Last Updated on November 24, 2022
The following Second Amicus Curiae Brief was sent to The Solicitors on Friday 21st October 2022, in accordance with the deadline previously specified by the Inquiry’s Call for Evidence.
Dear Solicitor to The Inquiry,
I write with reference to the Public Call for Evidence – 23 September 2022 and the previous document I submitted entitled: “The Openshaw Report“, as provided to the governor David Steel and to various parties on 15th April 2022.
In my report, I gave reasons for stating unequivocally that Peter Openshaw should be invited to recuse himself from the inquiry. Peter Openshaw obviously felt no need to go that far. However, the nature of his public call for evidence, seems to us somewhat skewed towards finding evidence against Mr. McGrail.
In this respect, I wish to point out that the details of directions, as given to a jury by Judge Pegden in the case of Regina v Anthony John Hill, might imply that Peter Openshaw is attempting to pervert the course of justice, as he is deliberately inviting evidence from the public which could influence the inquiry. Under Judge Pegden’s re-definition of the word pervert, for a member of the public to submit evidence to influence the court would be perverting the course of justice.
In the Southwark Crown Court Trial of Regina v Anthony John Hill between 9th – 11th May 2011, for a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the successful defendant had the following to say about the judge’s directions to the jury.
Muad’Dib: “The judge in his summing up perverted the definition of the word pervert, because I had been accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice – public justice – contrary to common law. So, the judge actually told the jury the legalese definition because THEY use our words, our English language, but the words have different meanings, so that when you go in court using English words, you think you know what THEY are saying, and you don’t, because of the words. What the judge said was ‘we all know, normal people who use English, know that the word pervert means to divert things from its rightful course’. The judge said to the jury that the word pervert meant to influence. Okay. So, what the judge was trying to get the jury to understand was that if it was possible for my film to have influenced them in any way, then I was guilty. And he emphasized that. He repeated that three times throughout his summing up, so desperate was he to find a way of getting me convicted.”
Documentary Film-maker Richard D Hall interviewing Muad’Dib: “Watching the judge sum up – that way must have really left you with a bit of an uncomfortable feeling, when the jury went out to consider the verdict. The potential sentences?”
Muad’Dib: “20 years. It’s a maximum sentence, and, well, THEY probably wouldn’t have given me twenty years, but I’m sure they would have given me the maximum THEY thought THEY could get away with, to make an example of me, and to punish me for having made the film and exposed the crimes that THEY had committed, and to make an example of me to prevent anybody else from doing the same thing that I’ve done. All the way along, this was a malicious prosecution. It was frivolous, and it was politically motivated to punish me. It wasn’t about me sending the film to the court because that was lawful. It’s called an Amicus Curaie Brief, which means a “Friend of The Court Brief”, and that’s the law, anybody who is not a party to a trial who has evidence that they consider is important to that trial, they can send it to the court, which is what I did, and the courts decide to admit it into evidence and show it to the jury or whether they’ll just discard it. So, what I did was perfectly lawful. So, it wasn’t really about me trying to pervert the course of justice, it was about using that as an excuse to punish me for what I did. But right from the beginning I knew that if there were any decent people left in this country, there was absolutely no way that THEY were going to be able to get a conviction. But what they did was that they ruined two years, three months and two days of my life on semi-house arrest, with the bail conditions and all the rest of it, and in amongst that I had spent 157 days actually in prison in Ireland waiting for extradition, and then in Wandsworth waiting for the trial. But I had confidence that unless THEY hand-picked the jury, and unless that there were no decent people left in this country, there was actually no way they could get a guilty verdict. But then because of the judge’s summing up, and the way he perverted the definition of the word ‘pervert’, three times to the jury, then I was wondering well, is the jury going to see through this or are they going to go with what the judge has said. So at that point, I wasn’t too sure because it was possible that THEY had hand-picked some of the jury, or all of the jury, and so until they actually came in to give their verdict, I wasn’t really 100 per cent sure which way it was going to go, but whichever way it went, I did the right thing, and that THEY would have to put me in prison for having done the right thing.”
Excerpts from Muad’Dib Interview – Richplanet TV, Part 3 of 3
Respectfully, I wish to point out to Peter Openshaw, that his open invitation for submissions from members of the public to help him with the Inquiry, also seems to contrast starkly with his own previous actions in 2019, during the trial in Preston Crown Court of David Duckenfield, regarding the gross negligence manslaughter charges following the Hillsborough Disaster on 15th April 1989. On that particular occasion, Peter Openshaw was given an Amicus Curiae Brief by Christine Agnew QC who had defended Muad’Dib at Southwark in 2011, which contained a DVD of Muad-Dib’s “The Hillsborough Ripple Effect” film.
I happened to be the person delivering the Amicus Curiae Brief to Christine Agnew QC, at Preston Crown Court, on behalf of her previous client Muad’Dib, but as a result of my helpful actions there, Peter Openshaw kept silent on the evidence Muad’Dib had submitted, and instead served an unlawful exclusion order on me, prohibiting me from being in certain parts of Preston and Liverpool for the duration of the remainder of David Duckenfield’s trial.
On the strength of the evidence which I previously submitted in my Amicus Curiae Brief in the report entitled “The Openshaw Report“, I wish Peter Openshaw to know the following:
It’s not too late for Peter Openshaw to recuse himself from this Inquiry.
Muad’Dib (Arabic for Teacher of Righteousness), Who Is Christ in His Second Coming, and also known as The Gibraltar Messenger, would be ideal to take over the hearing scheduled for March 2023 from Peter Openshaw, should Peter do the honourable thing and step down in favour of Crown Prince Michael from Daniel 12:1-3 (aka Christ).
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael [the Archangel] (Eno. 20:5; 36:1; 40:8; 58:1; 59:9; 57:1-2; 70:4; Rev. 12:7; Sura 2:98) stand up, the Great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the Book [of Life] (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27; Sura 83:20).
12:2 And many of them that sleep in “the dust of the earth” (Gen. 13:16; 28:14) shall awake, some to Everlasting Life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to Righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
I have reasonable cause to suspect that Peter Openshaw is trying to pervert the course of justice, in accordance with Judge Pegden’s redefinition of the word “Pervert”, as previously indicated as a judge’s direction to the jury in Regina v Anthony John Hill, in 2011, and would therefore like to remind Peter Openshaw that such an offence, can carry a prison sentence of 20 years, upon conviction.
Anthony Farrell Former Principal Intelligence Analyst South Yorkshire Police
Disciple of Christ in His Second Coming (Michael – The Archangel)
Parts 1 and 2 of Muad’Dib’s Interview