@MoJGovUK When Court Orders are Void. What ‘fundamental defects’ do we find?
#Judge #Jury or #Internet: who delivers #justice in #PublicCourts of #PublicInterest? @MoJGovUK @SWPolice
When individuals fight a system of ‘professionals’ they discover patterns that connect: ethics? morals? Professional standards?
How do you define #Corruption? Grand, Petty, Political. @anticorruption @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice
Source: How do you define #Corruption? Grand, Petty, Political. @anticorruption @MoJGovUK @UKHomeOffice
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
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.
Nigel Cooper Record of case
I have word pressed this record of case for the record cpoied and pasted from face book.
Nigel Cooper
Now lets have a look at a few things.
1. Bailie~Kate taken to the UK, told she was going on holiday.
2. Gail Cooper plays the lovey dovey card for 90 days to try and change jurisdiction.
3. Meanwhile I commence divorce proceeding in Belgium under Belgian law as the whole family were resident in Belgium for 5 years thus did not fall under UK jurisdiction.
4. During the divorce proceeding it is found out that Bailie~Kate had been DE-registered from Belgium? (How I hold the permanent power of attorney) .
5. Divorce papers issued in the UK to the WRONG person, they are issued to Bailie~Kate thus Gail Cooper opens the document to find out that I am going for full custody of Bailie~Kate under Belgian LAW.
6. Blackmail letter from Gail Cooper – I want a letter from the Belgium courts to say I will not be charge with kidnap or you will never see your daughter again ; demands 2000 pounds per month or I will never see Bailie~Kate again.
7. I invoke the Hague….
8. UK refuse under article 13 – I gave my daughter away!!!!!
9. I refuse to accept UK jurisdiction – my rights refused breaching the Magna Carta – Justice Hedley.
10. Lord Thorpe informed of the perversion of justice underway.
11. Belgium judgement rules in my favor and condemns Gail Cooper as INTERNATIONAL FELON. -Child Trafficking.
12. UK refuse to enforce the Judgement – Breach of the Hague Convention.
13. UK refuse me any access to my daughter, revoke my parental rights and grant to Gail Cooper parental rights, breaking the law of private power of attorney.
14. UK orders that I be placed i exile, should I return to the UK I go to prison for upholding the law.
15. Tow people try to locate Bailie~Kate in the UK, both arrested and charged with conspiracy to kidnap.
Now.. Lets look at a few people.
A. Ian Hailes – Sunderland Policeman – personally related to Gail Cooper
B. Joanna Bonnar Sunderland Social Services
C. Amy Robson Sunderland Social Services.
D. Su Kaur – Sunderland Social Services.
E. Stephanie Adams – Solicitor of Williscroft & Co.
F. Graham Langlands – Solicitor
G. Judge Sue Williscroft – Child thief
The big boys…
Lord Chancellor – Chris Grayling 9Executive power holder of the UK)
Lord Thorpe – Ex Head of the Families court
Justice Moylan – perverted the course of Justice
Justice Hedley – Stolen a child, and broke the Magna Carta – Retired to Licestershire.
David Cameron – who’s he then – a puppet of who.
I’ve GOT TO PUBLISH TO PROTECT MYSELF.
Read next post.. BUT SHARE copy email, print off, make lots of copies and help me to help you.
Fight for Justice and Human Rights
WE ARE AT WAR
I try to step back and scrutinise the facts from the details of the matter and focus of my attention on one issue before I move on to the next. The matter we ate dealing with has turned into a fight for our personal human rights. We have been abused and betrayed by the very people elected to govern us according to Law.
The stake are high on both sides, we must realise that we are at war… and this is a war we lose at peril to our human souls. We must fight for our right to our family our lives, and our human rights. Or else we enslave ourselves to the whim of the abusers. They will become the elite, they will be Masters of the Universe. We will be less than animals, just a means for their pleasure.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu; amongst other things suggests, you know your enemy, that you make your enemy come looking for you, chose your own field of battle, make it unfamiliar and difficult terrain.
We know our enemy—- it is not THE STATE. It is the corruption and corrupt individuals within the State. This is a battle between corrupt officials and the ordinary citizens. The abusers use fraud (spin) and secrecy – Our ground is unfamiliar to them it is openness and accountability. Their weapon is the abuse of the authority and punishment without crime – Our weapon is truth and justice. The aim is for the hearts and minds of the people who will have to decide which side of the fence they will chose.
The words of the Magna Carter still on the statute ‘We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right’ — and in the words of Montesquieu; “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of Justice.”
It is important that in addition to the Judicial Oath and the Oath of allegiance, you should note the outline terms and conditions of Judicial appointments (copy and past this link); http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/static/documents/00387_otcs.pdf Note the reference to 14 and 15 and ask yourself; a) does 14 conflict with 15? and b) why is Freemasonry mentioned if it is so “harmless”?
Then take Note of the statement; Masonic Oaths Procured by Fraud
it has become more and more irresistibly plain to me that Masonry is highly dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ. (copy and past this link) http://www.isaiah54.org/finney.htm
As always comments welcome
Tyranny in the UK
Ethical organisations depend upon trust, and trust is not something that can be given, it must be earned. It is earned by doing the right thing. It is often not convenient, or the easy way out of a dilemma or the most politic thing to do. What is right is far more important than who is right. Facts,Truth, Logic, are essential ingredients to create ethical organisations. Ethical organisations depend upon honest people adhering to the rule of law and ensure that the integrity of the organisation is protected by being open and accountable for the actions and omissions of its officials.
Recent scandals have exposed the failure of the leadership of authorities to act with honesty and integrity, at the same time less senior officials who could not have been unaware, and in some cases must have contributed to these failings and or involved in concealing the actions or omissions that resulted in the wrongs.
The very idea that in a democratic society with democratically elected representatives that are elected by the people to govern the people can make any claim that anyone acting in government whether elected or not may legitimately claim not to be accountable is ridiculous.
I recognise that High Court Judges have interpreted the law with the intention to prevent judiciary being accountable for the decisions and judgements they have made in Court. Every time any complaint is made to the Minister for the Ministry of Justice we get the response;
“As a Government Minister, I am unable to 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. However, you may wish to note that if an individual disagrees with a
judge’s decision or is dissatisfied with the way in which a Judge handled their
case in England, they are able to seek legal advice about whether they have grounds
for an appeal.”
This opinion has no substance in Law it is a political opinion that has abused the Constitutional “righteous” principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. [Hansard; Sir John Downer]
The President of the Supreme Court, has stated that the judiciary not only has the right but has obligation to speak out on matters concerning the rule of law, and this includes the UK’s constitutional set-up and the respective roles of the legislature, executive and judiciary within it.
Therefore when the Minister of State for Justice Lord McNally used that opinion to evade having to explain the matter of law where I expressed concern about the intent and act by Judge Hudson acting in the name of the Queen under the shield of Royal Prerogative, to inhibit and prevent a person (Mr Nigel Cooper) from excising his right under International Court Order to recover his daughter from the UK, and return to their usual place of residence in Belgium. The intention and the making of Judge Hudson’s the High Court Order prevents the lawful compliance of the International Court Order, while also impeding the arrest or prosecution of persons who Judge Hudson knows or believes to be guilty of an arrestable offence.
In addition to Judge Hudson included his Judgement Order to sentencing Mr. Nigel Cooper to “Ten Years imprisonment” in absence of the right to fair trial under the rule of law. Article 6 – Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 10 – Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The case of Judge Hudson and Nigel Cooper is just one of other cases where the Judiciary have failed to comply with the Law. I used this as a very clear example where the Minister of Justice had the opportunity to explain my concerns over the UK failing or refusing to comply with the International Court Order to return a child to her legal guardian.
To make things absolutely clear The Law expects “Ignorance of the Law excuses no man….” [SHELDON] Everyone has a duty to keep to the Law. The elected MP’s are part of the legislators that must uphold the Law. It appears to me as though Members of Parliament have become trusting and naïve and are blindly accepting Judicial Opinion as Law, when in fact it is no more than Opinion.
Contempt of Court Halsburys Laws of England 3rd Edition Vol vii and notes RSO 52 in the Annual Practice. 1. Criminal contempt construing of words or acts obstructing or calculating to obstruct the administration of justice. – Made instantaneous by a Judge or applied for as a motion.
These facts together with other documents in my possession lead me to conclude that the Judiciary have abused their authority.
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Monegasque
The truth will always come out and I welcome all comments if anyone can show me proof that I am confused and have made errors or mistakes in this statement of truthful opinion, I will be keen to view it.
Standing up for Rights 