Search This Blog

Sunday, 18 November 2012

"The Dissection Of A Criminal System" Part 5

"The Trial"
 
 
The Perjury Of  WPC Lynne Lang
 



Part 1 at link below
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-dissection-of-criminal-system-part-1.html

Part 2 at link below
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-dissection-of-criminal-system-part-2.html

Part 3 at link below
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-dissection-of-criminal-system-part-3.html

Part 4 at link below
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-dissection-of-criminal-system-part-4.html


So, it was off to trial armed only with the four cops statements, and the truth of course. I had forgotten to pick up the pictures of my injuries and therefore had to proceed without them.
 
I was sat outside the courtroom when the Centenier came up to me and asked if I was ready? He said "it shouldn't take to long as it was an open and shut case", I p*ssed my sides laughing and replied, "well they had better be honest today or they're getting it". The Centenier said "don't do anything stupid Ian" I replied, "I am not the stupid one, they are, and if they lie they will regret it".
 
So into court we went and the Centenier proceeded to read out the charges, all of which I pleaded not guilty to.

1. Drunk and disorderly
2. Resisting arrest
3. A speeding charge

He then set about outlining the case on behalf of the four policemen who were going to tell the truth as their Oath of Office demands, and as written at the top of their statements (see below).
 
"This statement consists of ** pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true."
 
First up was WPC Lynne Lang, and boy did this porker have some pig sh*t to spread around the courtroom.

WPC Lynne Lang
 
 
Page 1
 
Page 2
 
Page 3
 
Page 4
 
Page 5
 
Page 6
 
Page 7
 
Page 8

Page 9


How To Deconstruct Pig Sh*t


There we have it, our very first witness, and under pain of perjury to boot. Below are a selection of her lies, and my observations on those lies.
 
Page 1
1. She has entered into giving evidence and now the above Oath (in red) kicks in.
 
2. She states that she made her entries into her pocket book within an hour and twenty minutes, this proves that she had conspired with the others to pervert the course of justice just shortly after the incident. We know this because other officers said the same, or similar, to what Lang said in their statements, given that these phrases are lies, they must have conspired.
 
 
Page 2
1. She states that I was stood near a gate, this is important for a later page.
 
2. Fruitcake Le Marquand says he thought she was referring to a Scottish place when she said "Berekshire Court"? We are in Jersey for Christ's sake! This is the calibre of our judges in Jersey....
 
 
Page 3
1. She states that I was shouting but cannot remember one single word that I was shouting?
 
2. She doesn't know what I was shouting, or at who, because, she states, "it was very dark" WTF?
 
3. It was not very dark, Berekshire Court is rather well lit, and many street lamps.
 
4. She states that I said "what do you want me to do" this indicates that I was being co-operative.
 
5. She states that I said "I am going to climb the fence". Why would I want to climb the fence?
 
6. She says the fence is about "7' tall" for observational purposes, the fence is more like 9' tall.
 
7. She says, "he wasn't taking any notice when I told him to move away from the fence". Really? How on earth did I get to the balcony ten yard away then?
 
 
Page 4
1. Lang says, "He was still shouting and saying he was going to switch his phone on to record". If you are "shouting", you are not really "saying", are you. Which is it?
 
2. She then says, "Yeah to record, I didn't know what he was talking about". Not very bright is she?
 
3. I arrested him "for being drunk and disorderly" Being drunk is not a crime, and neither is shouting. More statutory bullshit to generate revenue for our corrupt government. Remember, the police force is a company, and what do companies do? Yup, make money!
 
4. She states further, "I could smell intoxicating liquor" So what? And of course you could you numpty, I had been out for a drink. Then, "His eyes were red and glazed" yes they were, I had been crying on the way home as I had lost my best mate and his brother to heart attacks, and my best female mate had been diagnosed with breast cancer! No bloody wonder my eyes were red and glazed.
 
5. She then slavers, "He refused to be handcuffed" How? no mention of that. Then, "He was tensing up his upper body" WTF is that supposed to mean?
 
6. This one tickles me, "I managed to get one of his hands round his back, but he still struggled". Sure you did luvvie, sure you did :)
 
7. The clincher, "but he still struggled, and I was pushed against the fence". Well how is that? The fence was 10 yards away, I was stood next to the balcony overlooking the road at this time. If she was pushed against a fence, is that not assaulting a police officer? Why wasn't I charged?
 
 
Page 5
1. It's DeJa Vu time again, "I managed again to get his arm back round behind his back". As I said before, sure you did luvvie, sure you did. That must be why PC ALLEN Le Bas said in his statement, "I took hold of EVANS's right arm to restrain him, I tried to keep his right arm behind his back in an arm lock".
 
