Monday, June 14, 2010

QUEEN V. HAW - A.K.A. BORIS' BOLLOCKS part 5 sweet response
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....

.. ..

_____________________________________....

....

REPLY AND COUNTERCLAIM OF....

MRS CHARITY SWEET....

_____________________________________....

.. ..

.. ..

I, Charity Sweet, of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, ....Parliament Square...., will say as follows:....

.. ..

Dear Richard Thomas Hanson partner EVERSHEDS LLP:....

.. ..

1. “Democracy Village (DV) who began to occupy the square on May 1, 2010” gives details of DV and yet fails to note the organising body – Maria Gallastegui (MG) of Peace Strike (PS).....

.. ..

2. Respondents 2, 3, 4, seek immediate severance from the civil claims being brought against DV as we will not be tarred with the same brush as what will be proven to be an agent provocateur and her followers.....

.. ..

3. HRA 1998 is engaged in its entirety as are all European Convention Rights as notified to the Commissioner of the Metropolis of London Dec 30, 2008 in SOCPA 2005 Notification by myself titles “Family4Life” to which I have never received a letter of authorisation nor had any conditions placed upon myself under SOCPA 2005 sec 132-135.....

.. ..

4. The statutory enforcement mechanisms should be fully applied in these proceedings to protection of these rights and those exerting their rights.....

.. ..

5. I completely agree with point a), b) and c) and would also stress that this is most certainly a matter for a jury trial, such is the great public importance of this case as Her Majesty via the Mayor, on the backs of Parliament, the judiciary and indeed the people, is seeking to deface and erase Art. 10 and Art. 11 rights of HRA 1998 declaring procedural rules are compatible with HRA 1998 while wrongly relying on BLUM which is nonsense.....

.. ..

6. Please immediately bifurcate respondents 2, 3, 4 from DV/PS/MG as you have made it perfectly clear and plain to see that you purport that you intend to deal with DV and 2, 3, 4 in a separate fashion, you plainly intend to meet out the exact same punishment of eviction.....

.. ..

7. 1. “Unauthorised” term in regard to DV is disputed as asserted present under MG and Peace Strike (PS).....

.. ..

8. Please disclose authorisation letter of PS/MG including all conditions placed by MET under SOCPA 2005.....

.. ..

9. MG/PS should clearly be made a defendant as she is the orchestrator of the events bringing forth these proceeding of injunction and possession.....

.. ..

10. 2. Not applicable (NA) to 2, 3, 4.....

.. ..

11. 3. Disputed as DV set up under auspices of MG/PS authorisation.....

.. ..

12. 4.5. NA to 2,3,4....

.. ..

13. 6. Disputed as MG/PS “flagrantly flouting the law” with exactly whose consent. If there was a pressing social need for action, surely the Met would have acted by now enforcing any breach of SOCPA conditions placed upon MG/PS.....

.. ..

14. 7.8.9. The mayor is acting ultra vires as was Parliament in handing over PSG to Her Majesty in 1999 – it was not theirs to give away. Parliament Square Gardens (PSG) belongs to the people in perpetuity.....

.. ..

15. 10. Disputed as the Mayor does not have a superior claim to possession of PSG greater than BH as a permanent campaigner for peace outside Parliament since June 2001. BH has performed similar duties to the Mayor in regard to PSG over a longer period of time, on a more continual basis.....

.. ..

16. 11. GLA actions are incompatible with HRA 1998 Art. 10. Art. 11.....

.. ..

17. 12. The enforcement of the bye-laws against peaceful members of the public campaigning for peace in a place of public access, engaging Art. 10 Art. 11 HRA 1998 is a breach of statute; therefore any breach of these bye-laws cannot be an offence.....

.. ..

18. 13.14. Breaches HRA 1998 Art. 10. Art. 11.....

.. ..

19. 15. Blum V. DPP has been clearly misconstrued in the fact that the issue of incompatibility was never challenged in the High Court and was mistakingly accepted as HRA compatible by the defendants which it is not and only the severity of the punishment was challenged.....

.. ..

20. 16.17. No dispute.....

.. ..

21. 18. Disputed – There is an elusive politically sensitive blanket ban on protests in the form of SOCPA 2005 sec. 132-138 which is defective and incompatible with HRA 1998. Political censorship is not cool.....

.. ..

22. 19. Since June 2001, BH has campaigned and slept at PSG as his only recognised residence in order to facilitate his 24/7 campaign for peace outside Parliament.....

.. ..

23. 20. Not disputed except that MG/PS must be added as a defendant in connection with DV and separate to PSPC. ....

.. ..

24. 21. Disputed as DV present under auspices of PC/MG – conditions must be produced as MET has authorised under SOCPA 2005.....

.. ..

25. 22.-38. NA 2,3,4....

.. ..

26. 39. Disputed as my case is substantially the same as WCC v Haw and Tabernacle v Secretary Of State and beyond all reason.....

.. ..

27. 40.NA 2,3,4.....

.. ..

28. 41.Disputed as ultra vires as BH was present at PSG June 2001 whereas SOCPA 2005 was created years afterward. Mr. Haw receives post at PSG, is on the electoral role at PSG and has been accepted by the High Court as resident of PSG. BH is exempt from SOCPA 2005. It is outside the law for HM GOV to criminalise the public retrospectively.....

.. ..

29. 42. Disputed as the area used has not varied greatly since June 2001 except on May 23, 2006 when 78 Met officers performed an illegal seizure costing £111 K reducing BH’s HRA 1998 Art. 10 rights from 45 meters to 3 meters (acting ultra vires).....

.. ..

Response to claimant claims against defendants....

.. ..

30. Clearly shows bias as both parties are being treated exactly the same regarding punishment when the effective circumstances and facts of these matters are entirely and completely different.....

.. ..

31. Draft order for injunction clearly states a threat of imprisonment or theft of assets for engaging and exercising Art. 10 and art 11. HRA 1998 rights.....

.. ..

32. In Simon Grinter’s (SG) statement, out of 103 points, only one point is relevant to respondents 2,3,4.....

.. ..

33. In SG1 it is noteworthy on p.18 that DV was set up by PS who is MG.....

.. ..

34. SG1 p.20 notes Chief Inspector Paul Switzer attended DV and yet did not challenge or question any conditions or lack thereof placed or not placed under SOCPA 2005 upon DV or PS/MG.....

.. ..

35. SG1 p.25 The Mayor assumes three hours to be a reasonable amount of time to protest and that is supposed to be compatible with HRA 1998 and European Convention Rights. SOCPA 2005 sec.132 – 138 is defective, should be repealed and removed from statute law and declared incompatible with HRA 1998.....

.. ..

36. SG1 p.57. It shows the stark difference of unreasonable conditions being placed on BH ultra vires while no apparent conditions have been placed on PS or DV.....

.. ..

Second witness statement of SG....

.. ..

37. 4. And 5. Disputed – please read statements of BH, BT and CS.....

.. ..

38. It is most curious that MG does not appear in any report or claim from the GLA and yet she has been present in PSG from very early on, as an attached agent provocateur to BH/PSPG.....

.. ..

39. P.93 clearly shows evidence of WCC v. Haw and what was proven not to be blocking the highway and illegally seized May 23, 2006 regardless of SOCPA 2005 having no powers of seizure.....

.. ..

40. P.94 It beggars belief that the Met allowed such machinery to be moved onto PSG without any interference or proper inspection.....

.. ..

Reply and defence to counterclaim....

.. ..

41. The front page clearly underlines my name “in connection with DV” which is an absolute untruth I keep attempting to correct. I refuse to be associated with MG/PS/DV. I can pick my own friends thank you very much.....

.. ..

42. 1.- 14. NA to 2, 3,and 4 therefore severance should be immediately granted proceeding and claim for injunction or possession so as to properly challenge the compatibility of SOCPA 2005 sec 132 – 138 with HRA 1998.....

.. ..

.. ..

43. 15. Please add 4 as myself.....

.. ..

44. 17.18. 20. Disputed as incompatible with HRA 1998.....

.. ..

45. 25. 2,3,4 are not connected or associated with PS, MG or DV.....

.. ..

46. 27. Matter of 2,3,and 4 is identical to WCC v BH as there is no criminal activity alleged or proven, only libellously inferred my mis-association with MG/PS/DV.....

.. ..

47. 30. 2,3,4, have a human right to shelter while exercising Art 10 HRA 1998.....



Read more:  http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll#ixzz0r97P1lWb