FULL DISCLOSURE: 'TRIAL' BY MEDIA UPDATED
DAY 3387/3388 September 10th/11th 2010
What does a government do when they have exhausted all possible legal avenues in achieving their ends?
They resort to 'trial' by media, where during 'war' the media can be relied on to 'spin' the story whichever way the government of the day likes, and everyone can have an "opinion".
And so, in July 2009, the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron (prejudiced any further 'legal' proceedings against us when he) publicly stated on Sky Sunday News Live, that if he was elected he would get "rid of Brian Haw's Parliament Square Peace Campaign."
Clearly the man had a plan and indeed would have been aware of an earlier plan which was revealed:
a) in the far from "Confidential Minutes of a Meeting at New Scotland Yard on 19th May 2006", (that was disclosed in CO/11393/2007, which stated "both Houses (Commons and Lords) and Black Rod gave their full support for police actions" (on 23rd May 2006)
b) which the former Commissioner of the Metropolis now Lord Blair admits on page 233 of his book 'Policing Controversy' was intended to 'remove' the campaign, which he also admits was illegal and is not quite what he said to the press at the time.
Anyway, on the 25th May 2010, at the State Opening of the new Conservative/ Lib Dem administration, the politicians invited the media along at 7.30am, hours before the State Opening, to 'witness' the beginning of a new campaign of organised state violence, against Brian Haws Parliament Square Peace Campaign, this time to be primarily orchestrated by the Conservatives.
On 25th May 2010, thus Brian and I were "arrested" and held for over thirty hours, while everyone and their dog in the Establishment was 'free' to give their personal opinions, on how they wanted to remove our campaign.
The pretext the police used to "arrest" us was the use of S17(1)e of the PACE 'Act', 1984, an obscure police power used to search in an emergency, which clearly this planned event was not. The police had for example, every opportunity to apply for a search warrant.
Not since the 70's and the days of the 'Angry Brigade' have the Establishment 'come out' so publicly to show that they were willing to resort to any means possible to get rid of a visibly determined campaign.
Unlike the 'Angry Brigade' who allegedly resorted to the use of bombs, and despite the repeated use of organised state violence against us, we have never retaliated with the same.
This latest use by the police of S17(1) e PACE Act 1984, that had actually revealed much the police had clearly not intended, about their own activities, had a somewhat murky history.
On 15th July 2008, in the Royal Courts of Justice in CO/11393/2007 we had yet again asked for an order for the return of campaign property that was stolen by 78 police on 23rd May 2006 at a cost to the British taxpayer of now 111,000 pounds plus, in a SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 'case' that Brian Haw won on 22nd January 2007.
Unable to find a legal basis to not return the campaign property, and having failed to get rid of the campaign, the police suddenly began after seven years of our campaign, to use an emergency 'search' power, S17 (1) e PACE Act 1984.
Two of the obvious intended consequences were to try and get a court ruling that we were a security risk so that the police could not return the property, whilst having the opportunity to invent all sorts of other malicious allegations against us, during the illegal searches.
There have been thirteen clearly illegal searches between July 2008 and May 2010, but tellingly not one took place during the massive Tamil demonstration during 2008. Our civil actions for legal redress (because nothing has been found during the numerous illegal searches), have naturally been blocked.
On 18th November 2009, during the previous State Opening, the police used another search under S17(1) e PACE Act 1984 to "arrest" me. This 'search' actually revealed that the police and another separate campaign in Parliament Square, the Peace Strike, were trying to give the impression that the two separate campaigns, Peace Strike and Brian Haw's Parliament Square Peace Campaign were one and the same.
Peace Strike was dishonestly portraying to the public that it was 24/7 campaign too, while in fact it was being left completely unattended with the knowledge of and agreement of the police.
The 'legal truth' that came out of their dishonesty that no-one liked was the fact that when a campaign could be left completely unattended in what the police claimed was a high security zone, it importantly showed that no-one in fact needed:
a) authorisation under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 from the police, in order to campaign,
b) nor did anyone need to be searched under S17(1) e Pace Act 1984.
