HQ12X01972: THE "DRAT" INDEX: THE LEGALITY OF WAR IS JUSTICIABLE IN UK COURTS.
I got an email (see emails below) yesterday from the quite deranged robot who masquerades as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police's "lawyer".
It does not appear to "compute", that we have - repeatedly - reminded him that he is involved in what remains a criminal conspiracy involving the kidnap of Neil Kerslake on April 10th 2013, after we left the High Court.
The kidnap of Neil Kerslake on April 10th 2013, was no ordinary kidnap.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a Defendant in a number of very serious claims in the High Court.
The dilemma the U.K State faces, is that they could not try arguing in the European Courts that the legality of the illegal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not justiciable in the U.K courts.
The European Courts simply could not say it, let alone have it recorded in history.
We have (for example) also established locus standi from a number of different angles.
Also we are not seeking a Judicial Review of government "policy", which means we are not asking the courts to "advise" the state.
The most important point we are making, is this.
The - "law" - cannot be made so obscure, by the state, that the ordinary person would not know under what circumstances the state claims they may indiscriminately murder some-one, and then call that (for example) "collateral damage", when it was nothing of the kind.
If the apparatus of the state, including politicians, their lawyers and judges claim (as they do) that the people are too stupid to understand the "intricacies" of certain - law - specifically over state killing, then it is the law, and the state, not the people, who are at fault.
The fact remains that no-one can be "elected" to murder whoever they like.
That - fact - distinguishes, politics from law.
Anyway, the Commissioner's brief sent me something titled, I kid you not, the "Drat" Index.
It must have been a Freudian Slip.
The rather selective "Index" is only illuminating in so far as it illustrates some of the very many battles the quite criminal U.K state has engaged in to try and prevent our making a legal precedent on the most contentious issue of our times.
The legality of the wars.
Everything that has been done to us has happened - because - the legality of the wars is justiciable in the U.K courts.
And before a jury.
It is worth considering too, that the U.K is even more of a Police State now than it was in 2006.
To: babs tucker
Subject: Claim number HQ12X01972
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:39:05 +0000
As you know the trial of this matter is fixed to commence on Monday 24 June 2013 with a time estimate of 2/3 days.
In accordance with the directions of Master Kay QC I enclose a draft index to the trial bundle for agreement.
I look forward to receiving confirmation from you that you agree the contents of the bundle and I will prepare a paginated copy and arrange for it to be delivered to you in Parliament Square.
If you require any additional documents to be included please let me know and forward copies of those documents to me and I will include them in the bundle.
Finally I would be grateful if you could forward over to me a better copy of the Reply to the Defence referred to at number 6 of the draft index. The copy I have is difficult to read and will not copy clearly.
I look forward to hearing from you no later than 4pm on 11 June 2013.
DDI : 0151 242 7949
From: babs tucker
CC: neil kerslake; steve jago
Subject: HQ12X01972: The legality of the Wars are Justiciable in the U.K Courts.
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:03:58 +0100
RE: YR EMAIL BELOW.
As you know full well, I do not know that HQ12X01972 is fixed for trial without jury.
What you are saying could only be utter nonsense because as you know there are a number of outstanding Applications, relating to:
a) the fact that the legality of the illegal wars is Justiciable in U.K Courts (which you know the European Courts can only agree to)
which led to b-g below
b) the need for a jury trial (incl. because of a, above)
c) the Application to have the claims joined for a jury trial, (also because of a, above. You will remember that I have a jury trial in HQ12X2745 and will require one in HQ12X03564)
d) proper disclosure ie: "both houses and black rod" & house of commons june 2008 (because of a, above)
e) the Application over the false witness statement filed by Asst. Cmmr Allison ( which is a contempt of court) (incl. because of a, above)
f) the ongoing criminal investigation into the criminal conspiracy to kidnap Neil Kerslake on April 10th 2013 (in which you were involved) (because of a, above)
g) the fact that I and others are being prevented by you and your client and the Mayor of London, from actually attending - any - court (because of a, above)
Of course the fact that the Applications remain outstanding and may require Appeal, means you and your client (for example) and the courts, have made it impossible for any trial, even without a jury, to go ahead in the near future.
It is obvious that the true position remains that the State wish to prevent my having a jury trial, precisely because the legality of the war - is - justiciable in the U.K Courts.
And a ruling by a jury in the High Court would set a precedent that none of you want.
For completeness, I note you have sent me a Drat ? Index, (a Freudian slip perhaps) where you have covered up (for example) several of my witness statements, that were filed on various court records.
ie: September 2011.
The reason you covered up my witness statement from then is because unlike Cole's statement which was challenged, (and he was not even there to be cross examined) the Judges - also - covered up my signed and dated witness statements, which were not challenged.
Of course a jury will be most interested that campaign property was stolen by your client, when I was illegally imprisoned in Holloway for five weeks because District Judge Evans illegally refused me access to a lawyer, before illegally sentencing me...in the cells of Horseferry Road Magistrates.
And you also bizarrely include HQ11X00563 which actually is a claim that also remains ...outstanding, and has not been concluded, because of my counterclaim, which you have -also- concealed.
And of course CO/1193/2007 which you also mention without pointing out that was also never concluded, because HH Judge Rivlin repeatedly refused to hand over the transcript of the hearing at Southwark Crown Court.
I also do not recall having seen the police witness statements numbered 15 & 16 which were apparently concocted on November 2012.
Interestingly I note that despite having video footage of various police denials, the police do, do "risk assessments".
Number 46 is also fraudulent, because no seizure record was taken on May 23rd 2006.
I have the video proving no record was made until Brian and I went to Charing Cross and Hendon in November 2007.
I will wait for my Applications and Appeals to be heard.
I am not paying for and you are not having with my agreement, a show trial of any number of procedural irregularities, that I made clear in various Applications and Appeals, I did not agree to.
You really need to understand that you are living in a fantasy world.
The illegal wars of aggression are very real, and millions of innocent civilians really have died.
How dare you and your client try to sidestep dealing with the - legality - of those wars.
The legality of the wars is what it is all about, and is a matter of the utmost public importance.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
also sent by fax to Listings Office
P.S I also want to know from the MSU (as I have previously asked) what happened to the Application I made on April 8th 2013 to have the stay lifted in HQ12X03564. You and your client conspired with the Mayor of London to kidnap Neil Kerslake, because your client, the Commissioner and Mayor of London were desperate not to lose in Southwark Crown Court because that affected and now adds to HQ12X03564.
All trails lead back to the fact that your client and Parliament, did what they all did, to me - because - the legality of the war is justiciable in U.K courts and you do not want that argued before a jury in the High Court.