TO GLOBAL RESEARCH: 'NO CASE TO ANSWER & NEVER PROSECUTED' (09.04.2014)
Sent: 08 April 2014 15:40
To: Barbara Tucker
Cc: Lesley Docksey
Subject: Re: LIBEL: Iraq, The Illegal War, Ten Years On: Curbing the Rights of Antiwar Activists
please indicate to me the title of article and url to which you are referring and the specific section of the article which you consider libelous,
I just received your email today.
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation (CRM)
Montreal, Qc. CANADA
Subject: RE: LIBEL: Iraq, The Illegal War, Ten Years On: Curbing the Rights of Antiwar Activists
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:30:27 +0100
Concerning my sentence:
"...While Brian had some legal authority to stay there, Barbara didn’t, which has meant that she has been arrested an astonishing 47 times..."
Brian's "authority" stemmed from the fact that, when the government decided to make it illegal to protest in Parliament Square Brian, having been there for some time before the law was enacted, was judged to be the one person the law didn't cover. Which just goes to show how very stupid the government was in its efforts to try and get rid of one of our bravest and committed peace campaigners. As for you being arrested so many times, I was NOT implying you were acting illegally, but that the London police are extremely prejudiced against any form of protest. That is hardly 'dangerously libellous' - unless of course one works for the Metropolitan Police!
From: babs tucker
Subject: FW: LIBEL: Iraq, The Illegal War, Ten Years On: Curbing the Rights of Antiwar Activists
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:56:26 +0100
'NO CASE TO ANSWER' & 'NOT PROSECUTED'
RE: Iraq, The Illegal War, Ten Years On: Curbing the Rights of Antiwar Activists
It is now clear to me that just like the British government, you are...continuing to lie, to try and continue, to confuse and distract people from...the truth.
You have explicitly stated that Brian had ‘some authority’, and that I ‘did not’, which ‘meant that’ I ‘was (unlawfully) arrested and (falsely imprisoned etc), 48 times’, which is just something you made up, which is why it is not referenced.
(& btw my two ‘brief spells’ in prison came about because I was illegally imprisoned because I was illegally refused any legal representation or trial)
You then compound your lie, by now claiming that Brian had 'some (unknown) authority' because Brian was exempt, because he was there before the new law, still leaving as a mystery who you would then claim I needed ‘authority’ from for...goodness knows what.
That is also ALL untrue, in terms of both the facts of what really happened, and law, which is why you omit to mention that the Court of Appeal ruling on May 8th 2006, did claim that Brian came under the new law, which was the soundbite used to conduct the illegal seizure, on May 23rd 2006, during which I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned, not under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138, but because of an alleged breach of the peace.
Haw, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  EWCA Civ 532 (08 May 2006)
Clearly 78 police officers were not threatened by anything other than the fact they had no power of seizure, which led to a stand-off, with my trying to retrieve what they were stealing.
When our entire campaign was found to have ‘no case to answer’ in January 2007, before any of us even got the chance to take the witness stand, we have ever since and it remains the case, due to the reluctance of the British government to return our evidence of their Genocide, groundbreaking High Court actions against the British government.
The truth that you, the rest of the controlled opposition, the mainstream media and the British government do not want people to know (including in Europe) is:
1. It is logical (which real law is) that the fact is, the British government could not impose conditions to smash our campaign by unlawfully arresting us and stealing our property, under the Public Order Act 1986, because there was no disorder.
The British government could not then invent other legislation, just to try and smash our campaign by arresting us and stealing our campaign property, when there was still...no public disorder, and the Public Order Act 1986 remained throughout the rest of the country.
2. Both ss 132-138 of SOCPA 2005 (which was eventually repealed because we properly challenged it) & ss 141-150 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (which is part of our groundbreaking High Court action) were uniquely, in the history of Britain, invented by the British government and mainstream media, as pure...propaganda, that could not be used against...ANYONE.
The purpose of the propaganda was to try and smash our campaign, while preventing anyone...joining.
3. EVERYONE always was and always is, as I have always said, free to “peacefully campaign, anytime, anywhere there is a public space, for as long as there is government.”
Clearly, as I repeatedly proved, the British government could not impose conditions on that.
That is the message, that you, the rest of the controlled opposition, the British government and mainstream media did not and are NOT putting out.
4. Mark Thomas, who ignored Brian asking him to get everyone to do a once in a lifetime ‘Notification’ just as I did, (before I subsequently withdrew it, because it really did not need to even be written down formally) was wheeled out to try and contain and distract from what I pointed out, and repeated ad infinitum.
It is well established that no-one needs the 'authority' of any other, to uphold the rule of law at all times, to try and protect life.
Brian and I did not personally think there was anything funny about Mark Thomas putting on a comedy show about SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138.
5. Mark Wallinger who works for the British government, was paid £90,000 by...the British government, (to front State Britain) -at the very same time- the British government paid £111,000 and still counting (not £27,000) to steal our evidence of Genocide from Parliament Square on May 23rd 2006.
The purpose of the British government's, ‘installation’ State Britain, in Tate Britain, was for Mark Wallinger, with the help of the mainstream media, to try and re-write the history and truth of our campaign, and the alleged ‘law’ surrounding the illegal seizures, while the British government continued to try and violently smash our campaign.
We discovered, to his surprise, that Mark Wallinger, who also made money out of winning the Turner prize, because of State Britain, was also paid further sums by the British Council, to take the copy of our display to other countries to repeat British government...lies.
Mark Wallinger very clearly made his name off the back of, and by fraudulently using, our Parliament Square Peace Campaign.
When Brian died, Mark Wallinger, who had no authority to speak on behalf of our campaign, publicly claimed our campaign had ended, which he knew was untrue.
When Mark Wallinger was visiting an art critic from the Independent newspaper who happened to be in the hospital bed next to Brian, while Brian was briefly in Guys, before Britain refused Brian treatment that he subsequently had later in Germany, Brian challenged Mark Wallinger over who had...ownership of State Britain.
6. As you well know, the illegal seizure in the middle of winter, on January 16th 2012, (which does not rate as a ‘confiscation’) over which I was 'never prosecuted', and so also became part of our groundbreaking High Court action, was also a whole stage managed media propaganda event, just like May 23rd 2006, that this time, left me and other members of our campaign without shelter, subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in all weathers, for many months on end.
An email on January 17th 2012 between the Home Secretary and others proves everyone involved in the media event, was panicking when our campaign did not just walk away.
In September 2012, the Attorney General then illegally threatened me over a High Court recording, to try and cover all that up, before he went running to his friends at You Tube to get them to remove court recordings in the U.K...without any court order.
As I well recall, there was not a peep out of controlled opposition like you, except to continue to feed people the lie, that they need to be found to be ‘exempt’ or have ‘authority’, although we are violently assaulted and our campaign property is just ‘confiscated’, whatever story you all invent.
The last time Neil and I were able to go to the British High Court on April 10th 2013, Neil was kidnapped when we left the court, by police officers led by one with the fake number 666 (which is not quite like 999 and added yet another outstanding civil claim) because the British government do not want us in the High Court -because- our groundbreaking High Court actions will ultimately succeed.
In all the circumstances, I do not therefore propose to enter into any argument with you, when you could not prove in any court of law, ANYTHING you say.
You (or Global Research) will either:
a) remove the article in it’s entirety, because it is all a lie, and the comment about my having no authority which meant I was arrested 47 times, is libellous (and directly connected to all the other lies)
b) I will get a court order for the article to be removed, because you cannot prove ANYTHING you wrote, and I never want to see the harmful lies you have written, continue to be repeated, or ever have cause to hear from you ever again, in my life.
Brian died as have millions more, because deceitful people like you...lie, all the way up the food chain, about the rule of law, that exists to protect...life.
I am simply part of a much wider law abiding...majority, who do not accept being bombarded with disgusting opinions that continue, through one way or another, to promote the likes of Tony Blair -because- he is a war criminal, who will brutally murder anyone for money.
It is widely known that through our groundbreaking High Court claims we will bring, groundbreaking criminal prosecutions of those involved in war crimes, before juries, in Britain, with proceedings recorded and published by the people, so that the courts and mainstream media lose their 'editorial control' over both truth and justice.
We are confident that a jury will agree with us, that the British government tried to smash our campaign -because- they are committing war crimes.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign