Page 633 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

notice, because of the clear difference that is allowed in the proceeding of
criminal and civil law relating to hearsay and the respondent’s case being
of a mixture of both laws, this leads me to the understanding that I could
not stand, what must be a speedy and fair trial in respect to, The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, the Human Rights Act 1998
(the Act or the HRA) and the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR) 1953. It has been said as quoted “that the impact of raves
generally can be judged from the appellant's own documents, as he has
included a report of a rave in local newspapers at pages (279) and
specifically (282) of his bundle at premises in or adjacent to Southbury
Road, the so-called MAN Building. The appellant cannot say whether this
did in fact contribute to the legal definition of a rave as he was not present,
neither can he say whether or not this was a house party that went wrong
and he surely cannot say whether some body was arrested for the
organization of illegal raves on this date. The prosecution states the
following: - (Answer 1 of 2) “This is not a rave in which he is alleged to
have been involved in, (Answer 2 of 2) and it took place on a date other
than the dates relied upon in evidence in this case. These two statements
are also not true to their facts. (Response 1 of 2) please read the snip lit of
the Magistrates transcripts of Inspector Hamill page number (438) of the
applicants response bundle and take note to the witness statement, what
shows that while under oath he lied to the judge, he done this to gain a
guilty verdict because when asked while under oath by my barrister,
whether he was sure that all the events contained in the application are in
fact progress way or not he replied by stating:- There was a rave on an
adjourning Rd but not on that day. (Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day. On the day in question phone calls related
to this particular rave. (Progress Way): - so by explaining this to the district
judge and the applicant’s barrister, he manipulated the truth in knowing
that there was an event that took place at Crown Rd on the
08/06/2014
08th June 2014
while developing the Asbo so to conceal the true facts in doing this Steve
Elsmore deliberately imputed incorrect evidence within the main Asbo
application bundle. At page 278A of the appellant’s response bundle there
is reference to the MAN Building. This reference does have a huge
amount of relevance to the on goings of the Asbo application or Steve
Elermore would not have applied them cads to be present in the Asbo
folder, any person can also see that the cads relating to Crown Road the old
man Building, were added as a true smoke screen to aid in deceiving any
person of interest into believing that they are in fact Progress Way.
(Response 2 of 2) as can also be cross referenced at the cad page numbers
of 164 to 166, 230 to 232, 272 to 275, 276 to 279, 280 to 284, 285 to 289,
290 to 294, 295 to 298, 314 to 316, which is the date an event took place
on the 8th of June 2014 what is the same date as the other cads contained in
the same section of the Asbo application relating to Progress Way on the
6th 7th 8TH June 2014
so, for any person to say these are different dates they would be wrong in
saying this also, this has clearly been placed in the Asbo to be that of
misleading evidence. The original Asbo application files page numbers