ECHR ‘NAKED RAMBLER’ SCOTS ‘BREACH OF PEACE’ DUCK & DIVE REVEALS ILLEGAL USE OF...‘BREACH OF THE PEACE’ IS ON WAY OUT ...ACROSS UK (28.10.2014)
What is now self-evident, is that the whole British far from legal system has sought to keep the ‘Naked Rambler’ away from a civil claim before a jury in the High Court which would result in a binding ruling, because ultimately it is not nudity the Genocidal UK State, are really trying to cover up.
The fact it was widely misrepresented in the ‘news’ media that the ECHR had found against the ‘Naked Rambler’ in England -and- Scotland when in fact, that is not the case, provides the road-map to what will bury the ongoing illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ against everyone, across the UK.
"...Since 2003 he has been arrested dozens of times in Scotland and England ..."
28.10.2014 INDEPENDENT: CORRUPT MIKE SCHWARTZ FROM BINDMANS INEVITABLY LEADS PEOPLE DOWN THE GARDEN PATH.
The long standing persecution of the Naked Rambler who is considered something of a national treasure, always seemed particularly inexplicable.
After all, not too many people even have the survival skills these days to follow the old soldier, in his tracks, even if they were inclined to which is unlikely, including the fact of the generally rather chilly climate of the UK.
In fact what is really being desperately covered up by the UK ‘government’ and ’news’ media is that the long illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ across the UK is on it’s last legs.
The actual European Court ruling relating to...Scotland is here:
CASE OF GOUGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 49327/11)
Originally the ‘Naked Rambler’ filed a case at the ECHR while being illegally imprisoned without...legal representation, after courts ‘allowed’ numerous law firms to refuse to represent him, when he was obviously illegally imprisoned over a very many years.
Indeed he is still being silenced in prison.
After the claim was filed at the ECHR, the UK then wheeled out the execrable Mike Schwarz and Bindmans Solicitors so the ECHR could claim that he hadn’t yet exhausted all legal remedies in the UK, involving the part of his claim to the ECHR over what are continuing unlawful imprisonments in the UK.
No doubt lawyers would have been queuing up to take money long ago from Rupert Murdoch to defend page three.
It is then self evident that what is a lamentable ‘case’ put forward to the ECHR by Bindmans very deliberately connived with the British 'government' to cover up some relevant facts.
ENGLAND ILLEGALLY USE ASBOS TO COVER UP THAT 'BREACH OF PEACE' IS DELIBERATELY KEPT DIFFERENT IN ENGLAND & WALES COMPARED TO SCOTLAND TO KEEP 'BREACH OF PEACE' ...ACROSS THE UK.
It was the UK 'government' which includes England and Wales, not just Scotland, who defended the case the Naked Rambler brought, and it is what is not said, that always gives the game away.
The UK and Bindmans failed to mention, and nor is it mentioned anywhere by the ECHR, that ‘breach of the peace’ is treated differently in England and Wales compared to Scotland, which is where you really pick up the trail over the stench of what is really going on ...across the UK.
The entire legal system is trying to keep people away from...juries in civil claims in the High Court against the British government, (& not just over 'breach of the peace') so that the state can all too typically do whatever it likes to anyone.
In England and Wales people can albeit illegally, be arrested under an alleged ‘breach of the peace’, yet people can no longer be charged or brought before the court or ‘bound over’ for an alleged breach of the peace, in England and Wales.
This means that -all- cases involving an arrest for ‘breach of the peace’ in England and Wales should end up as civil claims against the government, before...juries, in the...High Court, which is what will render the illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ inoperable, through a binding ruling.
It is clear that no police officer could get on a witness stand in England and Wales to claim they ‘reasonably believe’ (which is what they need to be able to prove) they can arrest someone they know for a fact, they will not be able to charge or prosecute or bring before any court, for any criminal offence.
Until that binding ruling exists in the High Court people will continue to frankly be kidnapped by police, with the illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ in England and Wales.