An 'Acting' (and man this guy does acting) Inspector Cole (who had previous seriously bad form - in another Conservative Party cover up. ref: 00069/2010 & 00070/2010 Criminal Cases Review Commission) added fuel to the flames of yet another conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, when he wrote a witness statement dated 18th November 2009, knowing it to be untrue in which he falsely claimed that there had been a High Court case where a High Court 'direction' was given that we must comply with the searches (see part of his 'witness statement below).
N.B. ref: 00069/2010 & 00070/2010 from the Criminal Cases Review Commission refers to two 'cases' where the CCRC have informed me in writing that City of Westminster Magistrates Court and the Crown Prosecution Service have destroyed the files, as indeed they have apparently done in another 'case'.
The two 'cases' ref: 00069/2010 & 00070/2010, involved Cole being the 'arresting' police officer who was never produced, when the criminal justice system was illegally used by the Conservative MP Alan Duncan, who is now the 'Development Secretary, but was the Shadow Minister for Big Business, when I was illegally 'arrested' & imprisoned without trial and fined 355 pounds in 2008, for pointing out that this MP was "corrupt" and (presciently asked "had he had his expenses authorised by the Speaker," before the 'expenses' scandal of 2009) which at best was a civil matter if what I said was untrue, which it was not.
Duncan had attempted to conceal receiving 160,000 pounds from Vitol Oil who were themselves fined $17.5 million dollars on a specimen charge of corruption, in the oil for food program in Iraq. Duncan voted to invade Iraq and sacrifice the lives of millions of innocent civilians, so his friends in big business could make even more money, through increasing oil prices!
A Lie. No such "direction" from the High Court exists.
In fact Acting Inspector Cole knew when he was 'instructed' by his Metropolitan police lawyer (and I use the term 'lawyer' loosely) Sarah Winfield, that it was I who had been to the High Court in CO/2460/2008. The President of the Queens Bench Division May LJ and Maddison J (who popped again in the Mayors case & presided of course over the controversial Trafigura super injunction against Parliamentary proceedings being reported 'case') had said (and after the police did not produce a single shred of evidence to contest my getting an injunction) that these were civil cases. The Metropolitan Legal Services knew that the President of the Queens Bench Division & Maddison J did not make any 'direction' that we had to comply with the searches.
And rather than handing over police team footage of the 'incident' taken on 18th November 2010, at the time, to the (supposedly) 'investigating', police officer, Acting Inspector Cole held onto the F.I.T police footage until January 2010 while he went and had a meeting with the Crown Persecution Office.
And so it came to pass , in the merry go round of state abuse, that when I went and answered 'police bail' on 13th January 2010, over the cover up that arose out of 18th November 2009, I gave as a 'reply to caution', "Maria Gallestegui (from the Peace Strike) is your agent provocateur".
It is of course illegal to bring proceedings through the use of an agent provocateur and so on and so forth.
Maria Gallestegui of the Peace Strike (which was soon to become the Democracy Village) and the police have - all - been like rats down a drain pipe in terms of telling the truth, for quite a few months now.
"Reply to caution."
A show 'trial' of this farce was due on April 29th 2010 before it was suddenly illegally delayed when it was claimed that the states 'star witness', Acting Inspector Cole who is ever so shy about taking to the witness stand, had gone on holiday for the whole of April.
And so Cameron's circus, "Democracy Village"/Peace Strike, arrived on 1st May 2010.
"Police Camp", not part of the spin doctor's script.
And that is how we arrived at 25th May 2010, and groundhog day with ...errr.. Acting Inspector Cole turning up and "arresting" Brian and then I, all over again.
The picture below from that day's Evening Standard says it all.
