XPost: free.uk.legal, england.legal, free.uk.legal.public-law

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

“X” says this draft order for details to be inserted by a court. Each occurrence de X does not refer to the same details.
IN THE ENGLAND AND WALES Claim No. KB-2023-002906
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION

Before X

Dated Xth August 2023

BETWEEN:
1. Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouceſter Claimant
- and -
1. Aidan Lonergan Defendants
2. The Color Company (TM) Limited
3. Cofina Media, SA
4 . . . ?. person(s) unknown de Cofina Media, SA


ORDER

UPON considering that this process is about defamations concealing torture therefore is de public importance; and murders happened because de these defamations, therefore this process is de public importance; and Portugal perpetrated this torture on behalf de a fraudster paid by UK taxes,
therefore this process is de public importance; and this process is about defamations concealing another crime against humanity (namely
persecution), therefore this process is de public importance; and
remembering that CPR 44.2 and CPR 44.3 and CPR 44.4 and CPR 44.11 say:
“(4) In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including –
(a) the conduct of all the parties;
[. . .]
(5) The conduct of the parties includes –
(a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and in particular
the extent to which the parties followed the Practice Direction –
Pre-Action Conduct or any relevant pre-action protocol;
[. . .]
(5) Costs incurred are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to –
[. . .]
(b) the value of any non-monetary relief in issue in the proceedings;
[. . .]
(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party,
(e) any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance;
[. . .]
(3) The court will also have regard to –
(a) the conduct of all the parties, including in particular –
(i) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings; and
(ii) the efforts made, if any, before and during the proceedings in order
to try to resolve the dispute;
[. . .]
(c) the importance of the matter to all the parties;
[. . .]
(1) The court may make an order under this rule where –
[. . .]
(b) it appears to the court that the conduct of a party or that party’s legal representative, before or during the proceedings or in the
assessment proceedings, was unreasonable or improper.”; and considering
that these 1st to 2nd defendants never cooperate with any pre-action
protocol about this claimant1; and this 3rd defendant did not act
perfectly; and this process is against defamations therefore it is about reputation by definition
AND UPON reading 2023-07-30a_draft_order and 2023-07-29a_case_summary and 2023-07-29b_N244 and Claim Form 2023-05-03e_N1_amended_in_accordance_with_Sajid_A and letters according to pre-action protocols2 and proofs that these 1st and 2nd defendants
perpetrate defamations and malicious falsehoods3 and proofs that these malicious falsehoods and defamations conceal show trials violating Article
6 (Right to a fair trial) de a European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms4

AND UPON IT APPEARING TO THIS COURT that such a claim form and
accompanying documents disclose reasonable grounds for bringing this claim
and are not an abuse de any court’s process and are not otherwise likely
to obstruct the just disposal de proceedings

THEY ARE ORDERED that
1. This claim be declared to be with merit.
2. This court will give judgment on this claim according to anti-malicious-falsehood law.
3. This court will give judgment on this claim according to anti-defamation law.
4. This court will give judgment on this claim according to anti-misuse-of- private-information law.
5. This court will give judgment on this claim according to datum-protection law.
6. This court will give judgment on this claim according to anti-harassment-by-publication law.
7. This court will / will not give judgment on this claim according to anti-misuse-of-confidential-information law. The UK authorities will
inform this claimant that X is/are the appropriate authority/authorities
to handle this part de this claim.
8. This court will / will not give judgment on this claim according to confidence law. The UK authorities will inform this claimant that X is/are
the appropriate authority/authorities to handle this part de this claim.
9. This court will / will not give judgment on this claim according to the Communications Act 2003. The UK authorities will inform this claimant
that X is/are the appropriate authority/authorities to handle this part de this claim.
10. This court will / will not give judgment on this claim according
to anti-intentional-infliction-of-mental-harm law. The UK authorities will inform this claimant that X is/are the appropriate authority/authorities
to handle this part de this claim.
11. This court hereby orders that these 1st and 2nd defendants pay
this claimant X.
12. This order mentions that costs are payable by these 1st and 2nd defendants to this claimant on the X basis.
13. This court hereby does / does not order that this 3rd defendant
pay this claimant X.
14. This order does / does not mention that costs are payable by this
3rd defendant to this claimant on the X basis.
15. This court hereby does / does not order that this 4th defendant
pay this claimant X.
16. This order does / does not mention that costs are payable by this
4th defendant to this claimant on the X basis.
17. This court hereby does / does not order that each remaining
defendant de this process pay this claimant X.
18. This order does / does not mention that costs are payable by each remaining defendant to this claimant on the X basis.
19. This court hereby does / does not order that Dr. Inês de Oliveira Silva, CCA - Law Firm (Cruz, Salinas, Mayer & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, SP, RL), EDIFÍCIO DIOGO CÃO, DOCA DE ALCÂNTARA NORTE, 1350-352 LISBOA, Portugal (a representative for this 3rd defendant) pay this
claimant X.
20. This order does / does not mention that costs are payable by Dr. Inês de Oliveira Silva to this claimant on the X basis.
21. The order dated 14/07/2023 de this process be set aside or varied. REASONS
i. It is possible to discern coherent causes de action de Claim Form 2023-05-03e_N1_amended_in_accordance_with_Sajid_A. “These 1st to 2nd defendants perpetrate libels; malicious falsehoods; misuses of private and confidential informations; breaches against confidence and data-protection legislation & the Communications Act 2003; harassment by publication; & intentional infliction of mental harm” says 2023-05-03e_N1_amended_in_accordance_with_Sajid_A.
ii. It is possible to discern coherent causes de action de such pre-action-protocol letters. It is worth noting that these 1st and 2nd defendants do not deny the accusations in these pre-action-protocol
letters despite having plenty de time. These 1st and 2nd defendants got
such a pre-action-protocol letter by registered mail over 4 months ago: on 09/03/2023. Cf. 2023-03-24a_cruthu_seachadta.
iii. It is possible to discern coherent causes de action de these particulars of claim: namely
(a) defamations (e.g. at 1.22Lack of the Defence of Truth; 159;
285; 677; and 156);
(b) malicious falsehoods (e.g. at 296; 1.23Malice; 676; 1.24 Good Performance by this Claimant as an
Investigator proves Malice; 1.25 Maliciously False Reporting;
1.26 These 1st to 2nd Defendants are Malicious; 94; 1.22Lack of the
Defence of Truth; 285; 677; and 156);
(c) misuses of private informations (e.g. at 1.11Misuses of
private informations by these 1st to 2nd
defendants; and 156);
(d) misuses of confidential informations (e.g. at 1.12Misuses of confidential informations and breaches
against confidence by these 1st to 2nd defendants; and 156);
(e) breaches against confidence (e.g. at 1.12Misuses of
confidential informations and breaches
against confidence by these 1st to 2nd defendants; and 156);
(f) breaches against data-protection legislation (e.g. at 1.13Breaches against datum-protection legislation by
these 1st to 2nd defendants; and 156);
(g) breaches against the Communications Act 2003 (e.g. at 663 and 177);
(h) harassment by publication (e.g. at 1.14Harassment by
publication; 661; 662; and 156); and
(i) intentional infliction of mental harm (e.g. at 1.15Cron air inntinn).
iv. There is no vague suggestion that a defamation claim is made
against these 1st and 2nd defendants via such a claim form; such pre-action-protocol letters; and these particulars of claim. These
documents clearly, explicitly, definitely assert defamations contrarily.
Such pre-action-protocol letters and these particulars of claim distinctly particularise many defamations. Cf. the meanings in such
pre-action-protocol letters and these particulars of claim at 677.
v. These publications are consequences de injustices de Portugal. A Portuguese proverb is throw enough mud and some de it will stick, so
Portugal fabricates many incoherent, vague, contradictory, unfair lies
against me since 2008, so defendants in Portugal wrote hundreds de
lengthy, rambling pages, so disproofs against them are lengthy. The
documents de this process are much smaller than the documents de my
Portuguese processes. E.g. my 1st Portuguese process has over 300 pages.
E.g. 1 de the consequential show trials has over 698 pages.
vi. The England and Wales High Court makes rulings in anti-malicious-falsehood law so this court can give corresponding remedies
so this claim is clearly not an abuse de this court’s process and will not obstruct the just disposal de proceedings.
vii. The England and Wales High Court makes hundreds de rulings in anti-defamation law so this court can give corresponding remedies so this claim is clearly not an abuse de this court’s process and will not
obstruct the just disposal de proceedings.
viii. “(3) A High Court claim must be issued in the Media and Communications List if it is or includes a claim for defamation, or is or includes—
ix. x. (a) a claim for misuse of private information; xi. (b)a claim
in data protection law; or xii. (c) a claim for harassment by
publication.
.
(4) Subject to Part 63 and any other applicable provisions, a claim not falling within paragraph (3) may be issued in the Media and Communications List if the claim arises from—
xiii. (a)the publication or threatened publication of information via
the media, online or in speech; or
xiv. (b)other activities of the media” said CPR 53.1 so this court can give remedies corresponding to many de these illegalities so this claim is clearly not an abuse de this court’s process and will not obstruct the
just disposal de proceedings.
xv. Meaning 5 at 677 de these particulars of claim is false and defamatory. Cf. inter alia 2011-06-22_disproofs_re_Meanings_5_and_11_and_12_and_13_and_15_and_16_and_17_and_18_and_20_and_28_and_29_and_31_and_32_and_35_and_36_and_37_and_38.
Therefore this court can give a corresponding remedy. These defendants can declare that I am an ethical person. Cf. the Defamation Act 1996 at
Section 2 at (4) and Section 3 at (3).
xvi. Meanings 11; 13; and 17 at 677 de these particulars of claim are false and defamatory. Cf. inter alia 2011-06-22_disproofs_re_Meanings_5_and_11_and_12_and_13_and_15_and_16_and_17_and_18_and_20_and_28_and_29_and_31_and_32_and_35_and_36_and_37_and_38
and 2013-05-03_disproofs_re_Meanings_8_and_9_and_13_and_17_and_20_and_22_and_27_and_28_and_31_and_35
and 2020-11-27_Parts_41_and_42_by_3_judges_ordering_payment_of_a_scholarship_disproving_Meanings_8_and_9_and_15_and_17_and_18_and_19_and_20_and_22_and_27
and 2008-05-22_disproofs_re_Meanings_17_and_20_and_31_and_35_and_36 and 2009-04-14_disproofs_re_Meanings_17_and_20_and_31_and_35_and_36 and 2009-04-16_disproofs_re_Meanings_17_and_31_and_35_and_36. Therefore this
court can give a corresponding remedy. These defendants can declare that certain people are criminals. Cf. the Defamation Act 1996 at Section 2 at
(4) and Section 3 at (3).
xvii. The ex-order that is set aside or varied by this order fails to specify even 1 remedy sought which this court cannot give. Even if this ex-order be specifying a remedy sought which this court cannot give, this court is under a duty to give each remaining remedy. Cf. Article 6 (Right
to a fair trial) and Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) de a
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
xviii. This claimant is interpreting this ex-order as being against “quotes from [. . .] legal sources”. Judgments by this court rely on quotes from legal sources.
xix. This claimant complies with the requirements of CPR 53 PDB. In particular (i) these pre-action-protocol letters (and these statements of
case will) inform these other parties of the nature of this case with far fewer pages than the hundreds de pages de the processes de mine which
these defendants do not accurately report about. In particular (ii) the meanings at 677 de these particulars of claim are copied de the undisputed pre-action-protocol letter by this claimant that these 1st and 2nd
defendants got over 4 months ago: on 09/03/2023. As they still dispute
none de these meanings, they would have a hard time trying to plead later
that they do not accept that these meanings are the natural and ordinary meanings de these words complained de. However, as you know5, this
claimant is naturally not an ordinary person such that any order against
him on the basis that he would have failed to set out a natural and
ordinary meaning would violate Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination)
de a European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 (General prohibition of discrimination)
de Protocol No. 12.
xx. This claimant does not fail to comply with the rules relating to
the preparation de statements of case set out in CPR 16 and its associated practice direction.
xxi. “(2) In particular, the court will give effect to any orders
which have already been made.” said CPR 44.4. This court hereby orders
that these 1st and 2nd defendants are liable because they disrespect the
court orders de 2013-05-03_disproofs_re_Meanings_8_and_9_and_13_and_17_and_20_and_22_and_27_and_28_and_31_and_35
and 2020-11-27_Parts_41_and_42_by_3_judges_ordering_payment_of_a_scholarship_disproving_Meanings_8_and_9_and_15_and_17_and_18_and_19_and_20_and_22_and_27.
xxii. This court does know that this court fee de £X is the only court fee that this claimant was ever requested to pay that he is not exempt de paying and that it is relevant to these costs.
xxiii. This court does know that 2023-03-04_2050_cent proves money
spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxiv. This court does know that 2023-05-06_12_Euro proves money spent
by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxv. This court does know that LibreOffice says “Am iomlán eagarthóireachta:” time more than 1552 hours and 22 minutes (including
time de 2023-04-04a_particulars_of_claim) about 2023-07-30a_draft_order
for this order re time spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxvi. This court does know that Adobe Acrobat Reader says “26/07/2023 18:03:09” and “27/07/2023 08:27:45” and “27/07/2023 10:03:46” and “29/07/2023 17:41:47” about 2023-07-29b_N244 re time spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxvii. This court does / does not know that 2023-03-31c_970_cent
proves money spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxviii. This court does / does not know that 2023-04-05e_14145_cent
and 2023-04-05f_14145_cent prove money spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxix. This court does / does not know that 2023-04-05g_12_Euro proves money spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxx. This court does / does not know that LibreOffice says “Am iomlán eagarthóireachta: 1545:08:33” about 2023-04-04a_particulars_of_claim re time spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxxi. This court does / does not know that LibreOffice says “Am iomlán eagarthóireachta: 03:09:10” about 2023-03-03c_Litir_roimh_phroiseasaibh re time spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxxii. This court does / does not know that Adobe Acrobat Reader says “Modified: 31/03/2023 16:07:16” and “Modified: 31/03/2023 16:20:49” and
“Modified: 02/04/2023 08:08:38” and “Modified: 05/04/2023 08:24:04” and
“Modified: 03/05/2023 13:55:10” and “Modified: 03/05/2023 13:57:55” about
2023-05-03e_N1_amended_in_accordance_with_Sajid_A re time spent by this claimant which is relevant to these costs.
xxxiii. This court does / does not know that LibreOffice says “Am iomlán eagarthóireachta: 03:37:35” about 2023-03-30e_Litir_do_dhliodoir_ar_shon_Cofina_Media (possibly including
time de 2023-03-03c_Litir_roimh_phroiseasaibh) re time spent by this
claimant which is relevant to these costs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)