HQ12X01972: REPLY TO POLICE "DEFENCE".
DAY 4050: WEDNESDAY JULY 4TH 2012.
It never seems to be dull at the Royal Courts of Infinite Injustice, along the Strand in London.
When I arrived today police were rushing into the building that was in lockdown for some reason or another.
It struck me as quite an irony then, that I was filing papers against the Chief Hog, the Commissioner of the Metropolis.
In planet pigdom, upholding the law is the crime, and so I am a criminal.
When the courts re-opened, I filed something called an allocation questionnaire along with my reply to Mr Commissioner's "Defence".
It is all over my arrest during the illegal seizure on May 23rd 2006.
Apparently Mr Commissioner thinks his case is so strong ...he hasn't finalised his witnesses and is looking to kick it into the long grass.
I think it is somewhat doubtful that Parliament ever intended s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which is about the use of force, to be a police power of seizure, or Parliament would not have bothered to make specific police powers of seizure.
In any event SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 did not have a police power of seizure which is why parliament repealed it.
And the police could never transfer management of our campaign to themselves.
From: babs tucker
Subject: HQ12X01972: TUCKER V COMMISSIONER
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:17:24 +0100
as you can see i have today filed allocation and reply to defence, copies of which will be mailed in due course.
clearly parliament never intended that s3(1) of cla 1967 which is about the use of force, to be a police power of seizure
nor did either brian or i give your client any authority to purport to act on our behalf,
because as you know brian left me, not the commissioner in charge of our campaign, which included campaign property.
and gave me written authority to act on behalf of him in legal proceedings, which i did.
and the commissioner could certainly never claim to have a propriety interest in donations from people who support our campaign.
i have not agreed the directions.
p.s i will assume that you are not going to have the good manners to respond to my letter of claim re: 9th july 2006 - 9th july 2007.
well it is an ...entirely different ...errr...claim number !!