@carnybull @SimonFRCox Account Name: LUTFUR RAHMAN LEGAL FUND; Bank: BARCLAYS BANK; Sort Code: 20-32-06; A/c No: 83 22 45 03
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@carnybull So you *already know* he is going to lose, do you? I wonder where you get your inside knowledge from.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
Lutfur Rahman's Grounds for Appeal
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE judgment against Lutfur Rahman an establishment stitch-up
@paulcunnell I will be donating to the Lutfur Rahman Legal Fund as a gesture of support, certainly.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell The other reason I reason I am donating to the Lutfur Rahman Legal Fund is to show I have not forgotten the law I learned.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters wd u say that my legal knowledge is deficient? That petitions to set aside elections have certain requirements?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters wd u say my legal knowledge is deficient? That to set aside election winning candidate must b guilty of fraud?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters would you say my legal knowledge is deficient? That the police must be the ones to investigate electoral fraud?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters wd u say that my legal knowledge is deficient? That neither election court nor Mr Mawrey is a criminal court?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters wd u say my legal knowledge is deficient? That the conditions 4 setting aside the election were not satisfied?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell On what matters wd u say that my legal knowledge is deficient? That Mr Mawrey did not apply the BUT FOR test 4 election fraud?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell I am still waiting for you to tell me what I don't understand.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Why Mawrey should have applied the BUT FOR test is explained at http://t.co/HiTm9ilZ0s
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell You need to explain how and why and you have proven yourself to be thick and fast with the accusations but not the explanations
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Does Mawrey cite any authority for his proposition at paragraph 33?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell "Mere proof of the practices by the candidate or his agents is sufficient to *avoid* the election." Does Mawrey means "void"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell "Mere proof of the practices [ie election fraud] by the candidate or his agents is sufficient to VOID the election." Fair enuf.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell How is the proof mentioned at https://t.co/bo5muP1Sjc to be obtained? I would suggest by the police and CRIMINAL court.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Was the proof mentioned at https://t.co/bo5muP1Sjc obtained by the police and CRIMINAL court? NOPE.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell The proof referred to at https://t.co/bo5muP1Sjc was submitted only to Mawrey who is not a criminal judge nor a criminal court.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Which is the RELEVANT bit to prove whatever it is you are trying to prove?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell The Election Court can set election aside ONLY IF Lutfur Rahman was CONVICTED of electoral fraud.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell To be CONVICTED of a CRIME, the POLICE must first investigate and when evidence is sufficient, get CPS to prosecute. NOT DONE.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@ntfem Yes, and that still may happen to Lutfur Rahman. Doesn't make Mawrey wrong.
— Paul Cunnell (@paulcunnell) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell http://t.co/7qL1HIZGo4 has many references to candidates being CONVICTED. Lutfur Rahman *not* CONVICTED.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell AND THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG!!!!! It is as BASIC as that.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell http://t.co/zm1W6axnem "The police are responsible for investigating any allegations of electoral fraud."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell The police did indeed investigate but found no evidence of fraud AND TOOK IT NO FURTHER. Mawrey IGNORED THIS.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Not only did Mawrey ignore the fact that the police said there was no evidence, he went on to try and convict Rahman anyway.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell To be convicted of a crime, the police have to investigate, charge you and then get the CPS to prosecute you SUCCESSFULLY.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@ntfem Yes, and that still may happen to Lutfur Rahman. Doesn't make Mawrey wrong.
— Paul Cunnell (@paulcunnell) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell If there is any justice left in Britain, Lutfur Rahman's application will be granted, but there is some doubt as to this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell You are relying on Mawrey's judgment, I am explaining to you basic legal concepts to demonstrate why he is so very wrong.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell The law is fine as far as I can see it, it is Mawrey's judgment that is at issue as he was wrong in law, fact and procedure.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell This is basic first year stuff ie to be convicted of a CRIME you have to be tried in a CRIMINAL court.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell http://t.co/zm1W6axnem clearly says that the involvement of the police is crucial to investigation and findings.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell No one disputes that the police did indeed investigate and found no evidence and declined to take any further action.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell If Administrative Court allows this judgment to stand, we will know what to think about British justice and the rule of law.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Even if they win the Islamophobic establishment are scoring an own goal.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell If they win the political establishment will do much more than @anjemchoudary to radicalise Muslims.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@paulcunnell Even if Lutfur Rahman is bound to lose with the system rigged against him the bankruptcy of British justice needs to be shown.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
@andyager Hello, The Specialist Crime and Operations Command are investigating
— Tower Hamlets MPS (@MPSTowerHam) April 28, 2015
@paulcunnell Oho. SPECIALIST CRIME & OPERATIONS COMMAND? Not just the police then? Establishment clearly DETERMINED to get their Muslim.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 1, 2015