2. This next bit is very important, "my colleague PC ALLEN-Le Bas got one handcuff on to his right wrist". Well, that's just fine and dandy isn't it? Until you read what PC McIntosh had to say in his statement! "EVANS was very strong and would not allow the officers to apply the hand cuffs, he continued to struggle and had to be taken to the ground and further restrained while an attempt was made to apply the cuffs. He would not allow his arms to be placed behind his back". It is quite probable by now that we may conclude that WPC Lynne Lang is telling porkies, and has been lying under Oath, and in her statement....NO?
 
3. This bit is also very important, "He was still tensing, and he didn't seem to have any pain threshold". Well Officer Lang, why would you come out with this remark if you and your fellow liar, PC Le Bas were not assaulting me? Why would I need a pain threshold if you were doing your job properly? You refer to a pain threshold because you know I was being beaten :)
 
4. "he then started to hold onto the banister, and wouldn't let go. I tried to undo his grip, at which point my fingers were squashed on to the banister". Is this clown trying to convince a judge that she is able to pry my hand from a grip on a banister when I am ten times stronger than her? And she got her fingers squashed....Is that not another assault on a police officer? Why was I not charged?
 
5. "He was still tensing and swearing and being verbally abusive". OK, why is it that you cannot recite one single word of this alleged verbal abuse? I can firmly swear on oath that I did not swear, not even once, at this scene. This lying waster is doing a Phil Bailhache Special...."just making it up as she goes along". And yes, I will prove this later on in the postings.
 
 
Page 6
1. By this time, two more cops had arrived, "They went to one on each side of him, and managed to get an entangled arm-lock, and were able to take him to the ground". Thought I was already handcuffed Missy? And you forgot to mention that I was beaten and kicked to the ground!!!
 
2. "and he continued to be abusive, talking very loudly and swearing". Again, I will prove this statement to be perjury in a later posting.
 
3. "He was calling me names, about being Scottish, and something to do with me telling him to shut up on several occasions". It might be a good time to point out that PC Le Bas said this as well, but that lying weasel states that this was said whilst I was stood up, and not on the ground? Again, as in point 2, I will prove this to be perjury.
 
4. "He tried to move whilst he was on the floor, he was lifting his head up and wriggling". Yes, I was watching you break my phone! Funny how you never mentioned that in your perjury? Or the fact that I was being hit with an asp at that time!
 
5. "They brought him up and he was asked whether he was gonna walk to the van". Well, no, actually, all that was said was "put your legs down mate, put your legs down". Christ, this woman could lie for Satan!!!
 
6. "I'm not sure what happened at that point, but I know that he was then back on the floor, before he went back to the van, but I don't know what happened there". Really!!! You didn't see them deliberately drop me on the floor on my knee's? Even though you state in the previous line of your testimony that "PC Du Feu and PC McIntosh walked the male over to the van, and I walked behind". Is this woman blind, as well as a liar?
 
7. "Once Mr. Evans was in the van I did speak with some of the residents, but again that's hearsay". Your statement is hearsay tweakle, and perjury. If the residents were witnesses, how is it hearsay? I call it evidence. Perhaps Lang didn't want any of the residents testifying as to the assault I was subjected to....
 
 
Page 7
1. Lang said, "There was bins strewn on the road". Le Marquand then asks, "Do you know who caused those?" our halfwit replies, "Only from what I was told by Force Control Room". I confess, I didn't know Force Control Room could see nearly half a mile, and right through concrete buildings!
 
 
Page 8
1. I asked WPC Lynne Lang to read the Oath at the top of her statement which she did, the same Oath that is highlighted in red. "This statement consists of ** pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true."
 
 
Page 9
1. Le Marquand then asked me "Okay, what is your point on that Mr. Evans?" I ignored Le Marquand, and asked WPC Lang, "Is the statement true?" Lang replied, "Yeah". I then said to Le Marquand, "It 'is' OK Sir, no further questions". Le Marquand then said, "I'll just make a note that you confirmed the statement was true". That confirmation being Lang's of course....

2. The only question I put to the four officers is this, "is the statement true". The reason for this was so that all the officer's statements would have been "tendered in evidence" and they would then be liable to the penalty for perjury :)

 
 
So there we have it, one lying cheating bullying perjurious police woman who will tell any lame-arsed story that floats through her tiny little mind. Of course, the other three liars will back up my assertions during their perjury promo's....This is how to deconstruct Jersey Police Pig sh*t
 
Until the next time readers :)
 
And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
.

