The father of liberalism

“That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man’s right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.

Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title?

Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission.

The injury and the crime is equal whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villains. The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep their obedience, but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their possession which should punish offenders.”

John Locke,  English philosopher whose works lie at the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism.

It may sometimes be appropriate to give tyrants outward obedience for pragmatic reasons. But no one needs to give a tyrant their heart.

Sui juris

:patrick-james: dillon

sui juris

Tuesday 22 02 2022

Magistrate’s Court

Laganside Courthouse



regarding the matter,

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ( Private Corporation, Fictitious Complainant)


PATRICK DILLON (Fictitious Legal Entity, Nom De Guerre)


Case Reference # 1054440

Proceeding ID: 21/096728

Comes now, I, at arms length to the court, a living man called paddy, competent, animated fractal of the Divine, the anima and the animus, a true trust expressed – Mind, Body and Soul entrusted to I by the master encoder, the blueprinter of the spark and the seed. I am made in the image of God, the Divine within I, and I a follower of the Divine Law first and foremost, the laws of nature, and the laws of man when they are not in conflict. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein, I am of the age of majority and I understand both the spiritual and material liabilities of “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.

I reserve, claim all and waive none ever, my God given rights, inherent upon Creation, unalienable , safeguarded for I and we the people by God and under the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Geneva Conventions 1949

European Convention on Human Rights 1953

Magna Carta 1215

Hague Convention 1899 & 1907

Bill Of Rights 1688

Human Rights Act 1998

Nuremberg Code 1947

International Humanitarian Law

International Covenant of Civil & Political Rights 1966

1. Rights

a) Rights fundamental to the reason for being born, spirit incarnate into the physical body and a mind to freely use to do God’s will on this Earth.

b) I am not a UK citizen, I am a protected person as defined under the Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law.

c) I am not an agent nor an employee of the Department of Health and there is no principal between God and I.

d)I do not consent to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 which is based upon the Public Health Act 1984 Sections 37 and 38 pertaining to the removal and detention of people suffering from tuberculosis, which also did not stand up to scrutiny under the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1984 Act failing to provide civil safeguards, contravening Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights:

5 (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

And The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 9

  1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one will be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established at law.
  2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
  3. Anyone who is arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall not be detained in custody, but release maybe subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.
  4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before the court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
  5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 14

  1. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
  2. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing: (g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8

Everyone has a right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or law.

Article 9

No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

2. Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice received by the Court on 14th January 2021 and attached as I assert:

a) The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and its alleged agent has no standing.

b) If the public prosecution service is representing an injured party and a direct causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the accused, and not as a result of some independent 3rd party who is not in the court, then the public prosecution service should present that man/woman with a verified claim to the court.

c) The court cannot redress the injury because no such injury exists.

d) Since there is no injured party, and the plaintiff is a corporation then this must be a civil case and I demand to see the international contact and demand the prosecutor verifies my right to subrogation.

e) Since I have never signed anything, was never presented with a charging instrument at the time of unlawful arrest and detention and have never relinquished any inherent rights except under duress and threat of armed force and further detention at an unknown location.

Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

f) I demand that this Court provides me with a copy of the factual evidence that the public prosecution filed onto the court record proving persona jurisdiction.

3. Furthermore, since the suspension of habeas corpus, the absence of a jury and an injured party, the Emergency Powers legislation and the fact this court is not one of public record, it is prima facie evidence that this court is a Military Commission.

a) I demand that this Commission provide me with a copy of the factual evidence that the public prosecution service has filed that proves that the claim the prosecutor is asserting, applies to me simply because the alleged events happened within the State of Northern Ireland.

b) I demand that this Commission provide all the paperwork, affidavits of service, charge sheet etc to show that due process have been applied in this matter.

c) I must put the Commission on Notice that if the prosecutor has failed to file this information, then the court must dismiss the charges otherwise it will be proceeding in bad faith.

d) I must put the Commission on Notice that to continue to try a protected person in a Public Court (military commission court) without evidence of persona jurisdiction is a War Crime and that the court, court clerk and prosecutor no longer have any good faith defence in this matter.

