Page 645 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

respondent not being replied to in time, that I believe
will prove my innocents and will also clearly draft out
the police corruption and wrongful conditions that I
know have been imposed on myself.
All Legal professionals should work 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?
I do also understand and take note from the
respondent's bundle that all resident parties contained
within, were held on single occasions and in places of
residence and where not held as a running commercial
business by the occupiers or by myself to my
knowledge. This has leaded me to 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 to any of the accused locations; neither
was I the hirer of equipment and surely not the
organiser.
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 good
faith on a pro bono basis, this being of the
understanding that no laws were being broken and as a
Ltd
4
429,
company acting responsible. I know that I should not
be liable for them persons actions when hiring out
equipment and having the correct protocols in place as
I clearly do.
I do not feel that it is right for the respondent to obtain
criminal punishments such as section 63 of the Crime