On a sunny sunday afternoon, eleven police attended the scene when 'barbara tucker' (who HAS notified police of her ongoing demonstration) stood outside downing street with 'stephen jago' (who was front page news in 'the independent' newspaper this week for being arrested with copies of henry porter's 'vanity fair' civil rights article on him), and mother 'charity sweet', (who was also in 'the independent' after being stopped and searched for reading said newspaper outside downing street).
they sang some songs and steve had a banner with appropriate quotes written on it: 'to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, justice or right' - magna carta, and 'the only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law' - aristotle. his banner also had 'the independent' front page attached to it.
after being asked to move by the gate police, more and more police began to turn up, taking notes on the banner quotes, and discussing tactics for a long while. eventually, inspector hart arrived. and the by now eleven police had a final conflab before moving in. barbara tucker and steve jago were both told they were being 'reported' to the crown prosecution service for possible summons for holding an 'unauthorised' demo in the socpa designated area.
barbara began blowing a whistle and shouting that she HAD notified the police of her ongoing protest, and that by law they MUST authorise her demonstration. she claimed that since inspector hart personally knew this, he must be corrupt. he warned her not to make such allegations publicly, but she offered to defend them in court.
inspector hart also talked to 'charity sweet' and warned that she faced arrest, although it is not clear that she was 'reported'. she told him she had her seven year old daughter with her and asked what on earth would happen if she were arrested. he told her the child would be taken too, and handed over to the care of social services at the police station. fearing for her child under such intimidation, she gave up her protest, and the crowd that had gathered shouted out 'shame' at the now uncomfortable inspector.
the police then retreated for more discussion, inspector hart warned again that barbara and steve would be arrested if they didn't leave. his question 'are you going to stop?' was met with a 'no'. the police talked more, then rather lamely, he came over one last time to say that they might be arrested later if they continue.
all eleven police got in their car, their van, and on their bicycles, and they beat a retreat, leaving the demonstration to continue.
barbara tucker has now been 'reported' more than thirty times, and has only recived one summons. as she pointed out, the summons relates to the 17th may when she made a complaint of assault to the police, and was told that if she pursued the complaint, the police would issue a socpa summons against her in return.
although today was clearly a victory for the protestors, it is worrying that this level of intimidation goes on, and it may have only been the presence of several cameras that ensured the peaceful conclusion. This law must go!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Nos: HQ10X01980
HQ10X01981
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:-
THE MAYOR OF LONDON
(on behalf of THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY)
Claimant
- V -
1) REBECCA HALL
2) BRIAN HAW
3) BARBARA TUCKER
4) CHARITYSWEET
5) MARIA GALLASTEGUI
6) OTHERS
7) PERSONS UNKNOWN
Defendants
_____________________________________
ABUSE OF PROCESS / 2ND WITNESS STATEMENT OF
MRS CHARITY SWEET
_____________________________________
I, Charity Sweet, of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, Parliament Square, will say as follows:
Agent provocateur
Tiexa de Castro V. Portugal 28 E.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)
(i) It is not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power and an abuse of the courts.
(ii) ... every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its processes of the courts... the courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state
(iii) .. the doctrine of the abuse of process is re-enforced by HRA 1998
1. I received a phone call while in court yesterday that the police and attended my home, kicked in the door and were proceeding to rip apart the interior door to my flat. CAD 3193.
2. I telephoned my neighbour and requested to speak to the senior officer present who was a sergeant.
3. It was explained to myself that 3 cop cars and a paddy wagon had been sent on blues and two’s to my address because it was reported, by whom, that there was a child at risk in my home.
4. I explained to the Sergeant that my youngest daughter Maranda was in school and asked him what exactly he was playing at as he DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT. I was told he was acting under sec. 17 of the Pace ACT which has also been cited in the illegal searched of PSPC.
