REPORTING SEVERE CORRUPTION AND CONTEMPT OF COURT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE

Attorney General’s Office 102 Petty France London SW1H 9EA Tel: 0207 271 2492

http://www.gov.uk/ago

Dear Correspondence Officer.

Ref: Severe Corruption & Contempt Of Court

NB: Public Authorities who act together to Corruption in law enforcement is particularly dangerous, as it has an impact on the safety of citizens and on their pursuit of justice, including in cases of political corruption and police misconduct.

The Attorney General has a number of public interest functions, which are performed independently of government, and they are responsible for taking legal action in the public interest if certain types of contempt of court have been committed.

The contempt of court in this case involves Solicitors (Officers of the Court) acting in a joint enterprise through an unlawful means conspiracy to pervert the course of justice using the courts to achieve objectives disallowed by law.

Breaching Court Orders is Contempt of Court. I believe the contempt of court offences were so simple and elementary that Caseworkers overlooked the copies of the relevant correspondence and court papers that confirmed the contempt of court to the required standard.

The mens rea required to establish contempt of court arising from the breach of a court order was set out in Masri v Consolidated Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) – in order to establish that someone is in contempt it is necessary to show the following three factors:

(1).he” (they the Solicitors) knew of the terms of the order, (2). he (they) acted, or failed to act, in a manner which involved a breach of the order, and; (3). he (they) knew of the facts which made his conduct a breach. It is not necessary to show any direct intention to disobey the order.

Proof beyond any reasonable doubt; The ‘mens rea’ that establishes Paul Spooner Solicitor of Charsley Harrison, and all the other parties (Solicitors);

(1) knew of the terms of the Order;

Because Charsley Harrison Solicitors recorded in their bill of legal costs that; On the 15th May 2000. (Grade ‘D’ Fee Earner) Attending Hearing when Order made that; 1. the matter be transferred to Central London County Court -Chancery List for Trial. 2. Costs of today’s Hearing be in the case.

(2). he (they) acted, or failed to act, in a manner which involved a breach of the order; because Solicitors are Officers of the Court and have an overriding duty to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice, and

(3). he (they) knew of the facts which made his conduct a breach because; PD. 3. Where the court orders proceedings to be transferred, the order will take effect from the date it is made by the court.

PD. 4.1 Where an Order for transfer has been made the transferring Court will immediately send notice of the transfer to the receiving Court. The notice will contain the name of the case and (2) the number of the case and at the same time as the transferring Court notifies the receiving court it will also notify the parties of the transfer under rule 30.4 (1).

Deliberate Deception; The Solicitors breached the Order failing to transfer the proceedings to Central London County Court – Chancery List for Trial.

Nothing happened until almost one year after breaching this Order, Charsley Harrison Solicitor Paul Spooner falsely represented that he was acting for the Assisted Person Carole Josephine Love.

[NB; the Court had notified the parties of the transfer under rule 30.4 (1). and upon the breach of the High Court Order 15th May 2000. The Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989, and the Legal Aid Certificate, and all that followed is null and void).]

The evidence referred to in my “John Love Statement” proves the parties Solicitors acted together in an “Unlawful Means Conspiracy”;to conceal and ignore the High Court Order of the 15th May 2000 and fraudulently replace it with a High Court (Tomlin) Order dated 1st March 2002, that purported to settle the matter in a Schedule of terms which all parties agreed. Both of these Orders are set out in Charsley Harrison bill of legal costs attached to Charsley Harrison Solicitors Statement of Case.

Charsley Harrison Statement of case, page 2 para 2; Highlighted;- “Agents were instructed to attend a case management meeting on the 6th April 2000 when an Order for directions was made. The Seventh Defendant filed an Allocation questionnaire and an Allocation questionnaire was filed on behalf of the Claimant and following this very little action was taken by any of the parties.

The statement that; “following this very little action was taken by any of the parties. is a fraudulent misstatement of fact with intention of using legal privilege to breach of the High Court Order of 15th May 2000, and replace it with a High Court Tomlin Order HC9800247 dated 1st March 2002.

