CO/1844/2016
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
ARE WE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE ???
I WILL FIRST PRESENT THE RULING AND THEN PRESENT MY GROUNDS FOR CONTENTION.
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVEIW.
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF:
TERRY GARDNER (CLAIMAINT) VERSUS THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) AND (FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL(MENTAL HEALTH)) (DEFENDANTS)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVEIW. NOTIFICATION OF THE JUDGES DECISION (CPR PART 54.11,54.12)
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS LODGED BY THE CLAIMAINT.
ORDER BY THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PERMISSION IS HEREBY REFUSED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS:
1) The application is considerably out of time. Pursant to CPR 54.7A the time for filing proceedings for judicial reveiw is 16 days after the date the Upper Tribunal decision was sent to claimaint. No reason has been given for faliure to lodge the claim within the prescribed time limit.
2)There is no important point of principle raised by the claimaint further there are no compelling reasons to warrant the granting of this application.
CPRSA.7A APPLIES TO THIS CASE. BY VIRTURE OF CPR 54.7A (8) THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION IS FINAL AND RULE 54.12(3) (REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AT A HEARING) DOES NOT APPLY.
SIGNED: NICOLA DAVIES DATED: 21 APRIL 2016
THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER IS CALCULATED FROM THE DATE IN THE SECTION BELOW:
SENT/HANDED TO THE CLAIMAINT,DEFENDANT AND ANY INTERESTED PARTY / THE CLAIMAINT'S, DEFENDANT'S AND ANY INTERESTED PARTY'S SOLICITORS ON (DATE):
22 APR 2016.
SOLICITORS REF NO: N/A
FORM JRJ 8 v MAY 2015- LA UT JUDICIAL REVEIW PERMISSION REFUSED 54.7A
NOW I WILL GIVE MY REASONS OF CONTENTION TO THE ABOVE RULING:
On page 6 of case Reference HM/600/2015 which was submitted to the Court (as well as Case Reference Hm/3588/2015 Plus supporting paperwork including summary of the claimaints case in Case Reference: CO/1844/2016) it clearly states the following Paragraph about Rulings:
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL:
RULE 47 REQUIRES TO FIRST CONSIDER WHEATHER TO REVEIW THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE TO RULE 49. THE POWER TO REVEIW UNDER RULE 49 IS EXERCiSABLE ONLY IF THERE IS A CLEAR ERROR OF LAW IN THE DECISION.
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE ANAYALSED RATIONALLY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO MAKE ALL FINDINGS OF FACT MATERIAL TO ITS DECISION. THE TRIBUNAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED TO EACH OF THE FINDINGS. ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE ENTITLED TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT DOES. THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRIBUNAL MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISAPPLIED THE LAW. THERE SHOULD NO BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Because of the above criteria on the application for permission to appeal i will now go through my arguments to contest the ruling/order.
In the summary of the claimaints case the claimaint Mr Terry Brian Gardner argues he is being unlawfully detained under the mental Health Act 1983 because of two main criteria.
1) He argues that far from being mentally ill he is being harrased by a Government agency by State of the art high-tech REMOTE telecommunication surviellance technology and he claimes this is the only reason he can hear "Voices" other people cannot hear because HE IS BEING CURRENTLY INTERVEIWD BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Therefore being as sane as any other normal mentally healthy person.
2) Even if the judge accepts the Mental Health medical diagnois given to Mr Terry Gardner as listed in the previously stated case files he still maintains that this is still unlawful detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 beacuse none of the statuatory criteria for detention are met.
This is because to be Detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 you have to fit one of the following criteria as listed in the summary of the claimaints case which was served to the judge MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES.
These are 1) You have to be a Danger to the Health and Safety of other People.
2) To be a Danger to the Health and Safety of yourself.
3) A Mental Health Medical Condition so Chronic its Necessary for Treatment. (That is defined as a person not looking after themselves therefore not demonstarting Mental Capacity such as not eating regualry of Washing themselves.)
Mr Terry Gardner argues there is no credible evidence presented within the tribunal report which has him at the present time being detained in a mental hospital to justify a detention order under the mental health act 1983 and any evidence that has been presented in the tribunal to argue the opposite would be highly contested under oath in a court of law.
Secondly Mr Terry Gardner has presented Credible independtly sourced evidence to prove feasibity of what is possible these days in hight-tech surveillance telecommunications technolgy which basically proves hes assurance that a "Targeted" Individual could hear voices of a third party talking to him covertly which other people in close proximity COULD NOT I REPEAT NOT HEAR. THIS IS PROVIDED BY EITHER ULTRASONIC TRAMISSION OF VOICE WHICH IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND ALSO OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS METHODS INCLUDING AS LISTED IN THE 4877027 "BRUNKAN" PATENT AS LISTED ON GOOGLE PATENTS PLUS OTHER PATENTS HE HAS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS STATED CASE FILES.
