Our Legal Response to the British Ban: Grounds for Judicial Review, to “the Queen on the application of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer”

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Thomas Paine

Last week I posted the appalling response from the Home Secretary concerning the craven refusal to allow Robert Spencer and me to enter the UK to place a Stars and Stripes wreath at the site of the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Their response (Letter Treasury Solicitor, here) most awfully demonstrates the fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious nature of government use of power. They assumed absolute authority to exclude those
whose words they think might “justify terrorist violence.” That is state sanction of
terrorism. Anyone who might displease savages can and will be banned. And yet they allow jihadists in, such as just recently, despite the Brotherhood’s persecution of Coptic
Christians. And just before we were banned they let in a Saudi imam, Muhammad
al-Arifi, who has said: “There is no doubt that one’s devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah and
one’s will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts for the
sake of Allah and in defense of His religion constitute an honor for
the believer.”

Their “research” reports prepared by the UK government on both Robert
and me are both mendacious and outrageous in their bias and slant. This
confirms what we know, unfortunately. They use Hamas-CAIR as a
legit source. I find the redactions to be quite revealing ….. when
examined, they suggest a deep infiltration by the Islamic supremacists and
their leftists.

We address all of this and more in our response. I wish to thank our British attorneys Arfan Khan, Barrister for the Applicants and Dr. Abhijit Pandya, Senior Consultant, Christian Laverge Solicitors, for their tireless efforts on our behalf.

Read the whole thing here. It’s lengthy, but all 72 pages are worth your time. It is a powerful and irrefutable argument for truth and freedom, no matter the outcome. Future generations will know that the battle for our most precious unalienable rights was fought fiercely.

Believe in what we are doing? Contribute to our legal fund: go to Paypal.com (here) and make a tax deductible donation to AmericanFreedomDefense@aol.com.

The grounds for judicial review relied
upon in summary are as follows:

(i). The decision to exclude was an
abuse of power.


(ii). The decision to exclude was capricious,
arbitrary, and based upon an improper motive.


(iii). The decision to exclude was unlawful
and/or ultra vires.


(iv). The decision was erroneous in law.


(v). The Applicants had a legitimate
expectation that they would be allowed to enter and express their views in the
UK pursuant to the government’s “Prevent
policy. The decision to exclude was not, therefore, permissible.


(vi). The decision to exclude was
arrived at through a procedurally improper manner, failed to take into account
and/or weigh the relevant facts and/or took into account irrelevant facts
without further enquiry. The decision did not take into account the Applicants’
views regarding the exclusion.


(vii). The decision was contrary to
Articles 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 of the ECHR as set out in schedule 1 to the Human
Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).


(viii). The decision was irrational
and/or Wednesbury unreasonable.


2.   The two claims
are brought together, though the views expressed by each Applicant are separate,
and the decision letters are addressed separately to each Applicant.


3.   These Grounds
are accompanied by evidence contained in the witness statements of the First
Claimant, Ms Pamela Geller, and Mr Robert Spencer, the Second Applicant dated 6/9/2013.


Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest