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
_____________________________________
“Though shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This (LOVE) is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and all the prophets.”
Mat. 37-40: Jesus Christ - the Bible
“Thou shalt not kill (commit murder).” – God
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.





Read more:  http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll#ixzz0r95f6HfM