A judgement is void if the court lacks either subject matter or personal jurisdiction over a case. In any instance where a judgement is void, it is legally invalid automatically at the moment issued.

The contemporaneous correspondence and documents establish that Solicitors misled the beneficiaries into accepting that Paul Spooner was still representing the assisted person. Note; PD 2.4 “The commencement of a probate claim will, unless a court otherwise directs, prevent any grant of probate or letters of administration being made until the probate claim has been disposed of.”

Solicitor Paul Sooner directed the Executor Francis Mostyn by letter dated 14/08/21 to place the property up for sale, as he (Paul Spooner) is taking the matter up with Valerie Czepak’s Solicitors Kidd Rapinet. The Solicitors to persuade beneficiaries to agree to settle the matter and obtained a High Court (Tomlin) Order HC9800247 dated 1st March 2002 from Master Price who had no jurisdiction to hear the case because it had been transferred to the London County Court – Chancery to be listed for trial.

The single most obvious fact is that the Court proceedings were financed by Legal Aid in respect of which a Certificate was issued to Carole Josephine Love Plaintiff. The High Court Ordered; the Costs of the Summons are to be Costs in the cause … Claimant do pay to be taxed provided that her liability incurred while the Claimant was an assisted party shall not exceed the amount pursuant to S17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 it may be reasonable for her to pay and determination of such amount be postponed.

The Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 Taxation of costs; 107.—(1) The costs of proceedings to which an assisted person is a party shall be taxed in accordance with any direction or order given or made in the proceedings irrespective of the interest (if any) of the assisted person in the taxation; the costs of that person shall be taxed on the standard basis on production of a copy of the notice of discharge or revocation of the certificate at the appropriate taxing office.

The Solicitors breached the High Court Order 15th May 2000, and this voided the Legal Aid Certificate, and beneficiaries were deprived of a Fair Trial.

The Assisted Party Carole Josephine Love died 1st January 2003. Before all the work authorised by the Certificate had been completed. Solicitors failed to comply with the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations; To report any changes, and report the death of the assisted party.

Many of the “Bookmarked Exhibits” include blatantly clear misstatements of fact by Francis Mostyn and or his Legal Counsel, forged Costs Certificate, and inter alia fraudulent bills of costs in respect of administration.

Charsley Harrison Solicitors acted for the assisted party Carole Josephine Love, and made a final Statement of case; this a fraud; it conceals the High Court Order 15th May 2000, and the death of the Claimant misrepresents facts; “the Bill of costs of the Claimant to be Assessed on the Standard Basis and to be paid from the Estate of the Deceased in accordance with an Order dated 01st March 2002 and to be Assessed on the Standard Basis in accordance with Regulation 107A of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 pursuant to a certificate of discharge. Dated “Blank ”

Legal Aid Certificate No. 03019604792/A/Z/1 dated 27th February 1996 Amended 3rd June 1996, 10th October 1997, 7th November 1997, and 31st August 2000.

[NB: It is noted that the last Legal Aid Certificate is dated 31st August 2000. The Certificate of Discharge undated. The High Court Order 15th May 2000 was breached and the certificate and proceedings void. It is impracticable to comply with the Order for Taxation and the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989.]

The Statement of Case be assessed in accordance with Regulation 107A of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations, breached Regulation 71, and 72. The Solicitors failed to disclose that they had failed to comply with the High Court Order of the 15th May 2000, and deducted all the legal costs of all parties and discharged the Legal Aid Certificates before and without having completed all the work authorised by the certificate.

The overwhelming evidence of deception and contempt of court by Lawyers entering into an unlawful means conspiracy to use the Courts processes for the purpose of concealing their breach of Court Orders and failing to comply with statutory regulations. The proceedings were started by the Claimant and financed by Legal Aid Certificate.

The Solicitors made false representations, and thereby unlawfully obtained a High Court (Tomlin) Order. Then continued upon a malicious and vexatious abuse of process, for more than 14 hearings over almost 20 years. The lawyers misled the Court to making unlawful Orders that evicted my son and I from my own privately owned house to sell it to pay for proceedings that were unlawful from the start.

This file includes evidence of corruption running through the SRA, the Thames Valley Police and the Independent Over sight Authorities causing serious harm to the victims and the administration of justice and breaches ; Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; No torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Article 1, Protection of Property, Article 6, Right to a fair trial, Article 8 Right to a Private and Family Life. Despite HM Gov Policy “Against Corruption” the corruption is so severe that it has penetrated the ability of the State to Protect its Citizens.

Francis Mostyn & Nigel Drake were joint Executors and Trustees of the Estate when Mary Kate Love died. Neither of them accounted for the cash and for all the personal property in the house of the late Mary Kate Love, and her late husband, that was contained on her person and within her home. Other matters of concern are recorded in the SRA Complaint Investigation findings caused a loss to all beneficiaries.

The Solicitors unlawful means conspiracy seriously damaged the Administration of Justice and directly caused serious financial physical and mental harm to John Love and his son. The null and void Court Orders unlawfully evicted John Love and his son from his own privately owned house for it to pay costs that were unlawful from the start.

The evidence referred to in my “John Love Statement” and the “Bookmarked Exhibits”. This is an ongoing crime which Public Authorities have failed in their duty to Enforce and Uphold the Law, breaching Article 3 No Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Specific statutory duty to superintend the discharge of duties by the Director of Public Prosecutions (who heads the Crown Prosecution Service) and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office

I have made a careful note of contemporaneous correspondence and documents and with personal experience of these events and circumstance have drawn attention to the relevant facts which have been set out in chronological order, and verified by the relevant exhibit. This will make the gathering of relevant facts a lot easier than sorting through irrelevant factors and establish the facts and law. I was obliged to identify fraudulent documents and statements which will show how HMCTS, SRA Adjudicator, and Police misdirected themselves.

I would expect that the Law Officers will be capable of identifying the relevant factors and do their duty to uphold and enforce the Law. In 2011 I decided to conduct a private prosecution and passed the Weight of Evidence and Public Interest tests, and the CPS decided not to take it over to prosecute or discontinue it. District Judge Vickers in October 2011 unreasonably decided to dismiss my Private Prosecution against Francis Mostyn & Co Solicitors as vexatious because if there was any need for a prosecution the Police or CPS would have done so, and they have not.

Criminal matters are for the Police, they refused to investigate and unlawfully sub delegated their duty to investigate to the SRA knowing they had just conducted a corrupt investigation as the Thames Valley Police Crime and Incident Recording Unit after considering the documents and the findings of Adjudicator Ray Lawley’s investigation, and acting in accordance with the HOCR and NCRS recorded the indictable only offence of Perverting the Course of Justice (Attempted) and passed it through to Slough CID.

Yours Sincerely

John Gerald Love QFSM

Introduction

This is a matter of the gravest concern as the failure of Public Authorities to uphold and enforce the law is a serious breach Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; No torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Article 1, Protection of Property, Article 6, Right to a fair trial, Article 8 Right to a Private and Family Life.

The failure of Public Authorities to uphold and enforce the law is a serious breach Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; No torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Article 1, Protection of Property, Article 6, Right to a fair trial, Article 8 Right to a Private and Family Life.

Attorney General v Barker 2000 1 FLR 759, QBD (DivCt): ‘the hallmark of a vexatious proceeding is… that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceedings may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant, and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process’

The decision in Commissioner of the Metropolis v (1) DSD (2) NBV [2018] UKSC 11 confirms that the police can be liable in proceedings for a breach of article 3’s prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment […] where they fail to perform an adequate criminal investigation into alleged serious ill-treatment. NB; Torture and other forms of ill-treatment: The definitions used by the ICRC (International Commitee of the Red Cross)

Listed below is the meaning we at the ICRC give to four key terms.
Torture consists of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, inflicted for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, exerting pressure, intimidation or humiliation.
Cruel or inhuman (synonymous terms) treatment consists of acts which cause serious pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, or which constitute a serious outrage upon individual dignity. Unlike torture, these acts do not need to be committed for a specific purpose.


