DAY 3721: WEDNESDAY AUGUST 10TH 2011.
The government appear hell bent on continuing to throw the rule of law and due process out of any window.
"They" do not want to face a jury and a massive payout in the High Court in civil claims over illegal searches (for example), which would also result in the return of campaign property that was controversially stolen on 23rd May 2006 from Parliament Square at a cost to the taxpayer of £111,000.
It is self evident that Matt Foot from Birnberg Peirce Solicitors had many months to go to court and resolve the fact that there was an absence of any court order so Babs and Brian could not be arrested during searches if they allegedly did not comply. Instead Birnberg Peirce have ignored instructions and done nothing, and so are also responsible for a - warrant - that will now have been issued.
None of it needed to happen.
BARBARA GRACE TUCKER - v - UNITED KINGDOM.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Parliament are illegally using the legal system to try and destroy Brian Haw's 10 year 24/7 Parliament Square Peace Campaign which began on June 2nd 2001.
The 24/7 nature of our campaign has meant that the legal system that is illegally used by the state against us has been ineffective in protecting our right to peacefully campaign.
Barbara Tucker who has been a member of Brian Haw's Parliament Square Peace campaign since December 2005, has been subjected to numerous unlawful arrests and vexatious court hearings, all without due process.
The legal system has been used for all manner of politically motivated trumped up charges to prevent our campaign peacefully exercising our Article 10 & 11 rights.
On 22nd February 2006, the Metropolitan Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Courts illegally claimed it was a crime for Barbara Tucker to peacefully campaign with Brian Haw.
Barbara Tucker has been denied any opportunity to appeal this case, with an appeal in the High Court where legal aid was denied, heard in her absence, after she was not notified of the hearing.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission claim that the CPS and courts destroyed all records.
It is common-sense that it could never be a crime to campaign with Brian Haw, which it is acknowledged in The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors  EWHC 585 (QB) (17 March 2011)has been the case since December 2010.
Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions  EWHC 3019 (Admin) (30 November 2007)
Confidential Minutes of a Meeting at New Scotland Yard on 19th May 2006, stated "both houses and black rod gave their full support for police actions".
Parliament ordered the Metropolitan Police to illegally remove Brian Haw's Parliament Square Peace Campaign on 23rd May 2006 under the cover of SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138.
However, there was no police power of seizure under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138.
The legal system has refused to allow any challenge to SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 showing that it is incompatible with Article 10 & 11 of the Human Rights Act, which would lead to a Declaration of Incompatibility.
However, when our campaign asked on 15th July 2008, in CO/11393/2007 for the return of campaign property that was stolen on 23rd May 2006, based on the illegal seizure, the police then began illegal searches under s17(1)e of the PACE Act on 29th July 2008, some seven years after the campaign began.
The Metropolitan Police face sixteen civil claims before a jury in the High Court, where on the balance of probabilities a jury would have to find that the searches began after our campaign sought a court order for the return of campaign property.
Therefore, unusually, not only all the searches would be found to be illegal but all the campaign property that was stolen on 23rd May 2006 would be returned.
Parliament and public authorities did not want this costly eventuality where they would also be found to have brought Parliament etc into serious disrepute.
The Metropolitan Police, Crown Prosecution Service and courts therefore then all ignored due process when they sought to illegally bring proceedings over searches back down into the Magistrates Court.
The Prime Minister David Cameron also publicly stated on Sky News in July 2009 that he would remove our campaign if he was elected Prime Minister.
This re-enforced the political nature of any and all illegal proceedings against our campaign.
The Mayor of London then obtained a High Court Injunction in 2011 (to remove our campaign to the pavement) when the Court of Appeal denied us any appeal in this country.
The courts had covered up three photographs from the London leg of the Tour De France in 2007, the December 9th 2010 student protests and December 31st 2010 New Years Eve which proved that we did not prevent anyone else from using Parliament Square.
The Mayor of London did not dispute that he also illegally used Maria Gallastegui as an agent provocateur (along with others) from a campaign called "Democracy Village/Peace Strike".
Westminster City Council who are responsible for the pavement in Parliament Square have now issued proceedings for another High Court injunction for an alleged unknown unreasonable obstruction of the highway, without providing any evidence of wrongdoing by our campaign.
All due process has been ignored by the state (MPS, CPS and City of Westminster Magistrates Court) involving cases over illegal searches while sidestepping the fact that the Metropolitan Police did not in fact have as they claimed to arrest us twice, (on 18th November 2009 & May 25th 2010), any court order that we comply with the searches.
Parliament has discriminated against a ten year 24/7 campaign and in so doing has effectively repeatedly kidnapped Barbara Tucker (who has been unlawfully arrested 41 times and) who is unable to get a fair hearing before any court in the country.
In the absence of the existence of any court order that Barbara Tucker comply with searches, the Crown Prosecution could not seek and City of Westminster Magistrates could not lawfully issue any warrant to make me appear before any court in the UK based on arrests that arose from a non existent court order.