It is essentially what is a deliberate 'fudge' between England & Wales and Scotland that has kept the whole 'breach of peace' alive across the UK.
The whole chestnut of ‘breach of the peace’ only survives in England and Wales because our own evidence shows it is lawyers including specifically Bindmans, who are colluding to prevent civil claims, over ‘breach of the peace’ going ahead in a timely manner.
Their purpose is to perpetuate a quite a serious ‘anomaly’ which the UK obviously did not want to mention in the ECHR, for the very reason that the use of ‘breach of peace’ in England and Wales is ...kidnap.
We have three outstanding linked ‘breach of the peace’ civil claims ourselves, which would mean ‘breach of the peace’ could no longer be used in England and Wales, once a jury heard what was going on and we get the ruling in the High Court which is binding.
Ours involve the illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ to unlawfully ‘arrest’ me on May 23rd 2006 and to unlawfully ‘arrest’ Steve Jago on February 15th 2013, and then Neil on April 10th 2013, when we left the High Court over the first one etc !
I was originally kidnapped by the police illegally using ‘breach of the peace’, on May 23rd 2006, because the British government did not want to stand down 78 !! corrupt police officers when I pointed out the police had no power of seizure, in what has now amounted to a multi million dollar and still counting operation in state deceit.
Had the UK or Bindmans mentioned in the ‘Naked Rambler’ case that the quite serious ‘anomaly’ over the use of ‘breach of the peace’, still existed in England and Wales, where people could not be charged or prosecuted, the UK ‘government’ could not have explained why 'breach of the peace' could be used differently in Scotland.
What the UK and Bindmans were covering up is that the English courts were illegally and curiously using criminal proceedings involving juries who were being instructed by judges over ASBOS in Crown Courts...against the Naked Rambler.
The real purpose of the ASBOS was to prevent the ‘Naked Rambler’ having the opportunity of bringing civil claims against the British government, over what would otherwise be a 'breach of the peace’ before a jury in the High Court in England, where he would have got a binding ruling in his favour, and so on.
The purpose is always to keep people away from juries in civil claims against the British government, in the High Court which are binding rulings on lower courts.
In the ‘Naked Ramblers’ case, Bindmans will now have to represent him, to overturn the ASBO in England, and/or he just needs to submit a new Application with the true facts, on the differences over ‘breach of the peace’ within the UK, because he is correct when he says that nothing that was done to him, was ‘prescribed by law’.
It was when we won the 'nothing is prescribed by law' argument in 2007, brought by the CPS in the High Court, when we did not let Bindmans represent us, in a 'hearing' where the sole purpose was to try and delay the return of campaign property illegally seized, that we first rendered the legislation being used against us that was repealed, inoperable, because High Court rulings are binding.
"....issue of law raised is not an easy one [the government were illegally trying to 'appeal' a case they had not been able to make out any case to answer, in the Magistrates Court !!] and, being aware that Mr Haw had not sought to be represented by a lawyer...we asked the Attorney General to nominate an advocate to the court to assist us [the Lord Chief Justice of the High Court !!]....Mr Haw said...demonstration was directed against torture, murder and genocide.... [removed] by the police....and physical violence that he claimed had been inflicted on him and his followers by the police... he is...well advised to co-operate with the police in agreeing...conditions..."
The British government knew that ultimately it was all going to end up with a High Court ...jury, because we did not have to 'agree' anything with the police who had no power of seizure.
The ‘news’ media are just cynical cretins who have misrepresented the Naked Rambler ECHR ruling, like so many cases, because they work with and support the violent corrupt state
It is encouraging that the illegal use of ‘breach of the peace’ is clearly on it’s last legs, and so it should be.
In our own cases the ECHR do not have any ‘reason’ to refuse our campaign -access- to a jury in the High Court over our own groundbreaking civil claims against the British government.
The key to restoring the rule of law, in the US and EU is putting the (for example) British ‘government’...on trial before a jury in the High Court, with proceedings recorded and published by the people.