4. Furthermore, the fraudulent summons that was left with my aged father accompanied with threats, and all further correspondence from the public prosecution service delivered without a Royal Mail stamp in window envelopes (mail fraud) do not have upon their face, my full given appellative in upper and lower case letters.

a) The title to proceedings on the purported summons sheet, is known as PATRICK DILLON, on police testimony as Mr. Patrick Dillon and Mr. Dillon, and as DILLON PATRICK on the court listing. I refer the respondent to the unrebutted Affidavit Of Status attached regarding my given call signs, and also to Black’s Law Dictionary,

The evidence that names are designations of artificial persons or legal fictions can be found in the legal definition of the word name. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edition) defines the word name using these exact words: “The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.” The word corporation is defined by the same law dictionary as, “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.” Based on the definitions in this paragraph, in law, a name is a designation of a corporation which is an artificial person.

b) The public prosecution service, are presuming the accused to be the agent of a dead entity with a name that is similar but not the same. Talis non est eadem, nam nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same. 4 Co. 18

Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 54 (1795)

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can only interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them”

S.C.R 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall.54), Supreme Court of the United States

c)The public prosecution service and the PSNI agents are using trickery and threat of force and detention to deceive I, a living man into accepting surety-ship and swindle I into paying charges levied against a corporate fictitious dead entity.

d) Therefore the records of the Commission are not written in proper English, being such they cannot be recognised lawfully, for the reason they violate our customs and usages; and have no effect, force or operation outside the venue from which they originate.

See Neutral citation [2009] NIQB 66

Caoimhin Mac Giolla Cathain v. The Northern Ireland Court Service

5. I contend that pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 Section 3 (a) I have the following rights:

a) To be informed promptly, in a language which I understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against me. This right was clearly denied the accused as evidenced after the unlawful arrest, assault and unlawful detention of the accused in the back of the P.S.N.I land rover, on JM1 Murphy’s Body Worn Video Footage and our dialogue at time-stamp 0032630

Murphy: The reason you were arrested is because we can’t identify you.

Time-stamp: 0038597

Murphy: Do us a favour, give Bessie a shout and see if that Covid thing is applicable for being reported along with the obstruction.

Accused: What’s that?

Murphy: what’s that? It’s a radio

Accused: covid thing?

Murphy: The covid is the ticket, the covid legislation or covid regulations cos you were arrested for it.

b) I furthermore contend the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as all the court documents are full of misnomers and the name of the accused on the summons is a nom de guerre, in debased Latin which is criminal and renders every court or corporate government that tenders such text as counterfeit.

Glossa viperina est quie corrodit viscera textus. It is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the text. 11 Coke 34

c)Before I can have a fair trial all the misnomers and Nom De Guerra’s will have to be corrected and the prosecutor will have to provide me with a glossary of all words in their documents, the lexicon used to define those words and the styles manual used to construct all their documents.

d) The lack of this is prima facie evidence of bad faith on behalf of the Prosecutor, as the Prosecutor is trying to hoodwink I into accepting surety-ship.

Misnomer: “The act of applying a wrong name…to a person. An error in naming a person or place in a legal document.”Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 867.

Misnomer:“Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to a person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Under rules of practice in some states, such is ground for dismissal by motion. In most states, however, as well as in the federal courts, such misnomer can be corrected by amendment of the pleadings.”Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 1000.

Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody. And…if the defendant has been arrested by a wrong name, the court will set aside the proceedings…and discharge him if in custody.” 4 Bacon’s Abridgment, (D) of Misnomer, and want of Addition (1832), page 7.