5. My downstairs neighbour who has a serious heart condition was alarmed and harassed by the days events as my other neighbour, an elderly Jamaican women and good friend of mine who has fostered some seventy children for the state.
6. Two officers also attended my home last night and further caused me to be harassed alarmed and distressed as I publicly pointed out to them. The good officer bowed his head as he clearly understood that he had indeed been sent to harass me while the ignorant idiot officer told me, “We’ll be back” which I understand to be a threat that I will not tolerate in view of the fact that I am a single mother with a minor in my care who should not be placed at risk AT THE HANDS OF THE MET.
7. It is unreasonable that I should have to explain to Maranda that mummy is sorry and the police have busted down our door for no apparent reason.
8. The sergeant involved confirmed that I was in courtroom 76 as defendant 4 and had been giving evidence or corruption and an abuse of process argument against the state and that he had been sent on “a wild goose chase”.
9. This is the fourth occasion the MET have attended my residence in the past 3 weeks since placing a case stated on the record at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Courts.
10. The first visit was to ask my neighbour basically who is she and what do you know.
11. The second visit was while my daughter was on break. The two officers had no warrant that time either. They were sent on another bogus mission seeking an Asian woman at my residence to which I clearly am not.
12. I was forced to surrender my birth certificate and passport under threat of arrest and forced to allow the officer to enter my premises without warrant, also under threat of arrest.
13. The third time an officer attended, it was to enquire as to my neighbour’s dog’s nature, as I regularly take him for a walk as well as enquiring after the back garden and rear exits from my upper flat.
14. The attendance of the MET to my home is escalating in direct relationship to these proceedings and I will be seeking an injunction against the MET should the courts not see fit to intervene on behalf of myself and my daughter as this is clearly organised state harassment against a mother and child which I will not tolerate.
15. December 28, 1065, the land now known as Parliament Square was consecrated and belongs to God, not the Queen – also reasonably believed to be left in perpetuity to the people.
16. God’s law and God’s title to this land are superior to any man-made statute or land deed. God’s Ten Commandments are presumed to be the foundation of all law.
17. Disclose the complete history of the title deed and full history of Parliament Square including that of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign.
Signed:............................................................
Date: ..............................................................
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Queen v. HAW, TUCKER, SWEET a.
Category: MySpace
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Nos: HQ10X01980
HQ10X01981
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:-
THE MAYOR OF ....LONDON....
(on behalf of THE GREATER ....LONDON.... AUTHORITY)
Claimant
- V -
1) REBECCA HALL
2) BRIAN HAW
3) BARBARA TUCKER
4) CHARITYSWEET
5) MARIA GALLASTEGUI
6) OTHERS
7) PERSONS UNKNOWN
Defendants
_____________________________________
ABUSE OF PROCESSWITNESS OF
MRS CHARITY SWEET
_____________________________________
I, Charity Sweet, of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, Parliament Square, will say as follows:
Agent provocateur
Tiexa de Castro V. Portugal 28 E.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)
(i) It is not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power and an abuse of the courts.
(ii) ... every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its processes of the courts... the courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state
(iii) .. the doctrine of the abuse of process is re-enforced by HRA 1998
1. I am asserting that the continuance of these proceedings derived from the actions of an agent provocateur is an abuse of the processes of the courts and a gross perversion of justice. These proceedings should be dismissed out of hand as I am accusing, on public record, MARIA GALLESTESTEGUI to be an agent provocateur.
2. Democracyvillage.org shows a clear association in the header with Peace Strike.
3. Demotox.com shows “The new Democracy Village was organised by Maria Gallestegui, the Peace Strike Campaigner”
4. Peacestrike.org.uk website offered an open invitation to “Join the Democracy Village on Parliament Square”.
5. Make Wars History stated on Facebook “The Parliament Square Peace Strike Campaign has invited the people to set up a democracy village to occupy the square until the troops come home”.
