|
|
The Registrar, European Court of Human Rights
Dear Sir,
PROGRESSIVE DISINTEGRATION OF THE EU
1. I, Eric Rob GILES, age 73, retired Control Systems Engineer, of 22 Stubbing Road, Chesterfield Derbyshire, S40 2HP, hereby submit this initial outline of an Application giving evidence of violation of Article 1 of the Convention intentionally and maliciously by the UK government. The UK purpose is to prevent the application of ECtHR Law within the UK. Other Articles are being violated as part of this purpose. An imminent violation of Protocol 1 Article 3 has great urgency
2. The full Application will be submitted by a group of victims of the intentional and malicious violation of Article 1.
3. Pressures to obtain Authoritarian government go back deep into the history of the UK and other nations, because of the capabilities of financial exploitation under the controls of Authoritarian government whereas democratic systems suppress the corporate exploitations and instead give priority to the public's interests and defences.
4. The origins of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) lie in the outcome of a particular form of coup which overthrew democracy in Weimar Germany and re-installed the Authoritarian form of State control. The ECtHR origins link back via the 1951 ECHR preamble to the preamble of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "barbarous acts have outraged the conscience of mankind". The UK is currently in the grip of a deepening coup with a General Election imminent under Emergency Powers which will thereafter release the complete coup.
5. The Weimar Coup was made possible by the failure of the Weimar judges to defend democracy, preferring the previous Authoritarian regime. The current failure of the ECtHR to defend UK democracy has been the key event releasing the ongoing UK coup. I sent an Open Letter on behalf of the Human Rights Network to the C-in-C UK Land Forces on 3rd February seeking an assurance that the Armed Forces would not be used to support a Creeping Coup, document [Dl] enclosed. There has been no reply and accordingly the date of commencement of the time period for submitting the full Application should run from a month thereafter, 3rd March. This date also corresponds closely with my personal receipt of a Parliamentary Written Reply from the Home Secretary, [D4], see para 9 below.
6. The pressures towards UK Authoritarian government and the UK Creeping Coup originate in the formation by senior judiciary in 1974 of an Authoritarian enclave within the nominal UK democracy, exceeding their lawful jurisdiction. The Human Rights Network distributed a summary RIGGING THE ELECTION, [D2], describing the use of duplicitous Statutes with the 1998 Human Rights Act as one among many designed to mislead Parliament, the public, and the ECtHR, and serving the purposes of organised Authoritarian State Power, The-State-Within-The-State.
7. The present-day upsurge in UK Political Authoritarianism stems from government decisions taken in 1993 under the protection of The 1974 State-Within-The-State, to govern by force and to suppress the inevitable protests, as a form of Party Politics. The 1993 Authoritarian system was taken over as a free choice by the incoming government in 1997 as its form of Party Politics. Forces of exploitation have been given favourable treatment in return for contributions to Party electioneering expenses, and the new government made further increases in the powers of the suppression of protests. In 2000 the Armed Forces were put on instant readiness to carry out policing duties against the petrol tax protests, by resorting to Emergency Powers. The Armed Forces are accordingly supporting freely chosen Party Politics. Emergency Powers now continue to be in force indefinitely. A General Election under these conditions is a violation of Protocol 1 Article 3, and an urgent Declaration is sought from the ECtHR, together with a Declaration that a government formed from such Election and pursuing policies requiring Emergency Powers to enforce, is illegal in terms of ECtHR law.
8. A feature of the 1993 system adopted by the present government consists of overtaxation during the lifetimes of governments to form a pool of taxpayers money for giveaway purposes to bribe the voters with gifts of their own money. This necessarily depends on misleading the public about the intentions and workings of the State Power system, particularly suppressing the issues of legality in terms both of basic UK laws originating in the outcome of the Parliamentary Civil War of the 1640s, and of ECtHR law.
9. Following misuse of power by the Secret Police to my detriment, and to gather further evidence that Statutes of 1989 and 1994 purporting to control such abuses as required by the ECtHR, were in fact duplicitous, I asked my MP to request a Parliamentary Written Reply from the Home Secretary, [D3], which would show that the so-called controls did not provide any reality of public defence. The Reply [D4J evaded the issue and instead pretended that I had merely made a complaint and suggested referring this to a further Tribunal set up by yet another new Statute. This Investigatory Powers Tribunal has no public interest priority, has no means of ensuring impartiality between the Citizen and The State, and is capable of being staffed by agents of the-State-Within-The-State. An arm of The-State-Within-The-State is being asked to expose abuses committed by the Secret Police - another arm of The-State-Within-The- State. This is additional evidence that violation of Article 1 is intentional and malicious.
The letter with the Home Secretary response dated 6 Feb 2001 was sent to me in an envelope postmarked 27th February and I request that the period for lodging the Complaint giving evidence of violation of Article 1 should run as 6 months from February 28th, on this count.
10. Two further high level agencies have been set up in early 2001, an enlarged Joint Houses Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, and a Constitutional Committee in the House of Lords. Neither of these has terms of reference (a) to enforce the State responsibilities from membership of the Council of Europe and of the EEC/EU, in terms of Article 46 of the ECHR Convention coupled with Articles 3, 7 & 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, or (b) to publicise the public's entitlements to demand The State fulfillment of its obligations under the totality of this Law, or (c) in order to fulfil those obligations, to set up a structure visibly committed to providing impartiality in conflicts between the Citizen and The State over the application of ECtHR law, or (d) to deal with the issue of judges acting outside their lawful jurisdiction in Human Rights contexts, or (e) to bring The-State-Within-The-State under Parliamentary control including preventing State Agencies from being taken over by The-State-Within-The-State.
These visible State activities are merely to mislead Parliament, the public and the ECtHR, and possess deliberately inbuilt incapabilities to defend Parliament or the public against misuse of law by Authoritarian agencies within the State structures. Victims of misuse of State power accordingly have no alternative to taking evidence of violations to the ECtHR direct, particularly every item of evidence that the UK is committing intentional and malicious violations of Article 1.
11. PURPOSES of the Complaint.
(1). An urgent need is for the ECtHR to condemn as illegal, the forthcoming General Election under the Emergency Powers situation, and for the ECtHR to condemn as illegal any government resulting from an illegal Election due to the violation of Protocol 1 Article 3.
(2). A further purpose is to seek an ECtHR requirement for the installation of a Parliamentary Office and structure to provide ECtHR standards of impartiality in conflicts between the Citizen and The State as described above, having a publicly accessible, open and transparent character based on for example the structure of the Swedish Ombudsman System or that of the West German 1948 Supreme Tribunal.
(3). Until this is in place, the ECtHR needs to accept that the Article 1 violations by the UK have the purpose of ensuring that no effective remedy exists or shall exist within the UK, and that the ECtHR requirement for exhausting non-existent domestic remedies violates the ECtHR obligation to the citizens of the UK.
12. The only force of equality binding the nations of the EU together is a universal recognition that human rights considerations must maintain control over economics forces. Failure by the ECtHr to maintain this priority is allowing the powerful nations of the EU to begin to dominate the smaller, and if unchecked will lead to the progressive disintegration of the EU.
Signed pp Human Rights Network (UK) E. R. Giles Date, 7th March 2001