THE PRINCESS TAPES CHANCERY COURT CASE : 'OWNERSHIP' OF HEADLINES & DEADLINES (30.07.2017)
The Princess tapes case in the Chancery Court on 29 September 2004 makes interesting reading for a very many reasons, despite being poorly argued and the ruling sloppy etc, presumably because everyone was only interested in who was going to financially profit.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police illuminatingly didn’t mention having seized the Princess tapes under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 so I guess we are still up there at the top of the list in ‘uncharted territories’ !!
The most priceless part of the Princess tapes ruling about seizure and retention are the weasel words:
para 62 “ ... For example, if a Police Officer dishonestly for his own purposes sought to retain property when there was no legal justification a Court could intervene and stop such retention... ”
One can only observe it is easy to say the weasel words.
The Princess tapes court case in September 2004 wasn’t long before the same MET pulled the Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 lie for the first time in the almost forty year history of that Act.
Of course our cases are fundamentally distinguished by the High Court admission that Brian and I are lawfully campaigning together, before one gets to anywhere else, where each case should first rely on the individual facts anyway.
In the Princess tapes case involving Settelen and the equally duplicitous Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Settelen claimed his “recollection” was there were twenty tapes of which Diana had possession of “at least six” that he had obviously never challenged in any way while she was alive.
He never even said he broached with Diana while she was alive, the subject of ownership or publishing of the tapes.
His claim was successful on the flimsy pretext that since he bought the tapes used he therefore ‘owned’ them to do whatever he liked with, which no-one could even reasonably say is something he told Diana, and indeed he does not pretend he did.
It is difficult to follow the court's line of 'reasoning' because Diana paid for Settelen's services that included the tapes, but that point was never argued properly in or beyond the High Court for reasons that we don’t know.
The story is clearly as absurdly ridiculous as saying the Metropolitan Police et al can profit etc from selling selected surveillance footage and so on and so forth, which btw they do illegally do.
Settelen’s wafer thin story is pretty shitty as indeed was that of the Metropolitan Police who were typically making lots of money leaking like sieves themselves to the... media, while Burrell inexplicably said the tapes were destroyed, knowing they had not been destroyed, and Diana’s brother had no opportunity or made no real effort to have destroyed.
... very substantial sums of money changed hands over audio from the... MET Police being illegally edited and maliciously published by the... BBC, to cover up the MI5 Democracy Village undercover operation were the ‘complainant’ !! in my unlawful arrest... [25 may 2010]
Of course it’s no-one’s business including to speculate why Diana became involved in making the Princess tapes that did remain in her possession that she had never sought to publish herself.
All anyone can say with certainty now is the only reason the Princess tapes are being released are for purely -financial- reasons in the echo chamber of the wider media circus that does involve the state.
While a fundamental point is Diana has not in any way endorsed what Settelen et al have done that they cynically waited to do until she was dead !! Diana was in a far, far better position than most to have done something to protect her own interests that she could have very easily done.
The Princess tapes are a continuation of the inextricably linked state run paparazzi tittle tattle.
29 July 1981 Royal Wedding: I was living in a teensy bedsit on the top floor of a property in Park Road by Baker Street opposite the road from Regents Park in London paying a peppercorn rent of £6 per week. So we walked down to the route by Fleet Street, to take a look at all the carriages passing by, out of curiosity because it wasn't too far away. There weren't as many people as you might expect, given all the hype such events get, presumably because most people prefer to clear off for the day.
31 August 1997 Diana’s death: Our family had just returned late at night from a summer holiday near Vannes in France, after catching a ferry to Portsmouth, so after putting the kids to bed, I had just sat down to relax and have a cuppa having switched on the TV which came up with the ‘breaking news’.
9/11: I had just come out of a meeting in the UK when someone said what had happened. My eldest son was home sick from school when his granny in Australia had rung to speak to me and he told her planes had flown into towers in America and she thought he was hallucinating until she turned on the telly in Australia.
Iraq War 2003: went up to London on 15 February 2003 and marched in the freezing cold to Hyde Park against the Iraq War, and later went on other marches, but never knew anything about Brian. The illegal Iraq War conclusively proved there was no War on Terror.
7/7: My eldest son had traveled up to London on work experience in the City of London. I heard what happened when I turned on the radio while I was driving a friend around from New Zealand who was visiting.
Remembrance Day [Sunday] November 2005: Another friend and I went up to London to go to Tate Britain which is when we happened across and I discovered Brian at precisely 11 am, after we had found a place to park in a street behind Parliament Square. There were no police like we had in later years. I was first unlawfully arrested [out of 48 unlawful arrests] on 21 December 2005.
29 April 2011: Another Royal Wedding and the alleged assassination of Osama Bin Liner. I was in Parliament Square Central London where unlike the rest of the public, we were 'searched' by the police and press early in the morning, before sleeping through the rest of the performance. In other circumstances I'd have happily taken a week off around then if it had been possible but the government would have never agreed to that, because it was in the midst of too much of their skullduggery and would have involved us coming... back. Our coming back was the deciding factor in their plotting, because that alone was too much for them, including because it would have laid waste to much of their hyperbole.
In my own very long experience of people illegally trying to lay claim to any and all of our campaign and property to use for their own ends, in what are usually efforts by the state to re-create the history of what Brian and I did, they are always trying to dishonestly say:
a) that either Brian or I gave them ‘permission’ when Brian and I would obviously never shit all over each other behind each others backs, let alone in instances involving the police, including [for example] the habitual liar and thief Cole.
b) somehow they had ‘ownership’ of something or other through all manner of deceit, which has always been a recurring theme since politicians ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and Blair’s Wallinger rip-off etc etc
Our legal paper trail actually proves all the claims are invalid because Brian and I lawfully campaigned together and the police never had any power of ‘seizure’ of people or campaign property through legislation, where we acted ‘without prejudice’ because we never conceded legislation was compatible and never agreed to any ‘conversion’ before the legislation had to be repealed.
The behaviour of all those involved trying to re-write etc what Brian and I did is so disgraceful.
The Queen's gardener and handyman, the former Mayor of London and now Foreign Secretary admits Brian and I lawfully campaigned together, albeit his malicious allegations of how we campaigned are false:
Wallinger and his ‘State Britain’ rip-off’ where he made his name and profited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds off the back of us was a very, very dirty business that unraveled over the years. That including him trying to rip copyright for the... government, where he was eventually forced to hand the hot potato of his rip-off back to the government via the Tate Britain.
What he said to Brian and myself and what he did for his own personal financial profit were two very different things.
When Brian challenged Wallinger outright, over who Wallinger thought owned ‘State Britain’ when Wallinger was being an absolute shit to him, that brought Wallinger running to check out what I had to say too.
The rat Wallinger who fed us a line when he first slithered along when he lied to us both, has always illegally refused to disclose what ultimately turned out to really be his double-dealing cheques from... the Blair government !! etc where it is legally impossible for him to claim he didn't have anything in writing etc.
Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.
His legal difficulties over that massive deceit are as most people would understand wide-ranging.
After Brian died it is well documented people have, in very difficult circumstances, just been falling all over themselves in the most appalling free-for all in their dishonest efforts to claim they could do whatever they like with whatever Brian and I did.
This includes it is a legal impossibility to explain [for example] how the City of London Museum of London and Goldsmith’s University lay claim to campaign property !! that is [for example] my legal right to errr... use to campaign etc which is why they have ‘avoided’ giving legal grounds they do not have.
The politicians have stooped to ridiculous levels of deceit when they are using museums and universities to receive and launder stolen property to try and stop me lawfully campaigning !!
The unprecedented witch-hunt against us has been so long-standing and widespread.
Of course what these people never did was what Brian and I did, that includes our experiences which they never went through either, so it is always beyond incredibly disrespectful when the deceit happens.
It’s all too easy for people to exploitatively pick on and bully people they know are being maliciously targeted by the state who are illegally denied legal representation... by the state.
People 'overlook' Brian had illegally been denied legal representation too, before he died.
I learned a lot after Brian died because people were just trying to clean us out of anything and everything, so I have understandably never personally given anyone unfettered ‘access’ for any reason, to do anything they like with anything Brian and I did together or I did after Brian died.
It was always a very straightforward matter that politicians and their police & Special Branch violently attacked us, maliciously prosecuted us, while MI5 ran their dirty undercover operations against us, all cheered on by the media barons, because they could not have any public debate with us, within the basic framework of the real democracy of the peace and harmony of the rule of law.