SUMMARY OF CLAIMANT CASE CO/1844/2016
SUMMARY OF CLAIMANT VERSION OF EVENTS CASE REFERENCE: CO/1844/2016
TO THE JUDGE, DEFENDANTS & INTERESTED PARTY CONCERNING THE ABOVE CASE.
MR TERRY GARDNER IS CLAIMING HE IS BEING UNLAWFULLY DETAINED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
THIS IS TIED TO THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL DECISION MP/2015/18918 DATED 09/09/2015 & PREVIOUS TO THAT RULING THE RULINGS RELEVANT TO CASE REFERENCE HM/600/2015.
MR TERRY GARDNER IS CLAIMING THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION BECAUSE OF TWO MAIN CRITERIA.
1) HE CLAIMS HE IS NOT MENTALLY ILL WHATSOEVER. HE ARGUES HE IS BEING HARASSED REMOTELY BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY USING STATE OF THE ART TELECOMMUNICATIONS SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. WHERE THAT IS THE ONLY REASON HE CAN HEAR VOICES SPEAKING TO HIM ON FREQUENT OCCASIONS OTHER PEOPLE IN THE LOCAL VICINITY CANNOT HEAR.
2) EVEN IF THE JUDGE ACCEPTS THE EVIDENCE OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY OF THE DIAGNOSIS OF SCHIZO AFFECTIVE DISORDER GIVING TO MR TERRY GARDNER HE STILL CLAIMS THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION BECAUSE THE DETENTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE CRITERIA OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
THIS IS BASED THAT TO BE LIBEL TO BE DETAINED YOU HAVE TO FIT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
i) A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE.
ii) A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF YOURSELF.
iii) A MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL CONDITION SO CHRONIC ITS NECESSARY FOR TREATMENT.
MR TERRY GARDNER WILL NOW PRESENT HES LEGAL ARGUMENTS TO CLAIM HES BEHAVIOUR AND CONDUCT DOES NOT WARRANT DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
i) THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL MP/2015/18918 CAN ONLY GIVE ONE ACTUAL EXAMPLE LISTED AS BEHAVIOUR THAT IS A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT WAS AN APPARENT BOMB HOAX INCIDENT. I ARGUE AS LISTED ON MY APPEAL TO THE DECISION OF THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL DATED 07/10/2015 (PAGE 27-41 HM/3588/2015) THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY A "MIS-UNDERSTANDING" BETWEEN ME AND THE CLERK FROM THE UPPER TIER TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS CLEARED UP INFORMALLY BY ME WITH NO CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING SERVED. INFACT IF I WAS CHARGED WITH SUCH AN OUTRAGES ACCUSATION I WOULD PLEA THAT I WAS TOTALLY INNOCENT OF THAT CHARGE AND I THEREFORE ARGUE THAT I HAVE TO BE GIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYBODY UNDER THE LAW IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT GIVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF ME BEING A THREAT APART FROM SUPERLATIVES AND GENERALISATIONS OF MY SO CALLED BEHAVIOUR WITHOUT ANY EXAMPLES TO BACK IT UP.
I AM ARGUING IF THE HOSPITAL CAN GIVE ANY EXAMPLES OF ME BEING A THREAT TO A PERSON I URGE THEM TO COME UP WITH THE EVIDENCE WHICH I WOULD CONTEST UNDER OATH. I ADMIT I DO SOMETIMES SHOUT (BUT WITHOUT THREATENING INTENT) BECAUSE AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY I ARGUE I AM BEING HARASSED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO HAS MADE CONTACT WITH ME WITH STATE OF THE ART HIGH-TECH REMOTE SURVEILLANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. HOWEVER THE CLAIM REMAINS EVEN IF I ADMIT I RAISE MY VOICE SOMETIMES THERE IS NO THREATENING BEHAVIOUR OR INTENT WITHIN ANY OF MY CONVERSATIONS.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT I AM NOW 46 YEARS OF AGE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD THEREFORE THAT ALSO MUST ADD WEIGHT TO MY ARGUMENT THAT I AM NOT A DANGER TO THE HEALTH & SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE BEING A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE (APART FROM DEFENDING YOURSELF, USING REASONABLE FORCE WHILE BEING ATTACKED) , IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
ii) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ME BEING A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF MYSELF. THIS IS EVEN ADMITTED WITHIN THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNALS REPORT MP/2015/18918 , PAGE 3 WHERE IT STATES "THERE ARE ONLY MARGINAL CONCERNS OF SELF-NEGLECT WHEN HE WAS UNWELL IN THE PAST"
I WOULD ARGUE THIS IS STILL A DISTORTION OF THE TRUE FACTS WITHIN THIS CASE. THIS IS BECAUSE I ARGUE THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN UNKEMPT AND WILL NOW STATE FOR THE RECORD I HAVE NEVER REPEAT NEVER BEEN SUICIDAL.
iii) I ARGUE I HAVE NOT GOT A MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL CONDITION SO CHRONIC ITS NECESSARY FOR TREATMENT AS I WASH, CHANGE MY CLOTHES AND EAT REGULARLY THEREFORE DEMONSTRATING THAT I AM LOOKING AFTER MYSELF AND THERFORE I HAVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED MENTAL CAPACITY.
THEREFORE MR GARDNER IS NOW DEMANDING A COMPLETE RELEASE FROM THE SECTION 3 DETENTION ORDER AS NONE OF THE STATUTORY CRITERIA ARE MET AND I CLAIM HAS NEVER BEEN MET CONCERNING ALL MY DETENTIONS GOING BACK 11 YEARS UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
MR TERRY BRIAN GARDNER NOW RESTS HES CASE.
MR TERRY GARDNER IS CLAIMING HE IS BEING UNLAWFULLY DETAINED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
THIS IS TIED TO THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL DECISION MP/2015/18918 DATED 09/09/2015 & PREVIOUS TO THAT RULING THE RULINGS RELEVANT TO CASE REFERENCE HM/600/2015.
MR TERRY GARDNER IS CLAIMING THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION BECAUSE OF TWO MAIN CRITERIA.
1) HE CLAIMS HE IS NOT MENTALLY ILL WHATSOEVER. HE ARGUES HE IS BEING HARASSED REMOTELY BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY USING STATE OF THE ART TELECOMMUNICATIONS SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. WHERE THAT IS THE ONLY REASON HE CAN HEAR VOICES SPEAKING TO HIM ON FREQUENT OCCASIONS OTHER PEOPLE IN THE LOCAL VICINITY CANNOT HEAR.
2) EVEN IF THE JUDGE ACCEPTS THE EVIDENCE OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY OF THE DIAGNOSIS OF SCHIZO AFFECTIVE DISORDER GIVING TO MR TERRY GARDNER HE STILL CLAIMS THIS IS UNLAWFUL DETENTION BECAUSE THE DETENTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE CRITERIA OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
THIS IS BASED THAT TO BE LIBEL TO BE DETAINED YOU HAVE TO FIT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
i) A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE.
ii) A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF YOURSELF.
iii) A MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL CONDITION SO CHRONIC ITS NECESSARY FOR TREATMENT.
MR TERRY GARDNER WILL NOW PRESENT HES LEGAL ARGUMENTS TO CLAIM HES BEHAVIOUR AND CONDUCT DOES NOT WARRANT DETENTION UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
i) THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL MP/2015/18918 CAN ONLY GIVE ONE ACTUAL EXAMPLE LISTED AS BEHAVIOUR THAT IS A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT WAS AN APPARENT BOMB HOAX INCIDENT. I ARGUE AS LISTED ON MY APPEAL TO THE DECISION OF THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL DATED 07/10/2015 (PAGE 27-41 HM/3588/2015) THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY A "MIS-UNDERSTANDING" BETWEEN ME AND THE CLERK FROM THE UPPER TIER TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS CLEARED UP INFORMALLY BY ME WITH NO CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING SERVED. INFACT IF I WAS CHARGED WITH SUCH AN OUTRAGES ACCUSATION I WOULD PLEA THAT I WAS TOTALLY INNOCENT OF THAT CHARGE AND I THEREFORE ARGUE THAT I HAVE TO BE GIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYBODY UNDER THE LAW IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT GIVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF ME BEING A THREAT APART FROM SUPERLATIVES AND GENERALISATIONS OF MY SO CALLED BEHAVIOUR WITHOUT ANY EXAMPLES TO BACK IT UP.
I AM ARGUING IF THE HOSPITAL CAN GIVE ANY EXAMPLES OF ME BEING A THREAT TO A PERSON I URGE THEM TO COME UP WITH THE EVIDENCE WHICH I WOULD CONTEST UNDER OATH. I ADMIT I DO SOMETIMES SHOUT (BUT WITHOUT THREATENING INTENT) BECAUSE AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY I ARGUE I AM BEING HARASSED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO HAS MADE CONTACT WITH ME WITH STATE OF THE ART HIGH-TECH REMOTE SURVEILLANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. HOWEVER THE CLAIM REMAINS EVEN IF I ADMIT I RAISE MY VOICE SOMETIMES THERE IS NO THREATENING BEHAVIOUR OR INTENT WITHIN ANY OF MY CONVERSATIONS.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT I AM NOW 46 YEARS OF AGE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD THEREFORE THAT ALSO MUST ADD WEIGHT TO MY ARGUMENT THAT I AM NOT A DANGER TO THE HEALTH & SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE BEING A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE (APART FROM DEFENDING YOURSELF, USING REASONABLE FORCE WHILE BEING ATTACKED) , IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
ii) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ME BEING A DANGER TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF MYSELF. THIS IS EVEN ADMITTED WITHIN THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNALS REPORT MP/2015/18918 , PAGE 3 WHERE IT STATES "THERE ARE ONLY MARGINAL CONCERNS OF SELF-NEGLECT WHEN HE WAS UNWELL IN THE PAST"
I WOULD ARGUE THIS IS STILL A DISTORTION OF THE TRUE FACTS WITHIN THIS CASE. THIS IS BECAUSE I ARGUE THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN UNKEMPT AND WILL NOW STATE FOR THE RECORD I HAVE NEVER REPEAT NEVER BEEN SUICIDAL.
iii) I ARGUE I HAVE NOT GOT A MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL CONDITION SO CHRONIC ITS NECESSARY FOR TREATMENT AS I WASH, CHANGE MY CLOTHES AND EAT REGULARLY THEREFORE DEMONSTRATING THAT I AM LOOKING AFTER MYSELF AND THERFORE I HAVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED MENTAL CAPACITY.
THEREFORE MR GARDNER IS NOW DEMANDING A COMPLETE RELEASE FROM THE SECTION 3 DETENTION ORDER AS NONE OF THE STATUTORY CRITERIA ARE MET AND I CLAIM HAS NEVER BEEN MET CONCERNING ALL MY DETENTIONS GOING BACK 11 YEARS UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983.
MR TERRY BRIAN GARDNER NOW RESTS HES CASE.
Comments
Post a Comment