Attorney General’s Office 102 Petty France London SW1H 9EA Tel: 0207 271 2492
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  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.
John Gerald Love QFSM
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  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.