I did a quick Google search on Pamela Zarubica and came up with this:<br><br>http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/archived/2002/0809/news/loss.asp<br><br>Protesters score win in loss
<br><br>Camden Council left with big legal bill after winning Swiss Cottage protest case<br><br>
<br><br>by Keith Cooper
<br><br>CAMDEN has been left with a legal bill topping £15,000 despite being cleared of acting illegally when removing protesters demonstrating against the Swiss Cottage development.<br><br>County Court Recorder Henry Harrod took the unusual step of saying he was “moved and very touched” by Neil Aptaker and Pamela Zarubica’s case after they sued Camden for £6,000 damages.<br><br>The damages were for alleged bruises and injuries suffered during their eviction from the 45-day blockade of the path outside Winchester Road Community Centre last October.<br><br>They were blocking contractors from driving onto the market square with materials to refurbish Swiss Cottage’s listed library.<br><br>Although the recorder accepted that the council had the right to evict them from land it owned, and said the council did not use unreasonable force, he criticised leisure chiefs for their handling of the case.<br><br>He awarded the council just £4,700 of their £20,000 legal costs, saying it should have issued an injunction against protesters rather than hire security guards to evict them.<br><br>And he struck out the council’s £3,400 counter-claim against protesters for mounting the security operation.<br><br>Despite losing the case, the two campaigners, of Fordwych Road, West Hampstead, were jubilant and relieved at the result. They were supported by fellow protesters, who had backed them throughout the three-day trial.<br><br>Giving judgment on Thursday last week, Mr Harrod said: “I have been moved by this occasion and been very touched by the supporters who have come into the gallery every day.<br><br>“It was apparent from the outset that the claimants were going to fail because they were on land owned by the council.<br><br>“Because Camden owned the land it was entitled to use it for sending the lorries to the refurbishment site.”<br><br>Mr Harrod dismissed Ms Zarubica’s claim that she was treated roughly, although he agreed “she wasn’t very carefully carried” after seeing a Ham&High photograph that showed one of her legs swinging freely.<br><br>He said she had been “resisting” and that the fingertip bruising she suffered was not evidence that unreasonable force had been used.<br><br>Mr Harrod said that instead of issuing trespass notices and hiring security guards, the council should have “applied for an injunction which these law-abiding citizens would have obeyed”.<br><br>In ordering Ms Zarubica and Mr Aptaker to pay £4,700, Mr Harrod said it would have been the cost to the council if it had applied for the injunction.<br><br>He added that the protesters were “transparently honest and law-abiding citizens” who would have obeyed the injunction.<br><br>But he said that although he had been “critical” of the council, he believed council officers “had acted in the best interests of the people”.<br><br>A council spokesman said: “We were confident that this was a case the claimants were never going to win.<br><br>“We have a public duty to defend these cases. We were acting in the best interests of the Camden people and it is unfortunate that we have been saddled with the bill, which will have to be paid by the council tax-payer.”<br><br>Following the judgment, Mr Aptaker said: “It is the best £5,000 I have ever spent. I feel that the judge showed remarkable perception in acknowledging the law as he saw it and seeing Camden’s actions on the day as totally unnecessary.”<br><br>Ms Zarubica, who represented the couple despite having no legal training, said she felt “totally vindicated” by the judge’s comments.<br><br>She said that if the council had not pursued the case in such a “vindictive manner” it would not have racked up such large legal costs. “This whole situation came about because Camden tried to intimidate us and threaten us.<br><br>“Camden tax-payers should be more concerned about stopping the council from destroying the market square.”<br><br>The couple have also agreed to pay £2,400 in costs after dropping their separate claim against Cerebrus, the firm that supplied the security guards.
<br><br>Fascinating. Did she move to England or something ? Or is this another Pamela Zarubica ?