TUCKER-v-GUARDIAN PRISM HOAX.
Those who cosy up to/work with the state will often, as a tactic, assume an air of intellectual superiority, to say whatever they like, which revealingly, does not extend to doing... law.
This is because law, is about facts, rather than he said/she said...fictions.
Like many stories run by the Guardian, the Prism story, is simply not true.
U.K Police State.
The Prism Hoax is however, yet another vehicle, being used by the mainstream media and government, to dangerously continue escalating, how an ever increasing number of human lives, are really at stake, over violent state censorship.
The whole world would be a much safer and more peaceful place, without violent state censorship, in the U.K, that is endorsed by the mainstream media, including the Guardian.
From: babs tucker
Subject: re: HQ12X03564 & Guardian Prism Hoax.
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:36:54 +0000
cc: Commissioner of the Metropolis
U.K Attorney General.
posted to Kings Place, 90 York Way
London N1 9GU
LETTER OF CLAIM: TUCKER v GUARDIAN (THE PRISM HOAX)
“All the global business state consider is who will challenge them and are they serious.”
1.The Claimant says the Guardian story on Prism is a hoax, because in fact and law, the Guardian endorse violent censorship of the Claimant and others, to protect their own business interests, and those of members of the U.K Parliament etc.
2.The Claimant maintains that her evidence shows the sole purpose of illegal state surveillance, of the Claimant, was to try and prevent the Claimant and others, through the illegal use of violent state censorship, from upholding the rule of law, and prosecuting the U.K State, over continuing war crimes in illegal wars of aggression, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
3.This has included the illegal use of secret police such as 666 who was impersonating a police officer for the Commissioner of the Metropolis and others, on April 10th 2013, when the Claimant and Neil Kerslake left the U.K High Court in London where there are numerous High Court claims that involve lies told by media such as the Guardian.
4.The Claimant says there is evidence from her own experience, that the Guardian have at all times, deliberately sought, for business interests, to mislead the public over our Parliament Square Peace Campaign, in articles published in the Guardian.
The Claimant further points out that the Guardian reasonably know that Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign are neither criminals, nor a national security risk, yet the Guardian through their actions continue to endorse violent and illegal state censorship of our campaign - because - what we are doing is not consistent with the business interests of the Guardian.
5. In an article in May 2012 (for example), the Guardian “legal affairs” correspondent Owen Bowcott, deliberately misled the public, by not pointing out that the significant fact was that our Parliament Square Peace Campaign continued without shelter, despite the fact we could not be prosecuted over the illegal seizure by police, on January 16th 2012, in the middle of winter.
The Guardian trying to cover up the illegal seizure of our Parliament Square Peace Campaign shelter, by police on January 16th 2012
6. The Claimant says that the Guardian were able to publicly misrepresent facts and law - because - our campaign continues to be illegally denied basic disclosure from the police operation on January 16th 2012, in an existing claim in the High Court numbered HQ12X03564.
This "apprehended woman" who was not prosecuted over the illegal seizure by police of our shelter in the middle of winter on January 16th 2012, therefore remains legally entitled to have a copy of the relevant disclosures, including what is in the blue police folder seen in this picture published by the...Guardian (amongst others)
7.This false and misleading article by the Guardian was for a considerable time, linked to a Wikipedia entry about our Parliament Square Peace Campaign.
8. The Claimant did not submit the Wikipedia article, nor the link to the May 3rd 2012, Guardian article, which has recently been removed, when the Claimant publicly pointed out it was -all- incorrect.
9. The false and misleading article by the Guardian on May 3rd 2012, was posted on Wikipedia as a link to another project by the U.K State to continue to misrepresent and pass off others as representing our campaign on an old website, that the U.K State had previously hijacked, called parliament-square.org.uk.
It is obvious to any reader that the website parliament-square.org which is “organised” from Malta, has gone to considerable effort to essentially pass itself off as Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, despite it not being connected in any way to our campaign.
10. The Claimant says that while the Guardian dishonestly claim to be speaking for the people over Prism, the Claimant says, in fact and law, the truth is the Guardian endorse the violent state censorship of those, such as the Claimant, who will expose and prosecute a state over the very real and brutal murder of innocent civilians, in illegal wars that really are happening.
11. The Claimant says the government frequently work hand in hand, with media like the Guardian, to publicly misrepresent facts and law to the wider public.
12. The Claimant says it was your own Guardian “legal affairs” correspondent, Owen Bowcott who first ridiculously suggested to the Claimant, before the Metropolitan Police even mentioned it, that our …umbrellas…. could be considered a “crime” in 2012.
The Claimant’s evidence shows the purpose was to provide -yet another- pretext for violent state censorship.
13. The Guardian report including the Claimant’s arrest on May 25th 2010, prior to a State Opening, was part of a wider media led initiative to remove our campaign through trial by media, which only involved illegal state violence.
14. Everyone and their dog, including the Guardian, had their say in the media, on May 25th 2010, while Brian Haw and the Claimant were locked up for thirty odd hours, following which Ofcom prevented Press TV reporting …that lawyers (for example) had (for example) actually failed to go to the High Court for… two years (for example), to challenge (for example) illegal searches.
......far from "legal assaults" by the U.K State and media.
15. The Claimant says that -had- the required police disclosure over January 16th 2012, (including documents relating to that massive police operation) been provided to our campaign (where that disclosure could only show we could not be prosecuted), the Claimant and others could have published the fact that the police could not prosecute our campaign for ....having shelter, in the middle of winter, on January 16th 2012.
The Guardian could then -never- have printed another false and misleading story by Owen Bowcott on May 3rd 2012.
The Guardian have benefitted from the illegal actions of the police in illegally refusing to disclose the documents that exist over the police operation on January 12th 2012.
Therefore both the Guardian and government continue to work hand in hand together, to mislead the public over facts and law, including to prevent other members of the public safely joining (for example) our campaign, in the U.K or elsewhere, because clearly, contrary to what the Guardian and U.K State claim, anyone can lawfully campaign peacefully and publicly, with shelter, all around the world 24/7.
The Guardian have publicly claimed on May 3rd 2012, that it was illegal to campaign, despite the fact that we remain legally entitled to campaign.
A reasonable person would know the misleading Guardian report on May 3rd 2012, put the Claimant’s life at risk, because the Guardian knew the Claimant was illegally being denied shelter, outside the Houses of Parliament in Parliament Square, while the State went on to use secret police such as 666 on April 10th 2013, when the Claimant and another member of our campaign, left the High Court.
15. The Claimant goes on to maintain that she reasonably believes that the Prism Story run by the Guardian is clearly a hoax.
A leopard whose business interests remain the same, does not change his spots.
The Claimant says the Prism Hoax is a very serious example of how and why the government and media continue to illegally work together, for business interests, to selectively publish information, on who and why, the Guardian choose to - claim - the NSA & GCHQ spy on.
The Claimant says that the Guardian reasonably knew of the July 12th 2001 report by the European Parliament on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) - Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System (2001/2098(INI))…and of various legislation that was published, regarding censorship…none of which the Guardian has ever challenged.
The Claimant observes that therefore the Prism Hoax has revealed nothing substantively new.
16. The Claimant says the Guardian are trying to restore public confidence in terms of their own credibility, as they lose considerable market share to the internet etc. -because- they lie about serious facts and law, while endorsing violent state censorship of members of the public, like the Claimant, who does …law.
The Claimant says that the Prism Hoax is clearly being used as a vehicle by the government and media to act as arbiters in a media trial over the rule of law, by media and government, where documents are not actually being disclosed, to substantiate numerous assertions.
The Claimant points out that the same issues the Guardian essentially raise in their Prism Story, are already part of an existing civil claim by the Claimant in HQ12X03564 (for example), involving January 16th 2012 (and other claims) where the Attorney General has along with Google, illegally censored our campaign in the U.K, without any court order, while threatening the Claimant, and so on and so forth.
The Claimant has noticed that the Guardian and government are essentially trying the same issues that already exist in our claims, in what is yet another trial by media and government, where the full facts and law, are not being given to or heard by the public, in a court of law, which is where both the Guardian or government should be defending both their positions, that in reality are the same.
It is our campaign who proposes lawfully (for example) recording and publishing across the internet, the U.K State on trial, before a jury, in the High Court, over illegal wars of aggression.
Our position remains that our “surveillance” of the U.K state, including recording and publishing U.K court proceedings online, is -entirely- lawful.
Likewise we are legally entitled to publish government documents, including the police operation on January 16th 2012.
The U.K Attorney General censored our surveillance of the U.K State, in the U.K, without any court order, because the U.K State cannot prosecute us over recording and publishing court proceedings involving the actions of public officials.
Our method of recording and publishing proceedings involving public officials means that the public can hear what is really said in courts over serious issues of law, instead of the public being drip fed censored versions by the media and U.K State.
The Guardian do not support the Claimant lawfully recording and publishing court proceedings, involving public officials (and the actions of the Guardian) in the U.K because then the Guardian cannot lie to the public over law, any more.
The Claimant says that it is neither for government or media like the Guardian to collect and hold, or choose, what documents can be -published- relating to (for example) the Prism Hoax also being run by the Guardian.
The Prism Hoax requires the same basic disclosure the illegal police seizure on January 16th 2012, in HQ12X03564, (& our counterclaim in HQ11X00563) still does.
The government and media are now simply conducting trials by media, without...any evidence.
17. The Claimant says that in many respects this reveals the truth behind the Guardian Prism hoax is far more serious than the story of hacking by the Sun.
The Claimant says, the Guardian purports that the Prism story is solely over surveillance, to distract from the fact of violent state censorship of law abiding members of the public, including the Claimant, that the Guardian, who the Claimant says are propagandists in a phoney War on Terror, endorse.
The Claimant says the Guardian are dishonestly purporting to support the people having a voice, while in truth the Claimant says the Guardian are illegally acting with the government to try to prevent the Claimant (for example) exposing the true nature and criminality of the business state, which include the actions of the Guardian.
The Claimant says the Guardian are not exempt from the law, in publishing information they reasonably know to be untrue, including a phoney war on terror that they know is leading to the brutal murder of innocent civilians.
18. In all the circumstances, the Claimant says the Guardian (as per Leveson) must therefore publicly disclose a list of all the documents they allege, came into their possession, (incl. from whom and when), and notify all those they (and therefore the U.S and U.K governments) have held information on, relating to the Prism story run by the Guardian.
19. Likewise the Commissioner of the Metropolis must disclose documents relating to the illegal seizure of our campaign on January 16th 2012, which prove the Guardian lied, on May 3rd 2012, because in fact and law, we are lawfully entitled to our shelter in Parliament Square (HQ12X03564).
(The Claimant requires the Guardian to confirm if the Guardian notified those who they did identify as being included in Prism documents, before the Guardian named them on December 21st 2013, in an article, where the Guardian did not provide any evidence, that documents actually exist.)
20. The Claimant observes that while the Guardian allege they have seen documents purporting to be about named groups or individuals, the Guardian have not actually provided any evidence that this (is) true.
21. The Claimant reminds that there are serious legal implications arising from both the government and media, holding and using documents for business interests, to conduct trials by media and government, through the current situation of he/said, she said, which lacks any legal basis, because it is unsubstantiated by anything.
The Claimant says the Guardian, like anyone else, including the government are required to produce disclosure/evidence to back up assertions that are made over law.
22. The Claimant says the legal basis for providing evidence to back up assertions, is to avoid the current Kafka-esque situation whereby media, like the government, say whatever they like, without any basic legal responsibility to disclose/provide evidence to substantiate their numerous assertions, despite the fact that serious legal issues, are involved.
The Claimant says if the Guardian refuse to publicly disclose -a list- of all the documents that came into their possession, for their Prism story, the Guardian must provide the Claimant with a legal basis for each and every, failure, to list any document.
23. The Claimant says the Guardian who are government propagandists in a phoney War on Terror, are neither an independent Information Commissioner with any decision making powers, or a judge jury and executioner of anything.
The Claimant says also says that in any event, a list of documents that are purported to have come into the possession of the Guardian, must be disclosed -because- the Claimant says those documents are further -evidence- of the illegal actions of criminal governments such as the U.S & U.K, who the Guardian reasonably know are involved in violent state censorship, over illegal wars of aggression.
The Claimant says that under Jus Cogens, the Guardian has no legal defence to assisting the U.K State in subverting the rule of law, to continue war crimes, that has already led to what remains the continuing brutal murder of millions of innocent civilians, in illegal wars of aggression.
24. The Claimant requires the Guardian to agree with the Claimant a public apology over their misleading reporting over our campaign, and that the Guardian will cease and desist using misleading reporting, when in fact and law, illegal state violence is being used against those such as the Claimant, who do not support the world view of the Guardian and the U.K State.
The Guardian knew the Claimant was never prosecuted over the illegal police seizure on January 16th 2013. Therefore (the) Guardian reasonably knew that their report that was published on May 3rd 2012, was untrue.
The Claimant says the illegal world view that the Guardian and U.K government support is one where business interests, take precedence over human life.
25. The Claimant also seeks damages to reflect the serious damage the Guardian has caused to our campaign by their contribution to a U.K State policy of illegal state violence.
The Claimant says all damages from this claim against the Guardian would be given to innocent civilians who have, and are suffering from illegal wars of aggression being waged by the U.K State.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
N.B: Inevitably, there is a typo where number 15 is printed twice. A number of other basic errors are outlined in red.