6. I furthermore contend that the police Smith and Murphy and the entirety of the police force at Stormont on the day of my unlawful arrest and detention acted beyond the scope of their enforcement powers in direct contravention to the core policing principles of their Code of Ethics especially but not limited to Article 1.1: Professional Duty,

police officers shall obey and uphold the law, protect human dignity and uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments.”

a) Sergeant Smith failed in his professional duty, as evidenced in the video Peaceful Gathering at Stormont 18102020 pt 2 time-stamp 18.13 , where he is clearly seen pulling a young woman to the ground and causing physical damage and harm by his excessive force and action.

b) Sergeant Smith also breached Article 1.9 of the Police Service Of Northern Code Of Ethics,

Police officers shall ensure that accurate records are kept of their duties as required by relevant Codes of Practice and Police Service policy and procedure. Police officers shall not through neglect make any false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any such record or document made, kept or required for police purposes.

c) In a litany of false and misleading statements made by both Murphy and Smith in their written witness statements Sergeant Smith tells a blatant lie in his, “ The crowd became highly agitated and aggressive moving in towards Constable Murphy and I. Some of the crowd now took an active part in attempting to obstruct the arrest by wrapping arms around the detained person’s neck and grabbing at myself as I could feel hands on my body pulling my uniform. I was afraid that I may be taken to the ground by the mob”. As it can be clearly seen in the video Peaceful Gathering at Stormont 18102020 pt 2 at time-stamp 18.08 – 18.34, and on the video Belfast Stormont Lockdown Protest Gets Violent – Police Brutality at timestamp 23.08, this is untrue, as Smith was clearly unhindered when he moved away from the accused and forcefully threw the young woman, Emma Louise, to the ground.

d) and by the admission of the Ombudsman

Overall the PSNI were careful in their use of the Regulations, particularly by following the four Es of; Engage, Explain, Encourage and Enforcement. They went out of their way to avoid enforcement, took the initiative to protect those at risk of abuse in their homes, took care of those detained and only used SBGs against those who were trying to spit at them or to bite them. However, it is not clear that they were helped to understand the overlap between the Regulations and the Human Rights Act by the Executive or Assembly Members and may have not done enough to protect the right to protest safely.

At Stormont for some reason the P.S.N.I did not go out of their way to avoid enforcement. They enforced the corporate medical rules with unnecessary force and zeal.

e) As evidenced on the day of my unlawful arrest and detention I had no real knowledge of the law I was being accused of breaking. Refer to JM1 Murphy’s Body Worn Video Footage and our dialogue at time-stamp 0034290

Accused: we don’t know the law.

Murphy: I told you the law out there. I can’t discuss this with you o.k, Paddy. I can’t discuss this with you.

During this encounter it became clear that Murphy did not know anything about the law either, having arrested me for Obstruction, even though he, as a Constable, was not investigating any crime at common law.

f) Furthermore, evidenced moments prior to unlawful arrest, assault and unlawful detention of the accused, when the accused claimed the right to remain silent, JM1 Murphy’s Body Worn Video Footage and our dialogue at time-stamp 0026730,

Accused: I don’t think I have done anything wrong, I don’t have to leave the area. I haven’t committed a crime.

g) The arrest and detention of the accused was unlawful according to

(i)Rice v Connolly

[1966] 2 QB 414, [1966] 2 All ER 649, [1966] 3 WLR 17, 130 JP 322

It is also in my judgment clear that it is part of the obligations and duties of a police constable to take all steps which appear to him necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. There is no exhaustive definition of the powers and obligations of the police, but they are at least those, and they would further include the duty todetect crime and to bring an offender to justice.” Chief Justice Lord Parker


(ii)Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Gerard Devlin

Neutral Citation no. [2008] NICA 22

[14] “We conclude that the appellant by his failure to co-operate cannot be said to have obstructed the constable by failure to give the constable his name and address when he was under no legal duty to do so”. Lord Justice Campbell

h) Since Constable Murphy and Sergeant Smith were acting under the Oath of Office of a Police Constable, being,

I hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all individuals and their traditions and beliefs; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof according to law.”

the arrest was clearly unlawful because no crime was being committed, and the accused did not obstruct the constable in his duty to investigate crime at common-law.

i) It is axiomatic that Constable Murphy was not acting under his Oath-of-Office but as a military officer working on behalf of corporate medical interests, and therefore, he was impersonating a constable as he clearly states in his written testimony that he is a constable and in uniform.