It shows my standing next to Inspector Cole with his lying witness statement from 18th November 2009, in my hand as Brian is filming me quacking away, complaining about the corruption going down.Clearly Acting Inspector Cole knew he had lied in his previous witness statement, so he could not have then reasonably believed he could come in and even try it on in terms of "arresting" us - all over again - for allegedly obstructing the police on 25th May 2010.
One is led to believe that police officers are not supposed to lie and it is a serious abuse when it leads to "arrests".
7.30am 25th May 2010 in Parliament Square with police officers in the background in one of our tents.
Acting Inspector Cole has come up against some obstacles to our arrest with his lying witness statement being produced so he needs to get rid of both the camera and the witness statement.
When Cole "arrests" Brian, the camera is passed to me, because obviously it is our evidence of their corruption and the police have their own police photographers present, because apparently - we - are such errrr....serious criminals:)
So then Cole needs to "arrest" me to get rid of the camera AND the copy of his lying witness statement. The police claimed I was arrested for obstructing the police but in fact this never happened and goodness knows who they claim the arresting police officer was for that.
Suffice to say the police did not carry out a prompt and effective investigation, because no-one wanted to 'interview' me with that 'police witness statement' with me, in 'police custody'. I mean it's so bizarre. You couldn't dream it up if you tried.
However, the blatant and arrogant police abuse of their powers, (because they rely on political cover) is the most appalling breach of the public trust placed in them and I take very great exception with the police publicly portraying us as the criminals, while using - force - to cover up what is their own quite obvious corruption.
The spiteful police then refused to release us and held us overnight to bring us before the 'court' on the specious grounds that since we had committed repeat 'offences' while on police bail, we should be 'remanded' to prison, when it was they who had delayed the latest show 'trial' in April 2010.
At best the dispute was as everybody already knew, over searches where the police had never found anything, while our legal redress continues to be blocked in the civil courts.
The police of course go well OTT in trying to use the whole opportunity to publicly portray us through the media as criminals.
The circus over the two "searches" on 18th November 2009 & 25th May 2010, were then 'joined' and the new 'trial' was supposed to then take place on 26th July 2010.
That 'trial' was then postponed until 25th November 2010, when the police unsurprisingly failed to make the necessary disclosures, such as Acting Inspector Coles' witness statement from 25th May 2010. Given his witness statement from 18th November 2009, where everyone has covered up that he has lied, I really can't imagine what he could write now that would sound remotely credible.
Whew... only the adversarial state can make life so complicated.
So.....then when we were released on 26th May 2010 after around THIRTY HOURS wasted etc being abused in 'police custody' we were THEN served papers regarding the Mayor of London's attempt to get rid of our campaign.
And they have the nerve to say there is a legal sytem in this country!
The Mayor of London 'served' us with papers where he was seeking a possession order and injunction against us in the High Court.
These 'proceedings' really were scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The best I can make of the Mayoral fairytale, is that while he was forced to admit that Brian Haws campaign is a lawful campaign, somehow it is also being a trespass in what is a public space, where there was 24/7 access, and teh campaign has been for nine years.
The Mayor fought tooth and nail to have our 'case' heard with that of Democracy Village.
Two months of our time that is to be used campaigning, was then wasted in increasingly bizarre and surreal court 'hearings', in the High Court.
Unsurprisingly although the two campaigns, Democracy Village and Brian Haws Parliament Square Peace Campaign could not be more different, Justice Griiffith Williams (who - also - had previous bad form with us, while sitting with the Lord Chief Justice) failed to 'distinguish' between the two campaigns when he ruled against us.
The Mayor of London then invited the world's press along to see our demise on 2nd July 2010, so we put in an appeal, 1592 & 1598 and Democracy Village 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1609 & 1614 then followed suit, and we remained 'joined'.
The new Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger et al in the Court of Appeal, tried as hard as he could to not hear and not know that in fact the Court of Appeal and the High Court are bound by a House of Lords ruling in a case called DPP v Jones from 1999.
Refer: Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and another 1999 UKHL5 11th February 1999.
