EXPOSING THE PRISM HOAX: THE U.K ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE U.K SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, (BLACKSTONE CHAMBERS) & GOOGLE/CIA.
As the Prism Hoax dribbles on, the death rattles of the lamestream media continue.
watching them, watching us:)
We have been forced to write to a group called PRIVACYNOTPRISM (who are supposedly bringing a legal challenge over mass surveillance), because they have publicly claimed they act on behalf of every internet user in the U.K and EU.
This means PRIVACYNOTPRISM are dishonestly asserting they have some right to speak for and therefore some control over, the legal rights of others.
This is simply not true.
Of course one email we have shows it was the same Blackstone Chambers who are now representing PRIVACYNOTPRISM, who were representing the Home Secretary and party to nobbling High Court Judges to try and cover up what became and remains a civil claim by us in the High Court that then dragged in the Attorney General illegally using Google/CIA….
The email is from phoney litigation that I was not involved in, where I was nevertheless illegally named, by someone fraudulently purporting to speak for me.
The Judiciary then used what someone else was able to say about me, without my being able to challenge it, to illegally name me, in several High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings I was not involved in.
In their final phoney ruling, the Judiciary lamented that I had "survived".
In my own civil claim, I am still waiting ...for much ….disclosure.
From: babs tucker
CC: neil kerslake; steve jago
Subject: NOTICE RE YOUR SURVEILLANCE ACTION IN EUROPE
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:40:42 +0100
Dear Privacy Not Prism,
I refer to a mainstream media report that quotes your group (who include for example, parliamentarians as "advisers") claiming on your internet site to act on behalf of every internet user in the E.U & U.K.
(…The legal papers were filed at the Strasbourg court on Monday on behalf of the four groups and “all internet users in the UK and EU”, the Privacy Not Prism campaign site said…http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/liberties-groups-to-take-gchq-to-court-over-web-privacy-8857321.html)
As your website admits, purporting to act on behalf of everyone is "unusual", not least because your group knows this claim is untrue in many respects.
Kindly confirm in writing by return email that:
a) you are not instructed to act on behalf of and do not act on behalf of every internet user in the U.K & E.U, (& this is to inform you that your group does not act for me, Neil Kerslake or our Parliament Square Peace Campaign)
b) you have not filed papers in the European Courts dishonestly claiming to act on behalf of every internet user in the U.K and Europe (and if you have, that you will amend them accordingly).
For example, we have live litigation in progress that is not only distinguished from yours by the fact that you do not address the reality of - why - the whole surveillance apparatus was really created and - how - it is really being used against people like us - while - we uphold the law.
The brutal deaths of millions of innocent civilians in illegal wars of aggression has clearly escaped your collective lack of consciousness and consciences.
Legally speaking your "witness statements" for example, are therefore in most respects, a joke.
By contrast we actually do have real evidence that the U.K Attorney General illegally got Google (for example) to …go way beyond merely monitoring us etc, to remove …lawful internet content of ours in the U.K, without ever having any court order, whatsoever.
After all the U.K Attorney General knew he could hardly go running around claiming we are a national security risk.
Contrary to the assertions of your legal counsel, the reason that what is a national security risk has never been defined, is because no-one could lawfully be prosecuted under criminal law, based on (for example) the subjective opinion of a (corrupt) Minister (ie: politician).
The fact the U.S government suggested everyone is a suspect was always a "legal absurdity".
Of course our evidence also happens to prove the U.K Attorney General illegally used Google to try and conceal evidence of the U.K Home Secretary (and others) nobbling High Court Judges.
Legally speaking, that evidence alone, is serious enough to not only bring down a government, but bring the judiciary into very serious disrepute.
Emails show Gerard Clarke of Blackstone Chambers was representing the Secretary of State for the Home Department and a party to the illegal actions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The same Blackstone Chambers who have attempted to cover up seriously illegal activities by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and others, are one of the firms now representing you.
I copy to Gerard Clarke of Blackstone Chambers.
It is not by happenstance that an Application I made on April 8th 2013, in one of my own civil claim HQ12X03564 including over January 16th & 17th 2012, involving the above, has gone unheard, despite my repeated queries.
Indeed I am still waiting for basic disclosure.
Of course what the business state really fear is that the people will increasingly use the internet to lawfully WATCH the business state in a multitude of ways that will change the systems that have failed to protect so much human life.
That is what the Attorney General and Secretary of State for the Home Department were trying to prevent.
And by Google pointing out the fact that they are funded in part by the CIA, that makes the CIA a party to the U.K state attempting to conceal our evidence, which I suppose is not good for the CIA.
Of course, as the U.K state discovered, when they did their wholly illegal background checks on us, was quite a remarkable irony that occurred during what we knew to be their illegal "monitoring" of our phone conversations.
In every sense, the true facts of the real situation are far worse than your group even begins to suggest.
At best, all you are representing is an apologists view of government that says they may sometimes be bad but that does not make them criminal.
Of course legislation will have to be amended. The government concede as much.
They will still however have to face legal action over the real facts of what they have already done.
All roads lead back to one simple fact.
The U.K state has always had a far from legal system.
This is why and how the U.K state have gone around the world for many years brutally murdering whoever they like.
You only have to look at how the far from "Common-wealth" was created, and numerous illegal wars of aggression to understand a few basic facts.
A reasonable person would understand that mass murderers in government, who are used to killing whoever they like, really don't care about inventing phoney legislation over mass surveillance of living persons - because - those living persons have a genuine problem with the mass murder of innocent civilians in illegal wars. This is what (layer upon layer of) legislation that was always published, and therefore never a leak, made clear.
In the event that I do not have a written response from your group by the close of business on Monday, simply confirming that your group accepts you do not act on behalf of everyone, and in particular our campaign, in proceedings your group has brought, we shall be forced to take further action.
By publicly asserting that your group acts on behalf of every internet user in the U.K and E.U your group is suggesting a degree of control over the legal rights of others, that you simply do not have.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
From: babs tucker
CC: neil kerslake; steve jago
Subject: one of blackstone chambers email's
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:48:54 +0100