13 comments:

  1. Can you imagine working for a company that only has a little more than 635 employees,
    but has the following Employee Statistics.

    29 have been accused of spouse abuse,
    7 have been arrested for fraud,
    9 have been accused of writing bad cheques,
    17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses,
    3 have done time for assault,
    71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit,
    14 have been arrested on drug-related charges,
    8 have been arrested for shoplifting,
    21 are currently defendants in lawsuits,
    84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year,
    And collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses!

    Which organisation is this?

    It's the 635 members of the House of Commons.

    The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
    What a bunch of crooks we have running our country - it says it all...

    And just to top all that they probably have the best 'corporate'
    pension scheme in the country - whilst trying to ensure that everyone else has the worst possible!
    If you agree that this is an appalling state of affairs, please pass it on to everyone you know

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. haha, yes, the stats from the website "Enemy of the People"

      Delete
  2. Another post blaming everybody else for you own stupid actions in life and what's even more amazing is that you think people believe your deluded rubbish over all these Police officers!

    Sad Ian, really sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That you Foster? or is it one of our honourable cops? or even a member of our law officers department?

      "You think people believe your deluded rubbish"

      Read the evidence dick head!!! It's there in black and white you retarded shit....

      Delete
  3. Ha Ha ha If you think the general public have any faith whatsoever in what you laughingly call Police officers then you are more deluded than I thought it possible to be!

    "Mint Source" you frightened yet?

    ReplyDelete
  4. WPC Lynne Lang? I'm assuming that this is the DCI Lynne Lang that arrested me over a year ago and who has been demoted? I'm not the least bit surprised!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mentioned that you forgot the pictures of your injuries. From reading your post and your references to perjury am I correct in assuming that your brief cross-examination of the police officer was simply to show that they were prepared to lie to secure a conviction against a background of assault? (against you) Reading the dissection part of your work you appear to be arguing at the wrong time (after court instead of in court) and in relation to relatively immaterial matters (height of the fence etc). The detail is important but there's no evidence, for want of a better word, of an alternative explanation for the events that took place that night. The Judge is called to make a decision on whatever information is in front of him and cannot convict unless he is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the crimes charged were committed. He can make enquiries if things don't stack up. From what I can see, you didn't give evidence. I am assuming because of your past experience with the O-bar incident that you didn't have a solicitor or advocate helping you to present your case. That or there might have been a financial reason for to being represented. I have no doubt that injustice occurs routinely in the Magistrates court just because people can't get proper representation rather than the half hearted kind you get under the local practitioner funded legal aid. It's easy to take the view of the poster at 9.52am, but the very fact that you are openly complaining about your treatment suggests there is more to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I deliberately didn't question any of them as I had an ace up my sleeve by this time. And yes, I wanted them to lie through their teeth (without putting any pressure on them) to show that they cannot tell the truth in any given situation when they have done wrong. This just goes to prove that they will make up anything to protect each other.

      As for any arguements being made in court, as you will see after I have finished with their court testimonies, nothing you say or do, or any evidence that you have in a Jersey courtroom will make the slightest bit of difference to the outcome of any case.

      Hard to believe, I know, but I have the evidence to prove what I am saying as you will see a little later.

      Delete
    2. As for your comment about using a lawyer, no, I would never use a Jersey lawyer again, they are corrupt liars who will never go against the system. At the time of this incident people were unlawfully refused legal aid if their cases seemed frivilous to the Batonnier in charge of legal aid. That is how bent this system is.

      Delete
    3. No, it's not hard to believe. Something goes wrong, people cover their tracks (or attempt to). The victim suffers the indignity of having to fight (often unrepresented) against this kind of behaviour notwithstanding any other loss or injury they might have suffered. Standard practice in a Jersey court. Unfortunately, the justice system in Jersey needs a massive overhaul largely because the 'standards' of conduct are regulated internally rather than by reference to more objective standards.

      Delete
    4. And the poster at 9.52 is our local troll, not a normal member of the public....

      Delete
  6. Jersey lawyers: "corrupt liars who will never go against the system". I expect they are as scared of the system as any member of the public when there is a conflict between establishment interests and a client's interests. Their behaviour with clients is shaped by their environment. A person that goes against the system is punished. I am no great fan of Lenny Harper but the affidavits of both he and Graham Power are cause for great concern as is the conduct of the Police in relation to Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Be interesting to know who reads this blog, I personally have been reading it on a daily basis makes me chuckle sometimes, anyhow more to the point I hope this Ace you talk of Ian gives you a royal flush be nice to see someone win against the system. good luck fella. And to our friend @ 9:52 lol

    We do not forgive We do not forget!

    ReplyDelete