Page 127 - 7. 2016 Last three months the 10 - 11 - 12 No Table

For the applicant legally to have any conditions imposed, of such a wide scale of
areas without correct proof to that extent, is another breach of applicant’s Human
Rights. The Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) that was granted in the lower
court upon the applicant is wrongly executed for the whole of the UK.
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice (Raves) Bill and related Act: -
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is an amendment to the Raves
Bill and states the following: -
Section 63 Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a rave.
(1) This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 20 or more
persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the
night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and
duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the
inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose: -
(a) Such a gathering continues during intermissions in the music and, where the
gathering extends over several days, throughout the period during which amplified
music is played at night (with or without intermissions); and
(b) “Music” includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the
emission of a succession of repetitive beats.
(1A) this section also applies to a gathering if: -
(a) It is a gathering on land of 20 or more persons who are trespassing on the land;
and
(b) It would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) above if it took
place on land in the open air.
In Reference to Section 63: -
As noted in the highlighted copy of a Section 63 above and then in reference to
take the correct notes about the fundamental basics of the building blocks of the
Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) application that has now been brought against
the Appellant, will in fact reveal that all incidents that are sighted within the case
bundle are of incidents when a person(s) personal living quarters, was or is
contained in a building otherwise known as a place of residence, this key element
mentioned and noted does play a vital factor in the on goings of the case at present,
as for sure trespass must be present for a gathering to amerce in a building this
must also be inclusive of 20 or more persons, so for any officer or official
person(s) to be confident of their evidence supporting the incident’s in question, so
for them incidents to constitutes to the word rave.
Within the respondent’s bundle, that is representing an Antisocial Behaviour Order
(ASBO) order, no police officers chose to follow the true lines of investigation that
is needed to fulfil the key elements to obtain such an act, against the Appellants
statue of liberty’s when using section 63 of the criminal and justice act 1994 and
therefore the word rave cannot and should not be met to the criminal standards
needed to obtain a Proven verdict.
The investigating police officers had ample opportunity to achieve such goals, but
never did and therefore it must be agreed to the quoted, this case does not meet the
criteria for the incidents accused within its context and supported evidence.
This clearly leads to the Fraud Act 2006 by abuse of position: -
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) Occupies a position, in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against,
the financial interests of another person,
(b) Dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) Intends, by means of the abuse of that position—