by Farzana Haque
Except for one of my cases which took place before year 2001, all other cases which took place after year 2003 revealed evidences of Defendant to Judge relationships.
Guilty Defendants have only 2 ways to illegally defend an indefensible situation/case, the first is to find a way of avoiding a trial hearing from the outset (because they know the victim has evidence against them) and the other way is to make a judge avoid assessing/acknowledging the victim’s hard evidence even within a trial hearing. But neither method is possible to achieve without the intervention/help of a judge who has to be willing to be faulty to carry out the illegal procedures or requirements of the Defendants..which is to cheat in any way possible to get out of the liability. In other words, a judge has to be willing to refuse to do his fundamental role/job which is to study the evidence in order ascertain the facts and confirm those facts in his judgment so that the right law can be applied. Instead what they have been doing is to falsify, manipulate or re-invent/re-interpret/distort evidence so that a false story in favour of the Defendant can be recorded in the legal books of case history, thus defame/libel the victim and load on false charges and costs onto the victim. A false defense is a crime under CPR rule PD32 sec28 (1), so the judges who deliberately avoided checking out the defences in my cases are all complicit in this crime. This is why it is so important to take an army of witnesses into what has become kangaroo courts.
There is one behaviour that is guaranteed to happen which is that if and when a judge does accept a corruption contract with a Defendant they will have to ensure that Defendant’s wishes are met a 100%, otherwise the Defendant will expose them for their involvement. Likewise, judges who make secret deals with other justice sectors eg the police to do something corrupt for them (conspire) or to prevent solicitors from appealing against them, they will need to offer additional secret protection to these individuals for obeying their ill-intended plans. So once again, we can see the strength of their own protection from exposure will score as strongly as their protection of the Defendant, so the victim’s chance of a recovery is almost a 100% doomed. So it should be of no surprise that evil laws have been brought out to protect judges from being exposed or accountable for their “judicial fraud”. Please check out my article titled, “The Pro-Fraud” Laws of Britain”.
Here are some signs/symptoms of the existence of Defendant-Judge relationships:
a) They show no signs of fear of being brought to court, yet they fear
and respond to the threat of being exposed to the media. In
other words, they feel they have more control over courts than over
the media. - Ref my case against a training company called
Tigrent for misrepresentation (which has not yet come to court but they
have been avoiding all the pre-action protocol procedures) inspite of three
of my solicitors writing to them about it.
b) When they do not feel any fear at presenting a “Bare Denial” defence statement, in other words, they have already discussed their defence with an internal court judge who has already given them the approval to proceed with it. A “bare denial” defence is an unacceptable defence according to CPR rule 1.6 because it means the Defendant did not have any evidence to oppose the Claimant’s allegations except to deny it eg to say, “No I didn’t do it”. Eg in my case against the solicitor firm [MTG solicitors] it is evidenced by how they claimed to have “Prospects of Success” for their “bare denial” defence, which a judge should have found unacceptable especially from solicitors, yet Asst DJ Walders at Uxbridge County Court supported it
in breach of the law. This is both a corruption of the law and evidence of
the existence of their relationship out of courtroom.
c) Evidence of how Defendants know in advance the contents of court order information long before the orders are released to either parties. Example can be found in my Freedman -Peri case (Fake Freeholder fraud case) about how they submitted their 2nd defence on time long before they received the order as the court letter of 30Jan2012 sent to them was returned and they informed us that the Defendants had not received the order because they were not in.
d) When court hearings and applications go missing because they are not suitable for the Defendant, eg in my Freedman -Peri case.
The Defendants wanted to avoid cost hearings in order to avoid giving financial affordability information and any scope to be cross-examined, so they managed to dodge these every time over a 2 year period which is not possible without specific judges instructions to ensure it.
e) When certain admin staff are seen to issue written decisions without giving a judge’s name (because it is a dodgy decision) ; or when they redirect our paperwork /applications to certain judges only; or are found reacting aggressively to our wanting to hand over evidence because they had been (forwarned in advance) or instructed not to accept such evidence from us. The Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHO) received details of such admin involvement in these ways as part of my complaints but they refused to investigate. When there are changes of staff after the case starts it usually means that the Defendant’s network of people have taken over to ensure the journey goes according to their plans. This sort of manoeuvre would not be possible without the secret intervention by key legal/political high ups.
f) When Defendants’ instructions are responded to by the court in minutes or days but Claimant’s instructions or applications take months or not dealt with at all. Freedman –Peri case. Revealed in my bundle (A) for Case management detail trends, and decisions.
g) When the judges don’t mind the racist comments of a white person attacking the Defendant (allegedly acting as my agent in a race discrimination case who was actually hired by the Defendant to behave so) but rather to want to severely punish my criticisms on their procedural unfairness and detection of court malpractice or irregularity. Ref- my employment case events as described in the judgment on that case, but the proofs against it are in my silver binded bundle dated 14July2007 pages....which of course the public do not get to see, they only see the judgment.
h) When they the judges can boldly claim to be biased and not fear
repercussions, it means that they have already received authorisation from higher levels for their judicial fraud plans (due to the Defendant’s solicitors contacting power houses of the legal world in advance). Ref my employment case when the judge who struck out the case had quoted such statements during the cost hearing that followed the strikeout hearing.
i) Or how the Defendant applies for a time extension to submit their amended defence yet it turns out that they added nothing more to their defence of a bare denial. Doing a bare denial takes minutes so the time extension was not really about producing a bare denial but rather that they needed time to find a judge who was willing to do as they wanted. Ref my case against the Police no: 9CL08481 which in the end I was forced to pull out due to threats of them charging me with false costs through potentially fraudulent judges.
j) Or when our special delivery postage proofs are altered to suit the Defendant’s requirements. It means that the Defendants have managed to establish a network of control over the court to be able to achieve such results as it takes a designated admin staff to alter “received” dates for them. For example it had happened in my Police case, when they needed their late time extension application to overrule my application for judgment which had reached the court before their docs..
k) And of course when judges get to block our appeals, are able to do so, by making sure that admin staff forward all appeal applications to their chosen specific judges as this procedure ensures that the appeals reach only the person who has been instructed to turn it down. The more the irregularity we report, the more they turn down the appeal, which ensures that their fraud decisions cannot be exposed and can continue to be forced on us.
l) When offices such as the Attorney General feel no obligation to do their job according to the law they have written; when they feel they have the freedom to discriminate and not explain their actions; when they have the power to take action against frivolous and vexatious defences yet do not do so; but are yet prepared to condemn/punish strictly the frivolous and vexatious Litigant, has surely been pro-fraud and practices inequality that breaches EU law.
No comments:
Post a Comment