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
_____________________________________



“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 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: ..............................................................