7. As evidenced on the day of the unlawful arrest and detention, the accused had particular knowledge of the malicious fraud being perpetrated on the people. Refer to JM1 Murphy’s Body Worn Video Footage and our dialogue at time-stamp 0043111:

Accused: did you ever study germ theory, no?

Murphy: Germ? What’s that?

Accused: Germ Theory, Louis Pasteur? Do you know anything about viruses, exosomes?

Murphy: Not really , I’m not going to say I do, cos I don’t.

a) Following on from the one-sided conversation on germ theory, the accused may have elaborated on the work of Louis Pasteur the father of vaccines, but the right to freedom of speech was denied and violated, as the accused was ordered to leave the area or suffer further unlawful arrest and detention under threat of force as evidenced by JM1 Murphy’s Body Worn Video Footage at time-stamp 0040352

Murphy: Once I let you out it’s going to have to be a case that you leave the area, you can’t go back into that crowd. If you go back into that crowd you are going have to be arrested and brought to the police station because you are just not listening to the reasoning here.

And furthermore at time-stamp 0040771,

Murphy: Do you understand what I’m saying here? If I release you here and don’t bring you to the police station you have to leave the area, you can’t go back into the crowd, you can’t partake in this anymore, alright?

c) Murphy and Smith continued to Trespass on the living man the next day, when they both wrote false written testimony as evidence for the prosecution to be used in an attempt to convict the living man of a crime.

8. Pertaining to my questions to Constable Murphy about germ theory and my request for further and better particulars in an unrebutted affidavit of fact (filed with the court 15th January 2022), and furthermore to the Motion To Dismiss this case (filed with the court on February 1st 2022) see attached the accused recommends the respondent consider the following with particular care.

The burden of proof falls on the claimant, and the claimant cannot provide,

proof the purified SARS-COV-2 questionable virus has been isolated in accordance with the gold standard Koch’s postulates,

proof the isolated SARS-COV-2 causes the illness Covid-19,

proof that a man/woman transmits sickness to another just by contact,

proof that a man/woman transmits sickness to another just by breathing near him,

proof that any of the following measures: social distancing; wearing a mask, getting tested, isolating and lock downs; do not cause harm to the living man.

9. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 was outside the legislative competence of the Stormont ministers in the first place, even if they did get a chance to vote on its introduction, consistent to Section 6-(1) and 6-(2)c of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is in direct contravention to the European Convention on Human Rights.

10) The Department of Health(a), makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 25C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d) and 25F(2) of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967(b). These Regulations are made in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health considers that the restrictions and requirements imposed by these Regulations are proportionate to what they seek to achieve, which is a public health response to that threat. In accordance with section 25Q of that Act the Department of Health is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make these Regulations without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.

11) Some Acts of Parliament are codified common law, and that has created tremendous confusion, where even those who are meant to be upholding the rule of law have no idea or way of distinguishing the difference.

12) It is legislatively affirmed in §49 of the Senior Court Act 1981 that the rules of equity prevail in the event of a conflict with the common law, and what is fair and just is determined by each individuals conscience, thereby admitting, and hence settling, that Acts of Parliament are not law.

13). Lex non cogit impossibilia. The law requires nothing impossible. Co. Litt. 231, b; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 951 Acts of Parliament, being the creations of fictions of law, by impossibility they cannot be law except law for their creators.

14) The “Coronavirus Regulations” were forced upon the people by Minister for Health Robin Swann and the Department Of Health , Chief Medical Officer Michael Mc Bride and Elizabeth Redmond, a senior officer of the Department Of Health, all Crown Corporate agents of Rothschild East India Trading Company, Vanguard and Blackrock, the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements whose plan for Europe is trillions of Euros in vaccine sales.

15)The death, sickness, suffering, loneliness, isolation, social upheaval, suicides, heartbreak, financial ruin, and division perpetrated on the people of Northern Ireland and on the peoples of Earth, because of the deception of virology and the disproportionate yet planned response to a fake manufactured “health crisis” (Kristalina Georgieva, Head of I.M.F, April 2021: ‘This year, next year, vaccine policy is economic policy … a higher priority than the traditional tools of fiscal and monetary policy … without it we can not turn the fate of the world economy around …’) and that, in order to coerce men, women and children into taking a dangerous, harmful, experimental gene therapy vaccine, is a heinous crime against humanity.

And I, a man, will not be silenced by War Criminals.

Without malice, mischief, ill-will,

in sincerity and honour,

:patrick-james: dillon

non negotiable autograph

all rights reserved, none waived ever.

On the ship of bonded slaves

The Crown: The accused, Mr Dillon, currently faces two charges arising out of a single incident on the 18th October 2020. Both charges relate to breaches of the then Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) Regulations 2020

At approximately 1400 hours Sunday 18th October 2020, Police had reason to attend Stormont Estate, Belfast in relation to an organised demonstration, protesting the restrictions and regulations in relation to Coronavirus. Police spoke to members of the public and explained the current regulations and advising that any gathering over 15 persons would be unlawful and that they may be subject to being issued with a penalty notice. Approximately 300 protesters, including infants and children, were congregated on a green area at the Massey Avenue entrance. Police displayed electronic signage and made several tannoy announcements, warning those gathered that they were breaching Coronavirus Restrictions & Regulations. Despite repeated messages to disperse, the crowd already gathered continued to grow. Direction was made to enforce regulations by issuing penalty notices to those present. The crowd were becoming increasingly hostile and vocal, shouting and chanting at Police. It was noted that a large number were actively aggressive. Social distancing and the wearing of face coverings was largely not adhered to. Police spoke to the Defendant at approximately 1440 hours in relation to breaches being committed. He initially was passive and ignored any advice or direction from Police to leave the area. He was asked for his identity details and refused to provide these despite repeated requests to do so. Police explained that they were unable to issue him with a penalty notice without these details and he faced being arrested – he still refused. The Defendant then made off as if he was attempting to flee. Police prevented him from doing so by physically grabbing onto his coat. At this point a crowd then descended on Police and the Defendant. Police were still trying to restrain the Defendant, who swung his arm out at the Officer who had him detained, narrowly missing his head. The Defendant also grabbed this Officer by the shoulder and would not let go, resulting in the Officer being dragged for approximately 5 metres through a hostile crowd. The Defendant was extracted from the crowd with the assistance of further Police personnel. He was informed that he was under arrest for the offence of Obstructing Police as he was walked away from the crowd. He continued to behave aggressively, attempting to struggle away from Police and shouting. He was moved to a Police vehicle as at this time a large disturbance had broken out and the crowd had become hostile. He was cautioned at 1445 hours for the offences of Obstructing Police in accordance with Article 3 Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1988. He gave no reply. The Defendant calmed considerably and provided Police with his name and address details. He was released pending a report to the Public Prosecution Service.

Those are the facts, your worship.

Commissioner: But the offence of Obstruction is not being dealt with here?

The Crown: No, your worship, there was no charge for Obstruction just the breach of the “Regulations”

Commissioner: And the numbers, it says 500 persons on the police statement.

Richard : Yes your worship, there is some dispute about the numbers in attendance that day.

MCP: The Assistant Chief Constable Alan Todd said in a public statement there were 300 people at the protest.

Commissioner: But this is all accepted, if this is disputed then it should have been done before now.

Richard: Your worship, the facts of the case are accepted and this case is about the defendants “reasonable excuse” for breaching the Regulations.

Commissioner: Yes I see quite a bit of case law here. And what are the Regulations that have been breached? Can we at least be clear on that? For the defendants sake and for anybody else who may be listening or watching.

The Crown: There are two charges, your worship, one of them is in the alternative, and we would invite the court to convict on the second charge, under Schedule 2

Richard: Your worship, Schedule 2 is from Amendment 9 of the Regulations made on 16th October 2022, 2 days before the planned protest.

