My appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Stadlen against the Kaschke v Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB), decision was declared as totally without merit. Well that might be good as the court at least gives my case some credit. So the Court of Appeal has refused to re-consider the decision in the Light of Striking out the claim either in terms of publication or merit of the claim itself in terms of value.
I just had those news from Mr Dougans who got it from the Court of Appeal so he says, though the official website results do not show it yet. 10:35.
Even though I made the decision mainly over the costs order against me that followed, it is good in terms of that the Court of Appeal doesn’t feel that the decision could have included a strike out, as it was intended by Justice Eady when he gave permission to appeal to Mr Hilton.
At the worst case scenario the Court of Appeal could have heard the Appeal and allowing counter appeals and deciding that Mr Justice Stadlen should have dismissed the case there and then. But another possibility is that the court declares the application for permission to appeal the Hilton ruling as totally without merit because the case had been struck out by now. Another fine way to get around another determination of the Regulation 19 issue. I doubt there is someone in that court that would know how to do it properly. They are just trying to avoid the issue, lol.
Even if I win this case I will write to Strasbourg for an opinion on the merits of the analysis with regards to the E-Commerce Regulations, as I am interested in that subject.
Unfortunately I feel very much discriminated against in the court, compared to the former Defendants I was always asked to proof treble strong what I tried to achieve whilst the court always held in favour of the Defendants from the start. I felt very much excluded and forced into the outsider position, in which I still am. You can see if you read the judgments, they are favourable to the Defendants, they promise them victory and they discriminate against Freedom of Association issues. I wondered why Justice Stadlen mentioned my Respect membership as if it was the last party I belonged to and he makes it look like he uses that as reason to justify the bloggers publications about me. He wrote I am a member of the Respect Party when I became a member of the Conservatives on 11.9.2007. I think this was done with intent to make the judgment more convincing and condemning.
Yet that can only come from someone who is prohibited in discriminating against people for certain associations.
I personally have an interest and do research in political development and have done so for a while. I have started to write a book on the subject as well but had no time to come anywhere near completion.
I think any trained lawyer can see the mistakes in the judgments, the parts and quotes that have been used out of context to decide in the favour of the former Defendants. But not even the best arguments will help if the court is decidedly against me. Mr Justice Eady started it off basing his judgment on pure assumptions and case law like Godfrey v Demon, for witness statements being struck out if the publication cannot be proven, Stern v Piper for the repetition rule have all been ignored to concoct some rulings that are entirely bizarre. I can see the threat in all judgments that strike out are based on an assumption of left-wing activities and try to justify the allegations, but that is strictly speaking against the rules of the European Court of Human Rights.
A lot of the case-law in the latest Stadlen judgment has been taken out of context. The court tries to misconstrue quotes from other authorities and in particular Burstein, Lord Denning made some very good remarks about admissibility of character evidence but it was all dependant on justification and or properly before a jury. Whereby properly before a jury actually means before a jury and not assuming it is before a jury and deciding what that assumed jury might decide.
I think it is too easy for a court to say, you are not going to get much damages, as that is a purely relative and subjective impression. This rule can be used on anyone the court doesn’t like or wants to push out in favour of a Defendant. This rule is open to abuse.
I can only continue to persevere because that is what the European court rules expect me to do. I think I suffer a considerable miscarriage of justice. I run against a wall of consented ignorance and condemnation towards me and wonder whether it is partly because of my German origin.