result being that the prosecutor would have the document thrown out as being a fictitious document. That would then be the end of the matter.. Why would David Butler attempt to lovely into some kind of false sense of security and encourage me to make such a presentation. What kind of a person would set such a trap to support is very very very close friend Douglas weal.

Once Douglas weal was tricked into acknowledging the existence of the Fitzy report and him being the author then it was a simple matter for my lawyer to ask the court to instruct the police to acquire a copy of that report aand bring Douglas weal back to court questioning aalong with the recipients of the report, Kenneth Miller and David Butler. In an honest court hearing the police would have complied with the court's direction and David Butler would have been squealing on his good friend Douglas weal to avoid being put in prison himself.. but nonetheless it is not too late for that as the Fitzy report has not yet been dealt with as it was never submitted to the court by the police or anybody. As the police disregard of the instruction from the court it is the police that have corrupted the process of justice. So what is needed is for David Butler to come forward and provide the police with a copy of the report which will also assist him avoid prison For his Ongoing collusion Designed to protect Douglas weal.

My lawyer did not read out a single word from the Fitzy report For the simple reason at no stage did he ever have opportunity to even see it.

There is also no possibility of my being ever called to the stand to describe a single thing for no other reason than I have entered a plea of not guilty and as such have absolutely no knowledge to contribute to the court. If any reason beyond my understanding of the law found me in front of the fourth in the dark only answer can be that I don't know, I don't know, I don't know,, I have no knowledge of that, et cetera. What else could I possibly say when I have never had anything to do with Douglas weal's plot to blow up ACC.

The only evidence and I'm to mean only evidence in this case originated from Douglas weal. There was absolutely no other evidence. For example items placed on my computer after the police obtained a search warrant but before they exercised it were proven by the ACC's own forensic IT specialist that there was no possibility I had ever seen those documents as they had not even been opened as well.So the evidence is without any qualifications or knowledge about computers you are claiming to know more than the police and think you can argue the police's case for them. This is not only arrogant but also evidence in itself that you are still attempting to pervert the course of justice, Plan to commit perjury And last but not least continue in your conspiracy to make false allegation for the purposes of frightening ACC. Perhaps we should look a little bit more closely into your beef with the ACC that would cause you to have such fury and desire for revenge given the fact that you cannot possibly have any hatred towards myself as you don't even know me.

0

#31 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1179
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted Today, 08:32 PM

As Lupine summed it up (not exactly in his words) but you have had your chance in courts many times and have failed not only for the so called terrorist plot but with your ACC entitlements. Isnt it time to move on and try and live your life without letting it consume you ?????

Many of us have been wronged but there comes a time that you need to put it behind you.

I use my time now for me and my family and to help try and get systemic changes. Although draining and impacting on my injury its great to be campaigning for change for the better for many.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users