Commissioner: Yes, Mr Dillon, could you come up and take a seat?

At the back of the court

Richard: Do you want to swear on the Bible or take the affirmation?

MCP: The affirmation

Richard: He’ll do the affirmation

Clerk of The Commission: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me

I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

MCP: I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Richard: Mr. Dillon, I’ll ask you a few questions and if you don’t hear or don’t understand anything, just say and I’ll repeat the question, and take your time.

MCP: OK no problem.

Richard: On the day in question why did you go to Stormont?

MCP: I went to Stormont to take part in a planned protest.

Richard: What was the protest about? What were you protesting against?

MCP: We were protesting against the Health Protection Regulations, scientific fraud, medical negligence and the pseudoscience of virology.

Commissioner: Sorry, I didn’t get that all..

MCP: Health regulations, scientific fraud

Commissioner: no, just the last things you said

MCP: Pseudoscience of virology, virology, pseudoscience.

Commissioner : OK thank you.

Clerk of the Commission smiles.

Richard: How strongly did you believe in what you were protesting about?

MCP: In October 2020 the race for the experimental vaccine was almost over and we were truly anxious about that. I was strongly opposed to vaccination. The virus narrative had darkened the earth and we were determined to educate about that during the protest. I strongly believe in protest against the scientific and medical fraud that feeds off this flawed virus germ theory. I strongly believed the government health protection measures were doing more harm than good: masks, social distancing , isolation especially for the elderly and the students was wrong since the symptoms and illness were not being caused by any virus called SARS-CoV-2. All that information is wrong and was available at the time.

Richard: So it is accurate to say you strongly believed in the political views you expressed and strongly believed in protest against the government safety measures and restrictions

MCP: At the time of the protest I felt so strongly about it I would have screamed it from the rooftops. Social media was censoring everything and the government pysche unit and media had people intentionally terrified. Terrified of a phantom bug.

Richard: Ok that’s ok.

MCP: and then when you try to protest you get unlawfully shut up and unlawfully arrested.

Richard: Who did you go to the protest with? Did you organise a lot of people to attend?

MCP: I went on my own and picked up one friend in Belfast city centre.

Richard: So you didn’t go as a crowd, just you and a friend.

MCP: Yes, my friend who is an expert in germ theory, knows all about Pasteur, Koch’s postulates and the isolation of viruses. Just the two of us. We arrived late.

Richard: And what did you see when you got there?

MCP: well when we got there all I could hear was a distressed voice on the loudspeaker, and when I moved up through the crowd I saw about 10 PSNIs surrounding a wee man around the tree.

The Crown: Your worship, since the facts of the matter are already acknowledged we don’t necessarily need a revision of the details

Richard: Your worship, my next question will cut to the chase. What I mean, Mr. Dillon, did you notice anyone being aggressive or violent toward the police?

MCP: No, Sir. It was a peaceful protest. No-one was violent or aggressive except the PSNI.

Richard: OK, no one was being violent..

MCP: They were just normal people, concerned mothers, fathers, grandmothers, children and grandchildren and their beloved pets.

Richard: Were you an organiser of the protest?

MCP: No, I did not organise the protest.

Richard: And when the police approached you why did you not comply with their directions?

MCP: They told me to wear a mask and I told them wearing a mask is bad for your health. I think I suggested they should take theirs off.

Richard: And why did you not leave the area when they asked you to?

MCP: I said I would leave the area as soon as the protest was over. In fact I probably would have left as soon as Liam would have finished speaking. But he never got the chance.

Richard: And why did you not give your details when asked by Constable Murphy?

MCP: He had no right to ask me. No crime had been committed and there was no probable cause for doing so. He was unlawfully interfering with my inalienable right to speak out and protest against the lies. He should have been facilitating my right to protest. Their job was to keep us safe.

Richard: Ok thank you. That’s all, your worship

The Crown: Mr. Dillon, you thought it was ok to take part in a large gathering at the height of the pandemic?

MCP: Was that the pandemic caused by Midazolam and Fentanyl or the pandemic caused by the PCR test that really only tells you if you have DNA?

The Crown: At a time when Regulations clearly stated there was to be no mixing in large groups, you thought it ok to take part in a large demonstration that did no safety assessment and put no restrictions in place?

MCP: Sinn Fein thought it OK to take 5000 people on to the street for Bobby Storey’s funeral. Black Lives Matter thought it OK to protest in numerous places on numerous occasions in groups of 2000 and more

The Crown: Were you aware of the Regulations at the time?

MCP: I lost interest around Amendment 7, the postcode one. Whenever the virus learnt the postcode boundaries.

The Crown: Were you not aware the regulations were made to safeguard people from the virus?

MCP: You have no evidence the symptoms and illness called Covid-19 was caused by a virus. In fact there is no evidence or proof for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 at all and what is not proven and what does not exist are the same.

It is not a defect of the law but of proof.

The Crown: So you don’t believe in viruses, what makes you right and the scientists wrong

MCP: Polio was caused by lead arsenate poisoning, Spanish Flu was caused by vaccination, Mad Cow Disease was caused by organophosphate poisoning, Small pox was caused by unsanitary living conditions and SARS was caused by industrial pollution. No proof of any virus ever. And you have no proof SARS C0V-2 exists either except inside of a computer.

The Crown: So you think that the virus is a hoax and no one suffered and died?

Richard: Sorry, your worship I don’t think we need to hear a layman’s view on the science.

Commissioner : Agreed

The Crown: So you admit to not following the Regulations that were made to save lives?

MCP: Only thing the Regulations did was cost lives. Destroy lives and livelihoods.

The Crown: Do you not agree that following the Regulations was for the greater good?

MCP: If you mean the greater good was increase in suicides, increases in domestic violence, retarded childhood development, sick people not getting treatments, increase in mental health problems, vaccine injury and death, economic meltdown and the cull of elderly in nursing homes, then I do agree, the Regulations caused all that.

The Crown: Mr Dillon, you were fully aware gathering in large groups was dangerous for the health and safety of others in society , the elderly and the vulnerable? Did you not understand that?

MCP: Your Director of Public Prosecutions admitted that he couldn’t even decipher the Regulations himself when he let 24 Sinn Feiners walk after organising a massive Republican funeral in Belfast, which the PSNI helped organise.

The Crown: You said that virology is a pseudoscience. What qualifications do you have?

MCP: None, but I can read.

The Crown: And I suppose you get your information from Facebook and Youtube?

MCP: The internet is a good place to start doing your own research and I could recommend you some good books.

The Crown: Nothing further, your worship

Clerk Of The Commission smiles excitedly

Commissioner : Richard, do you wish to re-examine?

Richard: No, your worship.

Commissioner : Thank you, Mr Dillon.

Richard: It is respectfully submitted that Mr. Dillon took part in a planned protest against many aspects of the government response to the health threat. In respect of the contraventions, it is respectfully submitted , following decisions of the Supreme Court in Ziegler and the Court Of Appeal in Dolan, that a right to protest under Article 10/11 of the ECHR can amount to a reasonable excuse and to not afford it as a defence , when factually present, serves to make the Regulations incompatible with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In respect of the considerations made by Lord Neuberger in City Of London Corporation v Samede identifying two further factors to assess proportionality of a protest, whether the views giving rise to the protest relate to “very important issues” and whether they are “views which would be seen as having of considerable breadth, depth and relevance”, and secondly, whether the protestors “believed in the views they were expressing. I think we can agree the protest on 18th October 2020 related to very important scientific and political issues surrounding Covid-19, viewpoints noted by the Supreme Court as particularly worthy of protection.

And the court may consider from the evidence in chief that the protest was peaceful and the protestors believed in the views they were expressing and Mr Dillon is very passionate about his political and scientific viewpoints regarding the Health Emergency. It is evident he strongly believes in the views he was expressing.

