Tuesday 22 02 2022
FAO JUDGE AMANDA HENDERSON
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
- Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
- 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
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
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.
No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
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  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.
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
 2 QB 414,  2 All ER 649,  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.  NICA 22
 “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,
non negotiable autograph
all rights reserved, none waived ever.