6. Hurryupharry.org reported on first line of site, “Democracy Village “Parliament Square Peace Strike” are a group...”
7. Indymedia.org.uk clearly reported “no unauthorised protest SOCPA legislation threats (at DV) or charges which begs the question of what are the conditions of Peace Strike as set by Metropolitan Police.
8. Indymedia.org.uk reported “the camp is authorised by a blanket ‘peace strike’ authorisation” based on a notification by MG/PS.
9. Parliament-square.org.uk and BH clearly state and claim no association with MG/PS as from 11/04/09 and DV/PS/MG as from 01/05/10
10. Demotix.com clearly reports that I am claiming MG to be an agent provocateur.
11. My witness statements and attached facts relevant to agent provocateur allegations clearly shows that MG was and remains the organizer of the Democracy Village which is being used to tar, feather and remove 2, 3, 4 and others of PSPC by the side door of bogus GLA bye-law subordinate legislation based on primary SOCPA 2005 bollocks legislation that is clearly and unequivocally not HRA compatible as it is undeniably defective by events of present circumstance that cannot be denied.
12. It is most curious that MG has not yet been identified and added to these proceedings as the primary defendant; DV came to PSG specifically at her Peace Strike invitation - an authorized demonstration with apparently absolutely no conditions, limitations or restrictions placed upon it whatsoever while HM GOV purports, in contrast, BH is to be limited to 3m x 3m x 1m, unlawful searches and ad infinitum harassment by various bodies of the state.
13. PSPC is being told to get back to sleeping on the pavement and get off the grass or face eviction with an added threat of loss of liberty while PS/DV can “do whatever you like” as told by members of the MET, witnessed by myself and video recorded. Entrapment springs to my mind and these proceedings are a perversion of justice to say the least.
14. SOCPA 2005 is defective. PS/DV prove this fact beyond any shadow of a doubt by their very existence in contrast to the real peace campaign of PSPC, both located at PSG and being clearly treated differently by HM GOV while being prosecuted and punished together for what can only be described as unreasonable reasoning of the judiciary.
15. A severance should have been immediately granted by any reasonable bench owing to the facts that allegations are clearly solely against DV/PS bar 2, 3, 4 sleeping in a tent for shelter being compared to DV/PS/MG opening up what can reasonably be described as an open air shelter for the homeless, across the road from parliament which could easily be misconstrued by the media as a camp site and confused in the public eye as the PEACE CAMPAIGN of BH to which DV/PS clearly is not.
16. These proceedings are a set up by MG to aid and abet the real complainants behind these proceedings – those with a vested interest in silencing the TRUTH.
17. Genocide is a war crime and those committing these egregious crimes against all humanity must be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, both domestic and international.
18. It is curious that these proceedings have commenced in the last six month window prior to BH having a possible claim to adverse possession of PSPG owing to the duration of his longstanding campaign for peace and I suppose that is mere co-incidence.
19. THE GLA has had the opportunity to fine anyone choosing to break their Bye-laws regarding PSG and PSPC and has chosen not to fine anyone in PSPG as would be the appropriate course of action under the GLA bye-laws, explained to myself in court today. In how many years of PSPC sleeping on the grass, was there not one fine issued? Surely the first remedy the GLA should pursue is as per their own bye-laws – a fine – byelaw 14. An eviction would be somewhat putting the cart before the horse when this action has never been taken against PSPC since 2001, only unlawful attempts at eviction in 2007.
HRA1998
20. I was given one day by Maddison LJ to prepare a proper defence for these proceedings. ‘McLibel’ made for most pertinent, relevant and interesting reading. Art 6. I have also been attached on record, to these proceedings, in conjunction and by order of Madison LJ, with DV/MG and not 2 and 3 which is a blatant falsehood.
21. It is curious to note that in all the bundles delivered in a box Friday evening, The Human Rights Act 1988 was not included nor listed.
22. I am seeking a public hearing, with a jury, in order to properly challenge the compatibility of SOCPA 2005 sec 132 – 138 with HRA1998 and GLA bye-laws based on such nonsense, taking SOCPA 2005 a step further indeed – destroying civil rights; challenging art 10. HRA 1998 from notification of right to application for permission as opposed to notifying of a civil right.
23. It is nonsense for HM GOV to assume that two separate applications are necessary for two separate authorities to grant two separate authorisations, with no prescribed processes in law, for one single expression, in order to exercise art 10 and art. 11 in the exact same place and timescale... and all this hoo-haw is supposedly HRA 1998 compatible.
24. Art 2. Right to life - engaged. Breached. Genocide is a war crime.
25. Art 3. Prohibition of torture - engaged. Breached. Seeking shelter while campaigning for peace, engaging art. 10 and art. 11. is reasonable. Forcing human beings to be at risk and seek shelter on dangerous pavements when there is a safer reasonable option readily available that has already long been utilised and exercised is unreasonable.
26. Art 5. Right to liberty and security – engaged. Breached. It is reasonable to seek shelter on the grass in a tent while campaigning for peace, twenty four hours a day, fifty-two weeks or three hundred and sixty five days a year - depending on how you wanna slice it or dice it.
27. Art. 6. Right to a fair trial – ENGAGED. Breached. An independent and impartial tribunal would not deny me, as an unrepresented defendant, adequate time to prepare a proper defence while easily granting one for the Claimant, especially in consideration of the mountain of authorities delivered Friday evening as trial commened three days before trial.
28. I did read the order of Maddison LJ correctly as I thought I was told in court – that I would not be participating in the proceedings against myself until closing submissions, denying me the right to examine witnesses Monday morning... beggars belief.
29. Art. 7. No punishment without law – engaged. It is illogical, ludicrous and ultra vires to retrospectively criminalise peaceful and lawful behaviour. BH and PSPC remain lawfully and reasonably exempt from SOCPA 2005 sec. 132-138 as the campaign for peace of BH began 2001.
30. Art. 8. Right to respect for private and family life – engaged. Breached. Please carefully read the witness statements of BH and BT regarding unlawful and unreasonable searches by the MET that MG/PS/DV have clearly not been subjected to for clearly unquantifiable reasons.
31. Art 9. – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - engaged. Breached. Speaks for itself when a peace campaign has been undermined by and agent provocateur and is being prosecuted on that basis and foundation.
32. Art. 10 – Freedom of Expression – engaged. Breached. HM GOV keeps attempting to convince me that I cannot be myself and express my humanity in places of public access through threatening my liberty and being most unreasonable in general.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
queen v. HAW, TUCKER, SWEET a.k.a. boris' bollocks b.
33. Art. 11 – Freedom of Assembly – engaged. Breached. Apparently I am not allowed to assemble with BH or BT as Maddison LJ has placed, on record, that I am associated with DV/PS/MG which is blatantly a lie.
34. Art. 14 – Freedom from discrimination – engaged. Breached. It is clear from these very proceedings that PSPC is being discriminated against and treated unfairly, being tarred with a DV/PS/MG brush.
First Protocol
35. Art 1. Protection of Property – engaged. Breached. Anyone would seriously questions the actions of the state in consideration of the ridiculous amount of times of the property of PSPC has been damaged, destroyed or illegally seized.
36. It is completely beyond my comprehension why any of the legally trained people present in these proceedings, acting on behalf of ANY of the defendants, have not offered an abuse of process argument specifically in regards to the gross breaches of numerous human rights.
37. December 28, 1065, the land now known as Parliament Square was consecrated and belongs to God, not the Queen – also reasonably believed to be left in perpetuity to the people.
38. God’s law and God’s title to this land are superior to any man-made statute or land deed. God’s Ten Commandments are presumed to be the foundation of all law.
39. Disclose the complete history of the title deed and full history of Parliament Square.
Signed:............................................................
Date: ..............................................................