The precise location of Stormont is noteworthy as the seat of political power in Northern Ireland. The duration and occupation of Stormont was a planned protest against the very Regulations under dispute and it was peaceful and not obstructive of the rights of the general public.

Given that the Regulations did not expressly prohibit all protest they must be read in such a way as to permit protest where it would be unnecessary or disproportionate not to allow individuals to exercise their Article 10 and 11 rights.

It is on this basis, I would respectfully invite the court to dismiss the charges against Mr Dillon. Thank you, your worship.

The Crown: It is neither here nor there how strongly the defendant believes in what he believes in, and there is no doubt these conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers do believe in the misinformation that they spread.

At the height of the global pandemic the defendant Mr Dillon attended an illegal gathering to spread disinformation about the virus and the government health message and in doing so contravened the Regulations. It may well have been for political purposes but the gathering did not comply with the required health and safety assessments and the participants did not wear masks, did not socially distance and did not disperse when asked by police. Nothing was done to mitigate the spread of the virus, therefore this protest was unlawful and Dolan makes it clear in the context of a global pandemic what amounts to reasonable excuse would be limited.

As Lord Burnett of Maldon stated “the regulations themselves include the in-built exception of ‘reasonable excuse’. That would necessarily focus attention on the particular case in the event of an alleged breach”. We invite the court to convict the defendant given his non-compliance with the safety measures and his blatant refusal to follow any of the directions given to him by the police prior to his arrest.

Thank you, your worship.

Commissioner : I’m inclined to err on the side of caution, and rule in favour of the defendant. The case is dismissed. Thank you.

Clerk of the Commission: All rise




Black Livers Matter

Fourteen people reported to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) after Black Lives Matter protests last year will not be prosecuted.

They were referred to the PPS for potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations in Belfast and Londonderry

The PPS said there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction for any offence”.

Last year, the Police Ombudsman found justification in claims the handling of the Black Lives Matter protests by the PSNI was unfair and discriminatory.

A further complaint of race discrimination is being investigated.

Complex issues

PPS assistant director Martin Hardy said the test for prosecution had not been met.

“Decision-making on this file included consideration of a range of complex and novel legal issues arising from the coronavirus regulations in place at the time of these protests and relevant human rights considerations,” he said.

“It also involved a careful analysis of the particular circumstances of these protests and the conduct of the individuals reported.

“It was concluded that, in respect of each of the 14 individuals reported, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction for any offence.

“This was on the basis that the evidence would allow the suspects to successfully raise the statutory defence of reasonable excuse.”

Darragh Mackin, from Phoenix Law, said the decision vindicated his clients and “the right to protest generally”.

He called on the chief constable to apologise to those who had been put through “almost a year of torment for simply exercising their fundamental right to protest.”

“We don’t think we should have been referred for prosecution and that exposes the blatant discrimination that took place,” she said.

The PPS said considerations included:

  • the potential breadth of the reasonable excuse defence, particularly in relation to the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
  • the protests related to a matter of important social concern
  • a lack of clarity in coronavirus regulations
  • issues in relation to the “proportionality and consistency” of the policing approach to different protests

PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said it had not been “easy or comfortable” to balance public health and the right to protest.

“Our response unintentionally damaged the confidence and trust of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community,” he said.

He said the decision by the PPS “underlines yet again the difficulties” the force had in policing during the coronavirus pandemic, with officers dealing with “an unprecedented health crisis and rapidly changing, ambiguous legislation”.

“Our objective has always been to help slow the spread of the virus to keep people safe,” he said.

“Balancing this against our obligation to safeguard other important rights – such as that to peacefully protest – has not been easy or comfortable.

“We have not always got that balance right.”

‘Right to protest’

“We knew from the outset that we had a human right to protest, a human right that was breached by the PSNI,” she told BBC Radio Foyle.

Organisers had gone to great length, she said, to ensure the protest could take place with the required public health measures.

She said: “What the PSNI did that day was disrupt the effort that we had put in place.

“We followed all the regulations and then what happened? We were criminalised.”