A link can be found at bailli.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/5.html
This 'ruling' is basically an admission of the obvious. A "Common law" ruling. Parliament and public authorties simply cannot create Acts/byelaws to over-ride common law.
In a nutshell Lord Irvine was saying that it is not proportionate for the state to try and make what is reasonable into a criminal offence. Parliament and public authorities should hardly need to be told.
And of course as was pointed out to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, the Mayor of London had not produced a single shred of evidence that our campaign had been unreasonable.
So the Master of the Rolls finally came back and 'allowed' our appeal and sent our legal gymnastics back to the errrr....High Court.
The following court order (where we are 'defendants' 2 & 3), makes this clear.
and their accompanying little maps they made, are below.
The Court of Appeal ruling meant that Brian Haws Parliament Square Peace Campaign were not evicted from the GREEN area, while Democracy Village were supposedly evicted from the whole BLUE area, which includes the GREEN area, where we are:
When the 'case' was then referred back to the High Court, the most sensible course of action seemed to be to request the obvious, 'full disclosure' of the Conservative Party's 'strategy' to "get rid" of us.
Clearly when Cameron opened his mouth, he must have been a man 'with a plan' and so legally we are entitled to see what it is, because it really is illegal for politicians to use a legal system to try and remove those peacefully challenging them.
And clearly what is going on is political not legal.
On 2nd September 2010, the Mayors' taxpayer funde d legal team, gave a carefully worded response by email to my request for 'full disclosure'.
Eversheds solicitors claimed that "the Conservative Party strategy that I referred to" was "not in the control of their client"
On 9th September 2010, I notified the Mayor's lawyers, that (in any event) I would be making an Application under something called CPR r 3.4 to have the proceedings beng brought against me by the Mayor struck out as an abuse of process.
My logic goes like this.
If a) I needed and the Mayor (who had failed to disclos e a single shred of that thing called 'evidence' that I had been unreasonable), b) refused 'permission' for me to be reasonable in a public space that would - in law - be perverse/unreasonable - of him.
It then follows that to continue serious High Court 'proceedings' a gainst our campaign, would be an abuse of process, because a 'defendant' in a 'legal' system really should not need to provide a 'defence' to being reasonable.
Who knows what they will dream up next.
FOOTNOTE: FLOWCHART. This shows that the state wish to discourage people from exercising their Convention Rights in Parliament Square. The flowchart outlines a bureaucratic nightmare (and then some) for Joe Public because they can be caught under two completely arbitrary "laws", one administered by the police and one administered by the Mayor, when the same person would be doing the same thing in the same public space, while for tourists for example, there are no such requirements in an area where there is peaceful general public access.
During the inevitable back and forths with lawyers, the following email was sent by me to the Mayor of Londons' solicitor's Eversheds:
my understanding is -also- that points to be argued should be simplified before 'trial'.
indeed it is so simple i say no further 'proceedings' are necessary.
my point is that not a single shred of paper has been produced that proves that i have been unreasonable in any way.
therefore it is not 'proportionate' to continue to try and prosecute me for being...errr...reasonable.
so while trying to work out what my 'defence' to being reasonable is/should be ...i am left scratching my head in bemusement.
this led me to the obvious logical conclusion that i am being illegally prosecuted through the legal system by a politician because i could not possibly need the 'permission' of a politician (i did not even vote for) to be reasonable in a public space.
so the narrow point that we are left arguing about seems to me to be, how could it be proportionate for a politician to prosecute me for not having his permission to be reasonable.
could you please explain this to me, before any more of the taxpayers money is wasted?
until that is explained it remains reasonable for me, to ask, for full disclosure of the conservative party strategy as articulated by cameron, which was to get rid of our campaign - because - where there is no law being done and there is no law being done here, it could only be political and full disclosure of the strategy will prove that it is purely political.
so kindly provide full disclosure of the conservative party strategy to illegally use the legal system to try and get rid of our campaign.
babs tucker "