Humiliating or degrading (synonymous terms) treatment consists of acts which cause real and serious humiliation or a serious outrage upon human dignity, and whose intensity is such that any reasonable person would feel outraged. Ill-treatment is not a legal term, but it covers all the above-mentioned acts.

Please note that in a number of our publications (including the International Review, Vol. 93, No. 882) we accidentally omitted the mention of physical pain or suffering from the English-language version of our definition of cruel or inhuman treatment (the French being the original). The above definition of cruel or inhuman treatment, which includes physical pain or suffering, reflects the ICRC’s policy on the matter.

(We expect proffessionalism and integrity from those entrusted with protecting us and keeping us safe. We do not expect them to be the source of abuse or agony. )

The offences originated from solicitors breaching a High Court Order the unlawful breach of processd and Contempt of Court that set off a vexatious proceedings. A complaint was made to the Legal Complaint Service now the SRA, who breached their duty to conduct a fair and thorough investigation, The Adjudicator Ray Lawley used this investigation to conceal misconduct. The Investigation findings were brought to the Thames Valley Police who using the NCRS and the HOCR recorded the Offence of Perverting the Course of Justice, and passed it to Slogh CID who refused to investigatthe offence.

The Crime report Notes record that the Police refused to investigate because the SRA stated that there was no Crime to investigate. Complaints went to the Chief Constable. Thames Valley Police Chief Constable advised me that the matter has been sent to the PSD. [N.B. Under the HRA where allegations are made against public Authorities the police force PSD must forward the matter to the IOPC for investigation. It appears as though the Police have failed to do so.

This was deliberately delayed while Police Officers plagiarised the SRA findings, to fraudulently misrepresent that they had investigated the matter facts. This Police & SRA conspiracy followed the reporting of the findings of an inadequate and corrupt investigation on my complaint about fraudulent administration of our parent’s estate by solicitors (and other matters.) The evidence of the fraudulent representation is in letters provided by police in 2018 some 11 years after they made the crime report. I reported this matter to the Serious Fraud Office and was advised to repeat the complaint to the Police The matter has been through the complaints system and High Court It remains for the Public Authorities even at this late stage to Uphold and Support the Law. I have followed the advice from the Serious Fraud Office and recieved a reply from the SRA that they would contact me in 45 days. There was no reply.

Crimes are a matter for police, and both the SRA and Thames Valley Police have breached Article 3 of the HRA 1998. The following Links provide a chronological statement verified by contemporaneious correspondence and documents that provide evidence of facts beyond any reasonable doubt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wrongful Arrests & the Usual Suspects

Iain Gould- Actions Against the Police Solicitor

Some of the wrongful arrest claims which I handle arise directly from Police malice i.e the deliberate fabrication of falsehoods in order to justify a person’s arrest, very commonly to cover-up the fact that an officer has over-stepped the mark, lost his temper and assaulted a member of the public (whom he now accuses of having ‘thrown the first punch’).

But other wrongful arrests arise from more indirect acts of Police misconduct – including sloppy investigations, mistaken identity and prejudice/ bias on the part of the Police – all three of which factors I believe played a part in a case which I have recently successfully concluded against Thames Valley Police (TVP).

My client, whom I will identify as Adam Butler, lived in Oxford and had recently fallen out with his brother Jack over a relatively innocuous argument involving an x-box.

Adam had a past criminal conviction for which he…

View original post 1,301 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The firemen’s Chief Officer-‘Joe’ Milner.

I am proud to have Served from 1968 under CFO Milner throughout his service in the London Fire Brigade. The firemen I know held this man in the highest regard for his outspoken support of firefighters against fierce opposition from the authorities over the pay dispute. This helped to raise the value and status of firemen, and helped end the first national fireman’s strike. Dave Pike’s article is an important record of the life of a Hero.

A retired London Fireman

Joseph ‘Joe’ Milner. CBE. O.St. J. QFSM. London’s Chief Fire Officer. 1970-1976

What made this such a special time for this aspiring young fireman, one serving at Lambeth fire station, is a matter of some conjecture. Maybe it was just the exciting LFB life viewed through the eyes of this twenty-one year old?  A young fireman that was being shown the ropes, and his craft, by the combined experience and wisdom of ordinary people who had chosen the life of a London fireman. Maybe being at a busy fire station helped, but it was also a time of big change. A new ‘Chief’ had brought with him new ways, new ideas. He also brought a fresh new style, one that ordinary fireman seemed to understand and could readily relate too where it really mattered-out on the fire ground. However, it was also a time of considerable wider industrial unrest, even…

View original post 6,019 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fight Hate With Rights

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

UK Human Rights Blog

I wanted to alert you to a campaign RightsInfo has been running called #FightHateWithRights.

It’s about fighting the rise of extremism by standing up for human rights. Because social breakdown and even genocide don’t happen overnight – they are the result of the steady denial of rights over months or years. By protecting human rights, we also protect against the small cuts to liberty which can lead to far worse.

You can see all of the videos and resources here.

I have posted some of the key video content below the break, including a  film featuring three genocide survivors spanning 70 years, a film featuring Professor Philippe Sands and a short video where I sum up the points of the campaign.

View original post 7 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Fake news” is a matter of opinion. Fake data is a matter of fact.

The Slog

me4 In this, Part Two of the Slog’s series on how and why “official” statistics can no longer be trusted, we look at how inflation has been consistently and deliberately under-reported since the early 1980s….with the twin aims of suppressing wage demands and cutting welfare benefits.


There are at least two enormous holes in the official measures of inflation used in the developed world. First, since the sales of public housing, deregulation of education and dilution of the public health services, costs that my parents’ generation never faced have gone through the roof. Poorly controlled mortgage leveraging, huge increases in the buy-to-rent sector, private health cover and a growing pool of private school users have all caused the monthly outgoings of middle class family rearers to explode.

Yet few if any UK, US or eurozone government measures have adapted to the sea-change. In the US, healthcare outgoings are under-represented by 50%…

View original post 1,510 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#Judge #Jury or #Internet: who delivers #justice in #PublicCourts of #PublicInterest? @MoJGovUK @SWPolice

Source: #Judge #Jury or #Internet: who delivers #justice in #PublicCourts of #PublicInterest? @MoJGovUK @SWPolice

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When individuals fight a system of ‘professionals’ they discover patterns that connect: ethics? morals? Professional standards?

Source: When individuals fight a system of ‘professionals’ they discover patterns that connect: ethics? morals? Professional standards?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How do you define #Corruption? Grand, Petty, Political. @anticorruption @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice

Source: How do you define #Corruption? Grand, Petty, Political. @anticorruption @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Copy Of The Void Court Order

This information was posted on the Web in 2012 I have needed this information for decades. I was told by solicitors and judges that I was OUT OF TIME and must suffer whatever injustice the UNLAWFUL COURT ORDER DEMANDED – Now reading the following blog; I have found a lawful solution. I pass this on for whatever use it may serve others in my position. THE VOID COURT ORDER
Friday February 17, 2012
By Shirley Lewald, Solicitor Advocate Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts),
MSc (Psych), PGDip (SocSc), PGCPSE, LLB (Hons).
The interesting and important nature of a ‘void’ order of a Court is not fully understood and appreciated in England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a ‘void’ order and to assist legal professionals in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void.
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
“A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”.
A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736).
A ‘fundamental defect’ includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256); or where service of proceedings never came to the notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [1963]). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494).
A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]).
In Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667] 85 E.R. 81, pp.87:88 it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated.
It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can never be void unless the ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ is ‘limited’ in situations where it is expressly shown to be so. In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130). However, where the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Court’s power by an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667]; Halsbury’s Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply.
Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER).
The main differences between a ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ order or claim is that:
(i) a ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside; and
(ii) a ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court.
A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]).
The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order, although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where damages may also be claimed.
Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943].
A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601).
It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court.
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the cherry’; and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew).
Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:
1888:
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
(i) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
1889:
In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:
(i) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
1921:
Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]:
(i) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
1943:
In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:
(i) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
(ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and
(iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.
1953:
In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not;
(ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party.
1961:
In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [1961] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void order is automatically void without more ado;
(ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside;
(iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void.
1963:
In Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:
(i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;
(ii) a nullity cannot be waived;
(iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
(iv) a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.
1978:
In Firman v Ellis [1978] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void ab initio
1979:
Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths 1979 – page 77, states:
(i) although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead”.
1985:
Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461:
(i) a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary.
2003:
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void from the outset; and
(ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it.
Conclusion based on the case laws referred to above:
(i) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order;
(ii) the setting aside must be done under the Court’s inherent power to set aside its own void order;
(iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
(iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void;
(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
(vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages may also be claimed;
(vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act;
(viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning;
(ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary;
(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;
(xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act;
(xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament.
© Shirley Lewald, – 10 July 2010
Updated: 6 February 2011
Original Post
Looking for Remedy where the Sun don’t shine

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The importance of remaining Focused or Keeping your Head while all around you are losing theirs.

 

The truth brings out a can of worms and exposes the fallibility of mankind. I note the change of direction and whistle blowing made by Nigel Cooper an Officer having  served in the armed forces. These matters had been kept secret because of a sense of duty to the service in which this officer served, and participated in. Now because the Judiciary and the government have failed or refused to comply with the Law, Nigel Cooper has decided to make these matters known. I do not doubt that it was wrong for the UK to go to War, as this war was avoidable.

 

This change of direction is time and energy wasted. Leaving aside the facts that “Silence is consent” and on the whole whether we were misled or not, we did not all come out in a “National Protest” and few if any protested by writing a letter to our MP, we chose instead to remain silent. Whether we like it or not by remaining silent, we as a Nation agreed to participate in this war. Your exposure of material that exposes that war is a dirty business is not a secret, neither does it expose anything we could not have guessed. The aim of participants in a war is to win. There are the rules of war… but these rules… are broken by both sides. The “Winner” is the judge.

 

The matter of the refusal or failure or refusal of the UK, to comply with the International Court Order is the focus of attention as the offence is; Human Trafficking and it exposed the certain and undeniable crime and legal abuse by the highest judicial authority in the UK. We have Laws and they must be obeyed or else we in the UK lose the protection of the State and are subjected to the tyranny of corrupt Judiciary. I urge you to focus on the facts, sufficient evidence in the letter from the Belgium Judge to expose the obvious intentional legal abuse of the English judges that expose their communications as an intent to obstruct Justice.

 

You are in my view a very intelligent man, that has been so emotionally harmed over many years by your own conflict of conscience and the effect of your personal and business dealings. Record your concerns by all means, but focus the main thrust of your knowledge and energy on the enforcement of the International Court Order which will maintain the moral high ground, by exposing and prosecuting the individuals concerned.

 

I know you are really normally a very strong person emotionally you have to be to have kept your sanity throughout all you have been through, and most importantly you have right, and an ICO on your side,…. So just think —- despite everything your only possible transgression is that you have digressed from the enforcement of the ICO and your outburst is a reaction to your loyalty being betrayed.

 

By diverting your energies in this way you have given a reprieve to all those involved with the taking of your daughter. They must be rubbing their hands with delight. They believe that at last , and despite you saying you will never give up, they will believe you have given up. Do not focus on how you feel and the wrong that has been done to you …..- focus on how they must feel — they felt secure and confident with the English Court Order, where it looked to them as though you were beaten (and all that time they knew they had done wrong, they know the authority of the ICO and the International Scandal that ensued, keep up this pressure these people do not have the Law on their side they do not have the level of support you have on your side….. and you will get some idea of the pressure they are all under.

 

Further action you could take is to give a reminder feedback to Belgium News telling them that the UK continues to hold your daughter and despite UK Judges pleading with the Belgium Judge to “interfere with International Law” thanks to “Belgium Justice the Order still stands. Perhaps ask where does Belgium stand when British Courts ignore its authority – particularly as the HM Court and Tribunal Service inform their public…. “That neither I nor government ministers can comment on or intervene in cases that are or have been before the courts, whether here or abroad. This is necessary both to maintain the key constitutional principle that the judiciary is independent of government and to ensure that the UK respects the role of the courts in other countries.” I’m sure you will have a better way of putting it, and that Belgium citizens should be outraged.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment