Collier wrong again, this time on Greaves.

The Common Mans attention has been drawn to a posting by Geoffrey 'Old Mother' Collier on the Democracy Forum, in which he demonstrates once again his formidable research skills.

Writing of Michael Greaves, he states "We now have appointed at public expense a Mr Greaves who claims to be a barrister and specialises in International Law. Further claims to his credit involve appearances before the International Court at the Hague. That Court has no evidence of him appearing in any capacity. Furthermore he does not appear on the Roll of Bar members who are currently practising."

The Common Man understands that this stunning piece of work is repeated elsewhere, particularly by the unfortunately not-yet-late convicted felon and self-confessed anti-semite Greg Watkins and the morons at Junius. Watkins, remember, always apologises when he is wrong, although none have ever seen an apology.

Michael Greaves was a court appointed defence barrister. Anyone capable of working a computer - which presumably Old Mother Collier is - could have discovered this through conducting a simple case search of the International Criminal Court searching case files rather than simply searching for web pages. There are actually some 40 documents which name Greaves as a defence attorney representing several defendants.

The Common Man now awaits the attack on Greaves based on who he, as a defence barrister at the ICC, was appointed to represent. The Common Man and Bob Pacific will be hugely amused at those who want a 'clean' UKIP attacking the right of a defendant, even at the International Criminal Court, to be represented, and somehow suggesting that because counsel is appointed to the defendants, this is somehow indicative of support for the crimes of which those defendants are accused.

The Common Man is also aware that, unlike solicitors, there is no requirement for Barristers to be registered with the Bar. Will Old Mother Collier now apologise for smearing an eminent lawyer? Past experience suggests that this is unlikely, and instead he will repeat his lies endlessly, thinking that that will somehow make them true.

Needless to say, Colliers other allegations are equally well researched and equally false. The Common Man wonders how he can have the gall to talk about 'we' when referring to UKIP, when clearly he is batting for the other team, but that's another rumour which it would be wrong of us to continue probing. The Common Man merely observes that for someone ostensibly if dishonestly campaigning for a clean up of UKIP, Collier has provided a remarkable way of telling what is true and what is false. If he wrote it, it's false.

Decision on Prosecution's Application to Admit Transcripts under Rule 92bis
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before:
Judge Patrick Robinson, Presiding
Judge Richard May
Judge Mohamed Fassi Fihri
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Order of:
23 May 2001
PROSECUTOR
v.
DUSKO SIKIRICA
DAMIR DOSEN
DRAGAN KOLUNDZIJA
_________________________________________________________
DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S APPLICATION
TO ADMIT TRANSCRIPTS UNDER RULE 92 BIS
___________________________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Dirk Ryneveld
Ms. Julia Baly
Mr. Daryl Mundis
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Veselin Londrovic and Mr. Michael Greaves, for Dusko Sikirica
Mr. Vladimir Petrovic and Mr. Goran Rodic, for Damir Dosen
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Jovan Ostojic, for Dragan Kolundzija

Which can be found at http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/1A35BFC7-9514-417A-8CFD-E809D39CD37D/249383/373541.pdf