THERFORE MR TERRY GARDNER HAS ESTABILISHED TECHNICAL FEASIABILTY WHICH IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
ALSO MOTIVE WITHIN THE CASE FILES WAS EASILY ESTABILISHED.
This was based on 3 main criteria.
1) A ALLEDGED ILLEGAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THE MK-ULTRA PROGRAM WHICH IS PUBILISHED ON WIKEPEDIA.
2) MR TERRY GARDNER RADICAL POLITICAL VEIWS WHICH MAY MEAN SOME PEOPLE IN THE SECURITY SERVICES CONSIDER HIM A SECURITY RISK.
3) HE'S BROTHER ROBERT FLOOK PAST CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHICH HE CLAIMS PROVES BRITISH AND POSSIBLE U.S.A GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH CRIMINAL GANGS IN THE CONTROL AND SUPPLY OF ILLEGAL ILLICIT DRUGS ON TO THE STREETS OF THE U.K BETWEEN THE YEARS OF 1999-2006 NAMELY CANNABIS AND COCAINE ON A MASSIVE MUTI MILLION POUND SCALE.
THERFORE WITH RESPECT HONOURABLE MR'S JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES I ARGUE THAT BECAUSE 1) NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY MY DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 HAS BEEN PRESENTED WITHIN THE TRIBUNAL REPORT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY I WOULD ARGUE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED I WOULD CONTEST UNDER OATH.
2) I HAVE ESTABILISHED FEASIBILTY AND MOTIVE ON WHY I WOULD CLAIM I AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT IN TIME AND WHY I HAVE BEEN UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR YEARS NOW. WHICH THERFORE GIVES AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION THAT THE VOICES I CAN HEAR THAT OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT IS NOT AN AUDITORY HALLCUINATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE DIAGONIS OF THE DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE OF MY CARE OVER THE YEARS BUT ACTUALLY AN INTERVEIW AND " DIRTY TRICK" DONE BY I WOULD CLAIM A BRITISH GOVERNMENT AGENCY (MOST PROBABLY M.I.5). ,OR A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SUCH AS THE N.S.A/. WHO HAVE THEIR LARGEST BASE OF OPERATION OUTSIDE THE U.S.A. AT MENWITH HILL YORKSHIRE ENGLAND, THERFORE IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT MY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION ON WHY I HEAR"VOICES" OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT HEAR AS A COVERT REMOTE SURVIELLANCE INTERVEIW AND "DIRTY TRICK" DONE BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY THERFORE QUITE LOGICALLY THIS PROVES I AM AS SANE AS ANY OTHER NORMAL MENTALLY HEALTHY PERSON AND THERFORE ALSO QUITE LOGICALLY I THERFORE SHOULD NOT BE DETAINED UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983. IN OTHER WORDS THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION WHICH MEANS IT IS ALSO CRIMINAL.!!!!!
THERFORE I ASK YOU MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES WHY DON'T YOU BELEIVE MY VERSION OF EVENTS AND FIND IN FAVOUR OF ME RATHER THAN THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO FACTS PRESENTED WITHIN THE CASE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT "ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE DECISION YOU WERE ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS BEEN MIS-UNDERSTOOD OR MIS-APPLIED."
THIS THEREFORE ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE IS A BREACH IN THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN OTHER WORDS I NEVER GOT A FAIR HEARING ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ESTABILSH REASONABLE GROUNDS BECAUSE THIS RULING MEANT, THAT IT DIDN'T EVEN GO TO COURT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD WITH RESPECT I DID WITHIN THE JUDICIAL CLAIM FORM PRESENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WHY I LODGED THE CLAIM OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT. THAT WAS BECAUSE TO PUT IT SIMPLY, CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND MY CONTROL, AS I WAS DETAINED IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL WITHOUT ANY LEAVE AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHO WAS PREPARED TO TAKE THIS MATTER TO HIGH COURT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE AND AFTER THE JUDGEMENT.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD I THINK THAT THE OUT OF TIME RULING ALLOCATION ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY WITHOUT GROUNDS AND I ARGUE SHOULD BE REVEIWED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AS THAT IS THE CURRENT JUDGEMENT THAT MEANS I AM BEING CURRENTLY DETAINED UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 AND THERFORE LEGALLY BINDING AND RELEVANT.
THERFORE I POLITELY REQUEST THAT YOU (THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES) RECONSIDER YOUR RULING AND GIVE ME A HEARING, BECUASE I WOULD ARGUE(MR TERRY BRIAN GARDNER) THAT MY DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST TRAVESTYS OF JUSTICE A LAW COURT IN THE U.K HAS EVER SEEN AND IF YOU DON'T REVERSE YOUR RULING (MR'S JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES) AND GIVE ME A HEARING IT CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO/1844/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT.IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVEIW.
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF:
TERRY GARDNER (CLAIMAINT) VERSUS THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) AND (FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL(MENTAL HEALTH)) (DEFENDANTS)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVEIW. NOTIFICATION OF THE JUDGES DECISION (CPR PART 54.11,54.12)
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS LODGED BY THE CLAIMAINT.
ORDER BY THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PERMISSION IS HEREBY REFUSED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS:
1) The application is considerably out of time. Pursant to CPR 54.7A the time for filing proceedings for judicial reveiw is 16 days after the date the Upper Tribunal decision was sent to claimaint. No reason has been given for faliure to lodge the claim within the prescribed time limit.
2)There is no important point of principle raised by the claimaint further there are no compelling reasons to warrant the granting of this application.
CPRSA.7A APPLIES TO THIS CASE. BY VIRTURE OF CPR 54.7A (8) THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION IS FINAL AND RULE 54.12(3) (REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AT A HEARING) DOES NOT APPLY.
SIGNED: NICOLA DAVIES DATED: 21 APRIL 2016
THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER IS CALCULATED FROM THE DATE IN THE SECTION BELOW:
SENT/HANDED TO THE CLAIMAINT,DEFENDANT AND ANY INTERESTED PARTY / THE CLAIMAINT'S, DEFENDANT'S AND ANY INTERESTED PARTY'S SOLICITORS ON (DATE):
22 APR 2016.
SOLICITORS REF NO: N/A
FORM JRJ 8 v MAY 2015- LA UT JUDICIAL REVEIW PERMISSION REFUSED 54.7A
NOW I WILL GIVE MY REASONS OF CONTENTION TO THE ABOVE RULING:
On page 6 of case Reference HM/600/2015 which was submitted to the Court (as well as Case Reference Hm/3588/2015 Plus supporting paperwork including summary of the claimaints case in Case Reference: CO/1844/2016) it clearly states the following Paragraph about Rulings:
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL:
RULE 47 REQUIRES TO FIRST CONSIDER WHEATHER TO REVEIW THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE TO RULE 49. THE POWER TO REVEIW UNDER RULE 49 IS EXERCiSABLE ONLY IF THERE IS A CLEAR ERROR OF LAW IN THE DECISION.
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE ANAYALSED RATIONALLY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO MAKE ALL FINDINGS OF FACT MATERIAL TO ITS DECISION. THE TRIBUNAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED TO EACH OF THE FINDINGS. ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE ENTITLED TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT DOES. THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRIBUNAL MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISAPPLIED THE LAW. THERE SHOULD NO BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Because of the above criteria on the application for permission to appeal i will now go through my arguments to contest the ruling/order.
In the summary of the claimaints case the claimaint Mr Terry Brian Gardner argues he is being unlawfully detained under the mental Health Act 1983 because of two main criteria.
1) He argues that far from being mentally ill he is being harrased by a Government agency by State of the art high-tech REMOTE telecommunication surviellance technology and he claimes this is the only reason he can hear "Voices" other people cannot hear because HE IS BEING CURRENTLY INTERVEIWD BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Therefore being as sane as any other normal mentally healthy person.
2) Even if the judge accepts the Mental Health medical diagnois given to Mr Terry Gardner as listed in the previously stated case files he still maintains that this is still unlawful detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 beacuse none of the statuatory criteria for detention are met.
This is because to be Detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 you have to fit one of the following criteria as listed in the summary of the claimaints case which was served to the judge MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES.
These are 1) You have to be a Danger to the Health and Safety of other People.
2) To be a Danger to the Health and Safety of yourself.
3) A Mental Health Medical Condition so Chronic its Necessary for Treatment. (That is defined as a person not looking after themselves therefore not demonstarting Mental Capacity such as not eating regualry of Washing themselves.)
Mr Terry Gardner argues there is no credible evidence presented within the tribunal report which has him at the present time being detained in a mental hospital to justify a detention order under the mental health act 1983 and any evidence that has been presented in the tribunal to argue the opposite would be highly contested under oath in a court of law.
Secondly Mr Terry Gardner has presented Credible independtly sourced evidence to prove feasibity of what is possible these days in hight-tech surveillance telecommunications technolgy which basically proves hes assurance that a "Targeted" Individual could hear voices of a third party talking to him covertly which other people in close proximity COULD NOT I REPEAT NOT HEAR. THIS IS PROVIDED BY EITHER ULTRASONIC TRAMISSION OF VOICE WHICH IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND ALSO OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS METHODS INCLUDING AS LISTED IN THE 4877027 "BRUNKAN" PATENT AS LISTED ON GOOGLE PATENTS PLUS OTHER PATENTS HE HAS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS STATED CASE FILES.
THERFORE MR TERRY GARDNER HAS ESTABILISHED TECHNICAL FEASIABILTY WHICH IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
ALSO MOTIVE WITHIN THE CASE FILES WAS EASILY ESTABILISHED.
This was based on 3 main criteria.
1) A ALLEDGED ILLEGAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THE MK-ULTRA PROGRAM WHICH IS PUBILISHED ON WIKEPEDIA.
2) MR TERRY GARDNER RADICAL POLITICAL VEIWS WHICH MAY MEAN SOME PEOPLE IN THE SECURITY SERVICES CONSIDER HIM A SECURITY RISK.
3) HE'S BROTHER ROBERT FLOOK PAST CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHICH HE CLAIMS PROVES BRITISH AND POSSIBLE U.S.A GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH CRIMINAL GANGS IN THE CONTROL AND SUPPLY OF ILLEGAL ILLICIT DRUGS ON TO THE STREETS OF THE U.K BETWEEN THE YEARS OF 1999-2006 NAMELY CANNABIS AND COCAINE ON A MASSIVE MUTI MILLION POUND SCALE.
THERFORE WITH RESPECT HONOURABLE MR'S JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES I ARGUE THAT BECAUSE 1) NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY MY DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 HAS BEEN PRESENTED WITHIN THE TRIBUNAL REPORT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY I WOULD ARGUE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED I WOULD CONTEST UNDER OATH.
2) I HAVE ESTABILISHED FEASIBILTY AND MOTIVE ON WHY I WOULD CLAIM I AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT IN TIME AND WHY I HAVE BEEN UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR YEARS NOW. WHICH THERFORE GIVES AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION THAT THE VOICES I CAN HEAR THAT OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT IS NOT AN AUDITORY HALLCUINATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE DIAGONIS OF THE DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE OF MY CARE OVER THE YEARS BUT ACTUALLY AN INTERVEIW AND " DIRTY TRICK" DONE BY I WOULD CLAIM A BRITISH GOVERNMENT AGENCY (MOST PROBABLY M.I.5). ,OR A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SUCH AS THE N.S.A/. WHO HAVE THEIR LARGEST BASE OF OPERATION OUTSIDE THE U.S.A. AT MENWITH HILL YORKSHIRE ENGLAND, THERFORE IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT MY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION ON WHY I HEAR"VOICES" OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT HEAR AS A COVERT REMOTE SURVIELLANCE INTERVEIW AND "DIRTY TRICK" DONE BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY THERFORE QUITE LOGICALLY THIS PROVES I AM AS SANE AS ANY OTHER NORMAL MENTALLY HEALTHY PERSON AND THERFORE ALSO QUITE LOGICALLY I THERFORE SHOULD NOT BE DETAINED UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983. IN OTHER WORDS THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION WHICH MEANS IT IS ALSO CRIMINAL.!!!!!
THERFORE I ASK YOU MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES WHY DON'T YOU BELEIVE MY VERSION OF EVENTS AND FIND IN FAVOUR OF ME RATHER THAN THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO FACTS PRESENTED WITHIN THE CASE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT "ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE DECISION YOU WERE ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS BEEN MIS-UNDERSTOOD OR MIS-APPLIED."
THIS THEREFORE ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE IS A BREACH IN THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN OTHER WORDS I NEVER GOT A FAIR HEARING ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ESTABILSH REASONABLE GROUNDS BECAUSE THIS RULING MEANT, THAT IT DIDN'T EVEN GO TO COURT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD WITH RESPECT I DID WITHIN THE JUDICIAL CLAIM FORM PRESENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WHY I LODGED THE CLAIM OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT. THAT WAS BECAUSE TO PUT IT SIMPLY, CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND MY CONTROL, AS I WAS DETAINED IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL WITHOUT ANY LEAVE AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHO WAS PREPARED TO TAKE THIS MATTER TO HIGH COURT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE AND AFTER THE JUDGEMENT.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD I THINK THAT THE OUT OF TIME RULING ALLOCATION ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY WITHOUT GROUNDS AND I ARGUE SHOULD BE REVEIWED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AS THAT IS THE CURRENT JUDGEMENT THAT MEANS I AM BEING CURRENTLY DETAINED UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 AND THERFORE LEGALLY BINDING AND RELEVANT.
THERFORE I POLITELY REQUEST THAT YOU (THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES) RECONSIDER YOUR RULING AND GIVE ME A HEARING, BECUASE I WOULD ARGUE(MR TERRY BRIAN GARDNER) THAT MY DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST TRAVESTYS OF JUSTICE A LAW COURT IN THE U.K HAS EVER SEEN AND IF YOU DON'T REVERSE YOUR RULING (MR'S JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES) AND GIVE ME A HEARING IT CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment