Monday, June 14, 2010
QUEEN V. HAW - A.K.A. BORIS' BOLLOCKS part 6 sweet skeleton argument
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....
.. ..
_____________________________________....
....
SKELETON ARGUMENT OF....
MRS CHARITY SWEET....
_____________________________________....
.. ..
.. ..
I, Charity Sweet, of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, ....Parliament Square...., will say as follows:....
.. ..
1. I SUBMIT THIS IS UNFAIR PROCEDURE BREECHING Art 6. HRA 1998 right to a fair trial – specifically regarding equality of arms and inadequate time to prepare a defence.....
.. ..
2. The decision of Maddison LJ to claim that Human Rights 1998 specifically regarding Art. 10 and Art. 11 are not engaged pertaining to these proceedings when they clearly are, beggars belief.....
.. ..
3. The claimants have resorted to a technique of generalised assertions against unidentified persons in a feeble attempt to smear the peace campaign of BH, BT and CS consistently breaching various human rights as set out in JR co/12068/2008 and appeal 2009/2234....
.. ..
4. “Carefully defined powers” does not apply to SOCPA 2005 sec 132-138 when “demonstration” has been clearly left undefined by Parliament while the judiciary is using “a show of emotion” to convict as the legal definition and clearly giving the police unfettered powers to act or not act as they see fit in regards to the political climate.....
.. ..
5. This application should be adjourned as it is clearly already breaching Art 6. HRA 1998 and is an abuse of the processes of the courts.....
.. ..
6. The witness statement of Alex Lee is most noteworthy.....
.. ..
7. The majority of the claim does not concern 2, 3 and 4, therefore there should be an immediate severance of hearing and application made for a trial by jury.....
.. ..
8. These proceedings have already revealed themselves as an opportunistic attempt to abuse the processes of the courts and clearly interfere with human rights of various individuals associated with BH/PSPC.....
.. ..
9. The Claimants claim against 2, 3 and 4 should be immediately severed as there is no pressing social need relevant to PSPC that is real and concrete for the courts to act upon.....
.. ..
10. 2, 3, 4, have never occupied PSG to the exclusion of others.....
.. ..
11. It is unreasonable to request 2, 3, 4 to sleep on the pavement in order to facilitate exercising of their art 10, art 11 rights re HRA 1998.....
.. ..
12. The proportionality and reasonableness of this attempt at injunction and possession is highly questionable in relationship to the concern the state and Her Majesty have certainly clearly recently shown regarding BH attaining Squatters rights owing to the duration of his peace campaign since 2001; that’s the real reason why these proceedings are being pursued.....
.. ..
13. There is a genuine and substantive dispute in that I state SOCPA 2005 sec 132-138 is defective and incompatible with HRA 1998 and therefore the bye-laws built on the back of that legislation are also incompatible with HRA 1998 as well as ultra vires.....
.. ..
14. The transcript of Blum needs to be read out in its entirety to the court as SOCPA 2005 was mistakingly accepted as compatible and not challenged properly as to its incompatibility with HRA 1998.....
.. ..
15. The Byelaws being used are unnecessary and an arbitrary interference with Art. 10 and Art. 11 human rights of PSPC.....
.. ..
16. Appeal 2009/2234 p.16 skeleton argument....
.. ..
17. Jr co/12068/2008 skeleton argument a. Statement of Grounds b. Statement of facts relied on.....
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
Signed:................................................................
.. ..
Read more:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll#ixzz0r9DlBfYI
QUEEN V. HAW - A.K.A. BORIS' BOLLOCKS part 6 sweet skeleton argument
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....
.. ..
_____________________________________....
....
SKELETON ARGUMENT OF....
MRS CHARITY SWEET....
_____________________________________....
.. ..
.. ..
I, Charity Sweet, of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, ....Parliament Square...., will say as follows:....
.. ..
1. I SUBMIT THIS IS UNFAIR PROCEDURE BREECHING Art 6. HRA 1998 right to a fair trial – specifically regarding equality of arms and inadequate time to prepare a defence.....
.. ..
2. The decision of Maddison LJ to claim that Human Rights 1998 specifically regarding Art. 10 and Art. 11 are not engaged pertaining to these proceedings when they clearly are, beggars belief.....
.. ..
3. The claimants have resorted to a technique of generalised assertions against unidentified persons in a feeble attempt to smear the peace campaign of BH, BT and CS consistently breaching various human rights as set out in JR co/12068/2008 and appeal 2009/2234....
.. ..
4. “Carefully defined powers” does not apply to SOCPA 2005 sec 132-138 when “demonstration” has been clearly left undefined by Parliament while the judiciary is using “a show of emotion” to convict as the legal definition and clearly giving the police unfettered powers to act or not act as they see fit in regards to the political climate.....
.. ..
5. This application should be adjourned as it is clearly already breaching Art 6. HRA 1998 and is an abuse of the processes of the courts.....
.. ..
6. The witness statement of Alex Lee is most noteworthy.....
.. ..
7. The majority of the claim does not concern 2, 3 and 4, therefore there should be an immediate severance of hearing and application made for a trial by jury.....
.. ..
8. These proceedings have already revealed themselves as an opportunistic attempt to abuse the processes of the courts and clearly interfere with human rights of various individuals associated with BH/PSPC.....
.. ..
9. The Claimants claim against 2, 3 and 4 should be immediately severed as there is no pressing social need relevant to PSPC that is real and concrete for the courts to act upon.....
.. ..
10. 2, 3, 4, have never occupied PSG to the exclusion of others.....
.. ..
11. It is unreasonable to request 2, 3, 4 to sleep on the pavement in order to facilitate exercising of their art 10, art 11 rights re HRA 1998.....
.. ..
12. The proportionality and reasonableness of this attempt at injunction and possession is highly questionable in relationship to the concern the state and Her Majesty have certainly clearly recently shown regarding BH attaining Squatters rights owing to the duration of his peace campaign since 2001; that’s the real reason why these proceedings are being pursued.....
.. ..
13. There is a genuine and substantive dispute in that I state SOCPA 2005 sec 132-138 is defective and incompatible with HRA 1998 and therefore the bye-laws built on the back of that legislation are also incompatible with HRA 1998 as well as ultra vires.....
.. ..
14. The transcript of Blum needs to be read out in its entirety to the court as SOCPA 2005 was mistakingly accepted as compatible and not challenged properly as to its incompatibility with HRA 1998.....
.. ..
15. The Byelaws being used are unnecessary and an arbitrary interference with Art. 10 and Art. 11 human rights of PSPC.....
.. ..
16. Appeal 2009/2234 p.16 skeleton argument....
.. ..
17. Jr co/12068/2008 skeleton argument a. Statement of Grounds b. Statement of facts relied on.....
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
Signed:................................................................
.. ..
Read more:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll#ixzz0r9DlBfYI
e-mail:
