|
The Holy Earth on the matter
BETWEEN:
THE PEACH GARDEN FUND
Hoang Danny Hizo Trung
___________________________________________________________________Claimant
AND
THE COURT OF ST. JAMES'S
Representatives of the Judicial Courts
The Government in session between 2010 - 2012
___________________________________________________________________Defendant
INTRODUCTION
It is with consideration of the colonisation of the Japan by America, the Korean War that followed, and the Vietnam War that prompted the question of whom incited the violence in Cho of Virginia Tech that landed the Claimant in prison.
Having considered the events lead the Claimant to a state of mind of suspicion concerning violations of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What we need to ask ourselves here is: Does freedom of speech mean anything?
The Claimant, a loyal customer of Starbucks, attended a Starbucks store to purchase a hot beverage as usual, on this particular occasion the corporate actor (Starbucks employee) informed the Claimant that his loyal card had run out of credit, surprised by the revelation, nonetheless the Claimant proceeded to pay for the beverage with cash. The Claimant then sat down and emailed Starbucks an email of concerned, followed was a number of emails to and fro which then stalled when Starbucks refused to reply, only to reply a few days later with a number of emails they claimed to have sent in the last few days, and to an abrupt end when Starbucks requested that they no longer wish to receive emails from the Claimant, a request that the Claimant respectfully obliged.
At some point in the midst of the saga, Starbucks reported the emails to the Metropolitan Police, London. Arrangement for the Claimant to be interviewed was fraught with difficulties right from the start considering the financial hardship of the Claimant at the time, nonetheless the Claimant tried his very best to accommodate to no avail, finally agreeing to meet at the local police station where the Claimant was remanded overnight to appear at court the next morning. At the hearing the Claimant was further remanded, then further remanded for a total of 104 days.
With little apparent reason, the Claimant was taken from the job as a volunteer Fundraiser and Chairperson of The Peach Garden Fund, causing magnitudes of losses to the Claimant and the Charity.
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
|
9th May 2010
|
The claimant arrived at Whitechapel Starbucks, ordered a hot beverage and paid using his loyalty card, he was told he did not have sufficient fund on the card and promptly paid with cash. He then sat down and emailed Starbucks as follow:
From: hizo@live.co.uk
To: ukinfo@starbucks.com
Subject:
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 12:20:03 +0000
Hi,
I went to the coffe shop friday(07/05) evening and used my card which had about five pounds or there about on it, which I brought a tea and biscuit, I did not get a receipt for it because their machine did not work, that was Trocadero London. I went to the one in Whitechapel to day(09/04) to only find there is no money in my account.
Can you help.
|
| |
|
20th May 2010
|
There were many emails to and fro, but two that the Metropolitan Police invited to attention are as below:
From: hizo@live.co.uk
To: investorrelations@starbucks.com; ukpressoffice@starbucks.com; ukinfo@starbucks.com; complaints@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Customer Care E-mail Reference: 319614
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 12:11:27 +0000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edK5tf5_bL4
...................................................
I was wondering to myself if you have problem with your emails or you are deliberately trying to ignore me.
Last night I had a dream of a crazy woman trying to kill the starbuck man. I think this is my anima telling me something: I conclude this to be unconscious rage.
On the matter of rage, that boy from virginia tech, what happened to him who made him angry, can it possibly a company of America.
|
| |
|
And
24th May 2010
|
From: hizo@live.co.uk
To: ukinfo@starbucks.com; ukpressoffice@starbucks.com; investorrelations@starbucks.com
Subject: FD: Customer Care E-mail Reference: 319614
Date: Thu, 24 May 2010 10:21:35 +0000
From the rely you sent to my first letter, now it seems, that was the first and most important hurdle you fail to overcome. Then the letter with all the letter you fail to send and all the data again you failed. This shows a high level of incompetence and therefore unwilling to believe in any data you send now or in the future.
Below is an email that I have sent to Blacksburg, Virginia to tie you in with “complicit in instigating violence” which you guilty of and it is getting worst this unconscious rage of mine.
Comply to request will end this. I own that money you swipe of my card it is theft and more Americans will find out by the end of the day, and more will know by tomorrow as a result of you stupidity.
|
| |
|
7th June 2010
|
First contact from PC Kerry Kirkby of Hounslow Police Station.
| |
|
9th June 2010
|
A request was made via email at 14:24 hr for the Claimant to attend Limehouse Police Station the next day @ 11 am.
The Claimant by the afternoon was no longer able to access the email and did not collect his email until the next morning.
| |
|
10th June 2010
|
The claimant asked for another appointment and to be given 24hrs in advanced.
| |
|
12th June 2010
|
The claimant was arrested at his home in the morning and detained at Bethnal Green Police Station, only to be released when PC Kerry Kirby was not able to attend the interview.
The Claimant was bailed and given a time and date to attend Hounslow Police Station.
The Claimant then informed PC Kerry Kirkby that he was in financial difficulty and would like a travel card to attend the interview (this would come in the form of a travel warrant). The Claimant did not get a response to the request.
| |
|
26th June 2010
|
PC Kerry Kirkby made an appointment to attend the Claimant’s home on the 1st July 2010 @ 9:00hrs.
| |
|
1st July 2010
|
The Claimant waited in the absence of PC Kerry Kirkby, he then proceeded to his daily routine as normal. Later in the day the Claimant received an email from PC Kerry Kirkby which proclaimed she was stuck in traffic and did not arrived at the Claimant’s address until 9:30hrs. Subsequently an appointment was made for the Claimant to attend Bethnal Green Police Station on the 7th July 2010.
| |
|
7th July 2010
|
The Claimant attended Bethnal Green Police Station and was met by PC Kerry Kirkby and DS Lilburn, interviewed, charged, and remanded to attend court the next day.
Charge sheet
Note: charges 2 – 10 violate Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998
| |
|
8th July 2010
|
a) From Bethnal Green Police Station the Claimant was taken to Feltham Magistrates’ Court.
b) Bail application refused at Feltham Magistrates Court.
| |
|
15th July 2010
|
a) Refusal of second bail application.
b) Trial set for 1st September 2012 (55 days from 8th December 2010).
| |
|
15th September 2010
|
1st September 2010 was postponed to the (estimated date) of 15th September 2010 that the trial took place. Charges 2 - 10 were droped, leaving charges 1 and 11.
a) On charge of violation of SECTION 1(1)(A) AND (4) OF THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988, the Claimant avers he was in his right to act in congruence with SECTION 1(2) OF THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988.
b) The Claimant avers he exercised his Freedom of Expression in accordance with Section 1 Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and as stipulated under SECTION 1(2) OF THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988.
c) On the charge of failing to surrender, the Claimant in his defence invites attention to 12th June 2010.
d) The Claimant was found guilty on both counts.
e) On the charge of the MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 the judge stated that the £2.50 is not a significant amount to send the emails and cannot be taken into consideration.
f) The Claimant now avers, since the £2.50 was not taken into consideration he was not given the equality of arms, and the failure to consider the £2.50 puts the Defendant in violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (Precedent: Boldea v. Romania, Strasbourg, 15th May 2007)
g) As it stands, Starbucks is in violation of SECTION 6 OF THE THEFT ACT 1968 and the Defendant is in violation of SECTION 4 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1967.
h) A delayed summary trial at Feltham Magistrates' Court puts the Defendant in violation of REGULATION 4 OF THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (CUSTODY TIME LIMITS) REGULATION 1987; Article 5(3) and 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
| |
|
18th October 2010
|
At sentencing the Claimant was given a Restraining Order.
a) 18th October 2010 made it 103 days from the first day of appearance at Feltham Magistrates' Court (a 7 month sentence), and so the Defendant is in violation of SECTION 1(4) OF THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988; Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
b) The Claimant was sentenced and released after 103 days in detention at Wormwood Scrubs where he was subjected to hunger, and shared living quarter with convicts - in contrary to Article 10(2)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Part 85 and 86 of the Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners.
c) Declared insight less by Dr Marthinus Dreyer while at Wormwood Srcubs and unfit to stand trial, the Claimant was tried and continued to be kept at Wormwood Scrubs in violation of Part 82 of the Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners.
| |
|
28th April 2011
|
In the Crown Court at Isleworth. Appeal was dismissed.
Recorder Godfrey Carey QC plus two.
| |
|
28th April 2011
|
In the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court. Non-oral Order refused permission to Judicial Review.
Mr Justice Collins
| |
|
8th September 2011
|
In the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court. Permission to apply for Judicial Review at an oral hearing to be done expeditiously (to enable the claimant to be within the deadline of the European Court of Human Rights if need be), the application was refused.
Mr Justice Collins
| |
|
19th September 2011
|
In the Supreme Court. Application dated 12 September 2012 to have an oral hearing to apply for Judicial Review to be done expeditiously was refused.
Attachment
| |
|
31st January 2012
|
In the European Court of Human Rights. Application lodged on 10th October 2011 was declared inadmissable.
V. A. De Gaetano
| |
|
27th March 2012
|
In the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court. Permission to Judicial Review refused at an oral hearing.
Mr Justice Mitting
| |
|
11th September 2012
|
Application for permission to Appeal at the Supreme Court
Grounds of Application:
UKSC Practice Direction 10.3.1
UKSC Practice Direction 3.6.17
UKSC Practice Direction 12.2.2
Section 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960
UKSC Practice Direction 2.1.9
| |
|
12th September 2012
|
In the Supreme Court. Application refused on shaky grounds.
Attachment
| |
PARTICULARS OF DAMAGES
The Chinese community in many terms can be termed as the eastern gypsy, travelling around with their bags of tricks, so it is only fair that they give back to the community in general.
In the months predated the remand period the Claimant was in the process of preparing to pitch local Chinese businesses for donations to The Peach Garden Fund in return for lucrative business deals that would benefit the benefactors. The total target sum was £6,000,000 and breaks down as follow:
| Hoo Hing | £2,000,000 |
| Loon Fung | £2,000,000 |
| See Woo | £2,000,000 |
| Total | £6,000,000 |
| And the fundraiser and portfolio manager (the Claimant) would be paid (exclusive of bonus). | £80,000 |
| Grand total of | £6,080,000 in loss of earnings. |
SUMMARY
The Claimant is a college educated man and worked in sales and marketing for many years, like many in stressful jobs he turned to drugs and alcohol and languished as a result.
In the period between Christmas and New Year of 2008 he claims he witnessed a Glowing Star on an evening of Crescent Moon, he then later visited the local mosques only to be told it has no significant meaning and only exists as a symbol for Islam, at this time he was still mildly addicted to heroin. In the New Year of 2009 he felt there was a surge of energy in him, a will to live, giving him the impetus to give up heroin once and for all, and is still clean to current date.
By his own interpretation he sees the Crescent Moon and the Glowing Star as a symbol of the son born of a virgin, the virgin being the Earth on a night of Crescent Moon (the Moon her vagina), the Star being God and the Sun her husband. The Glowing Star (God) shined on the Holy Earth on a night of Crescent Moon and gave Her a son, but not of his Father (the Sun).
For many days and nights the Claimant examined the nature of the Earth and her creatures, the Claimant finally came to and understanding that humans are herbivores which he inferred from the premise of the dependency of a living object on external heat source to digest food. A few months in on the year, he then drew a Mandala as an offering to the people of Taiwan when there was a land slide (there were no casualty at the site). Eventually the Claimant became a vegetarian circa July 2009, and started The Peach Garden Fund in November of that year.
Ever since the inception of The Peach Garden Fund, the Claimant claims that there have been external forces working to prevent the development of The Peach Garden Fund, and this has mainly come in the form of government organisations as well as private organisations.
Seeking to exploit people at whatever costs, the government has now breached the law and in violation of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom; Articles 9, 10, 15 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Parts 82, 85 and 86 of the Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners; and Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
The Claimant would go as far as to say the government would be willing to push as far as violating Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On this the Claimant affirms he believes in the Core Treaties and will not falter under the pressure of the United Kingdom and not to be compared to Cho of Virginia Tech, or Dale of Manchester (cases the Claimant believes resulted from institutional racism).
To draw to current events, such as the murder of the two female police officers in Manchester and a child abduction in Wales, would it be safe to say that the administrators of the law are failing to show their fidelity to the law.
On the grounds stated, the Claimant invites the Universe to find the Defendant guilty on all charges and a fine of £6,080,000 to be entered.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts stated in the particulars of the claim are true.
HOANG DANNY HIZO TRUNG
SERVICE OF CLAIM
| Name | Method of Service | Deemed Served |
| David Cameron | camerond@parliament.uk
www.number10.gov.uk | 10 October 2012 |
| Kenneth Clarke | clarkek@parliament.uk | 10 October 2012 |
| Chris Grayling | graylingc@parliament.uk | 10 October 2012 |
| Feltham Magistrates' Court | GL-WestLondonMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk | 10 October 2012 |
Isleworth Crown Court
FAO: Recorder G Carey QC | enquiries@isleworth.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk | 10 October 2012 |
Administrative Court
FAO: Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Mitting | administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk | 10 October 2012 |
UK Supreme Court
FAO: President of the Court | enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk | 10 October 2012 |
All parties have until the 8th November 2012 to make comment or counterclaim.
|
|
