DAY 3940: FRIDAY MARCH 16th 2012.
2 pics out of 9 are of our campaign sent to us by wcc on 16.03.2012.
The Westminster City Council "Claim" that was brought in January 2011 is turning into a political football of epic proportions.
Last week we were told the trial was adjourned for a further two weeks, until March 26th 2012. There was after all some urgency, given that I had been without shelter for so many days.
Yet, when I dropped off my Application regarding the Claim, today, for the hearing on March 26th 2012, I was told, not that surprisingly, I suppose, that in the land of dodge, there was now no trial on March 26th 2012.
However, you can tell from the Order that they then gave me, that Judge Seymour wrote, that is a dodge, around what was really said, when we said we were not reliant on the outcome of the Angel of Deaths seperate hearing, into the hypothetical of cloud-cuckoo- land.
It is clear from his order that the directions were really given for a trial on March 26th 2012, not for the first available date after, because there is no reason for mentioning the date of March 26th 2012.
And Judge Seymour does not explain how it is, that it will be agreed/decided the date, when any trial would go ahead.
And we all know why that is.
Because Westminster City Council did not ever have a claim.
So in effect although an indefinate stay was not agreed, that is what he is trying on.
Because it was obvious after the MET stole our campaign on 31st August 2011, that no-one ever intended the WCC claim to go ahead.
However, while it is clear to me that the WCC claim is malicious, I really do feel, that it really is about time that I was able to bring the mother of all Counterclaims, which based on real facts, really is not reliant on the hypothetical babble of any other/claim where those who sought it (Bindmans and Gallastegui) acted in bad faith in claiming that all parties had agreed an adjournment of the Westminster City Council claim, when they knew this party had done no such thing. If they were acting honestly and in good faith with all parties, they would not have needed to lie. That they lied to numerous courts, with apalling consequences is just appalling.
I would like to just put all 44 unlawful arrests, together with around 18 illegal searches and their other bits and bobs and just have it out.
And so the court were forced to issue my Application that seeks an injunction to prevent Westminster City Council and the MET acting against our campaign, while my counter, civil claims that are not dependent on whatever the "consequences" of any other case are... !!
And so the Queens Bench listing office listed a hearing in the land of dodge, on March 23rd 2012, before a Judge, because I am seeking injunctive relief.
It does after all seem fair, given what has happened.
After all real things really have been done to our campaign ....repeatedly, and where there are no proceedings being brought against us, yet property has been taken, we are entitled to ....redress, based on ...facts.
Westminster City Council could not keep maliciously trying to prosecute a claim that has no legs, while stealing property under the guise of another law, and not bringing proceedings.
So the issue of their malicious claim followed by their subsequent use of the PRSR against our campaign where no proceedings are being brought against us, is inextricably linked.
From: babs tucker
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:00:02 +0000
dear anghel, it is not difficult to see seymour's order that i collected earlier is a dodge because we all know a trial date was actually set for march 26th 2012.
unlike you i was at the hearing, because i hadn't lied through my teeth.
and i pointed out the fact that i was opposing any adjournment, not least, because i had been without shelter for too long which, gave it all some urgency, given your colleague would not agree an injunction for me, like you all did for gallastegui.
of course the fact that wcc brought a malicious claim way back in january 2011, is inextricably linked with the fact that wcc and the met ....then for example, illegally purported to use the prsr act on january 16th 2012, against just our campaign, which is why the claim and counterclaim should have all been joined up. ie: if there is no obstruction, then what the hell is the prsr act 2011 about..?
there never was a reason for wcc bringing the claim, which is shown to be malicious by the very fact of the subsequent fairy story that became prsr act 2011, which is just as illegal.
however, since no-one would subject someone to inhuman and degrading treatment by denying them rest and shelter in the middle of winter, because of their beliefs, on the balance of probabilities, it has all been intended to kill me.
i'd love to see the "risk assessment" !
see my application for hearing march 23rd 2012 to join all you crooks in my counterclaim against the lot of you.
ridge will have to pass on to gallastegui's colleagues, coverdale and williams because i don't have their details.
parliament square peace campaign