Page 435 - tmp

8. The legal technicality, to i.e. absence of trespass that does not prevent
parties from being held in accordance of the law, I do agree may lead to a
standalone anti-social behaviour order being granted if a person commits
a public order offence, to which I did not cause as I was not organiser
neither did I take part in the organisation of the party or did I commit any
civil or criminal offence.

9. In any one un-regular occasion over the duration of the weekend I can; A.
understand the noise nuisance and distress to neighbours this can cause if
the allegations were to be true and not fabricated by police as I can prove.
I was not the organiser of the event.

The case is based on what the respondent based it upon and in my case, this is
the Organisation of Illegal Raves not the organisation of raves: -

1. So, I proved that indoor parties are not illegal unless there is a breach of
the licensing act 2003 as this is the law for entertainment.

2. That the word rave cannot be used by law in a building; such as it has
within my case as for sure section 63 requires key elements, one being of
the nature that "tress pass must have taken place in private Air" as clearly
is not the situations in None of the incidents that I have been found guilty
of and now the conditions being imposed upon my statue.

3. I proved that I was not the organiser to the events as I was not.

4. That I never took part in any anti-social behaviour or intended or
encouraged any other person to neither.

5. Anti-social behaviour was not clearly caused as a result of the Progress
Way by myself or my actions as I was only a visitor who never cased any
offence.

I feel any legal professional should have the truth and my best interest at
heart
and if any person Knows a police officer to be caught for being corrupt for the
evidence that they have supported so that a human being faced a wrongful
convection of any sort that they should encourage them to stand up for what
is correct and right.

The response I made was already served on the 22/02/2016 and the Judge
ask for the respondent to answer them questions by the 01/02/2016 and the
respondent refuse to do so.

427 3