Page 1662 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

on what the respondent based it upon and in my case, this is the organisation of illegal raves
not the organisation of raves: -
1. 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 in a building as section 63 requires as a key element
unless tress pass has taken place.
3. I proved that I was not the organizer of 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 caused any offence. I feel as my solicitor you should have my best
interest at heart and if you Know a police officer to be caught for being corrupt for, the
evidence that they have supported so that your client faced a wrongful conviction of any sort
you should not encourage them to not stand up for what is correct and right, so I do not
understand why you would ask me to reconsider whether the attached document should be
served on the Respondent. The amendments I made have already been served on the
22/02/2016 and the Judge ask for the respondent to answer them questions from the
01/02/2016 and the respondent refuse to do so. I do insist for the challenges to be answered as
it is my life that has been tarnished for civil proceedings, so I do confirm this on writing. I
feel that the meeting has been left by yourself to the last minute I have been requesting this in
a multitude of emails to be achieved well in advance to the date that you have now sited a
few days before the appeal, when I know that you have had ample amounts of time, so if this
is the earliest time I will take it and I look forward to meeting Mr Andy Locke, thank you. I
do not see how the case will not get re listed due to lack of disclosure to be quite frank. I do
not
2487,
understand why any solicitor would encourage me to go to trial or appeal and not draft out
the police corruption that you can clearly see in turn making me accept the clearly fabricated
evidence and wrongful conditions that I know have been imposed on myself under section 63
with no trespass taking place, this being said as for any of the incidents contained in the Asbo
and with you knowing the true facts of them incidents being contained in private air. There is
also that of the clearly fabricated evidence I am standing against as for sure any solicitor
works in Co Hurst towards the understanding of noun precedent in relation to the weight of
any evidence put towards a client. I am concerned about the case, relying sole on hearsay by
police. Is this correct in procedure? However, I do understand and take note, that all resident
parties contained within the respondent’s bundle, were held on single occasions and in places
of residence and were not held as a running commercial business by myself or by any other to
my knowledge. I have also read that any person is entitled to have a house or resident party in
private air under the licensing act 2003 or where they reside. To my understanding, each
accused incident in the respondent’s bundle is a place of residence and was in fact different
people holding their own private parties at their places of residence. Aloe there may have
been complaints in regard to issues of concern about them house parties I was not the
occupier of any of the accused locations; neither was I the hire of equipment and surely not
the organizer. I was establishing a hire company around the dates of the accused events and
have provided evidence of the work I had been committing myself to. I was not trading at the
time and whenever hiring out equipment I do with due care and responsibility, however I do
not accept responsibility for other people’s actions when hiring out such equipment in good
faith. I do take legal action for any persons when breaking my terms and conditions. I do not
hire out equipment to any person without being in the constraints of the law and in good
business practice or without the correct ID. On one occasion I did hire out a sound system in