Prima Facie Case 3

Ahmed Abayomi Balogun

V

The Ministry of Justice

Overview

Substantive arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998, most particularly, Article 7 HRA 1998, Article 6 HRA 1998, Article 5 HRA 1998, Section 7(1) HRA 1998 and Section 7(2) HRA 1998; as remarkably brought before the Judiciary of England and Wales; by an independent non funded grassroots African and Caribbean Community Human Rights Activist Group under the organisational banner of Campaign for Truth and Justice, (CTJ) which remarkably doggedly rose in challenge to inherent Institutional Corruption Culture, Racist-Prejudicial Bias and On-Going Human Rights Violations and Abuses by the Judiciary of England and Wales.

Poignantly proving more potent than the professionally trained Lawyers, Solicitors and Barristers all too often compromised, weak and intimidated by an all-encompassing hierarchal system of control governing the extent to which they are allowed to REPRESENT Victims of State Law-breaking clients and their arguments, or challenge of Jurisdiction before the Courts. 

As discovered, it is not the exceptional one or two, Lawyers, Solicitors and Barristers, but ALL contacted in the UK, lacked every ounce of courage to take-up legitimate LAWFUL arguments as contained under Article 7 HRA 1998 in legitimate Defence Arguments with the Judiciary of England and wales.

As a matter of fact, it was the IRRESPONSIVENESS of the Certified and some-what over educated ‘Bourgeoisie’ Professional class of indoctrinated Lawyers, Solicitors and Barristers, too subservient, cowardly and intellectually lacking in self confidence (despite all their acquired qualifications) to deploy themselves, as unapologetic competent representational net worth LEGAL EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE, (in lockstep alignment with the pursuit of unadulterated justice) that led to the wholesale adoption of SELF REPRESENTATION by Campaign for Truth and Justice and its members. 

Admirably, in absence of the Black Professional Legalise leadership to their (Black African and Caribbean) Communities, as those highly educated and studied professional class failed to come back, (with their gained knowledge) to fight for the aspirations of their communities, the grassroots, mobilised itself in line with established Lawful Rebellion principles of FEARLESS Affirmative Action campaigns which sought to enter the Civil/Criminal Courts of law by any means necessary.

The sole aim being to have Victim member’s, Enforceable rights to redress and compensation that were being UNLAWFULLY DENIED by a CORRUPTED Judicial Authorities, in breach of all existing articles of law as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, ENFORCED !!!

Thus bringing to the fore, long overdue challenge to IRREFUTABLE ODIOUS INJUSTICE, RACIST and Prejudicial Bias, habitually emitted by a Judiciary operating OUTSIDE LAW without any Accountability, nor fear of suffering any repercussions from the disenfranchised communities at the receiving end of wanton Systemic Violations and Human Rights Abuses.

Postponement of limitation period in cases of Fraud; Concealment or Mistake

This issue stem from whence a High Court Judge failed to RECUSE himself from Adjudicating in a Matter involving his blood relations DIRECT APPARENT interest.

First the matter was taken-up with the Judicial Authorities, but in a bid to cover-up its members Witting/Unwitting Corrupt Indiscretions and law-breaking, the Judicial establishment resort to deliberate Mis-representation, Mis-interpretation and Mis-application of the law, in order to avoid Systemic ACCOUNTABILITY.

The matter was then raised in complaint with the Metropolitan Police Department who in turn astonishingly refused to Record or Investigate the Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice complaint, even though it had a duty to do so. Unfortunately, this refusal and failure to uphold the law was part of a prevailing deep seated Institutional Racism and Prejudicial Bias Culture at the Metropolitan Police Department, which over many decades of indoctrination, conditioned its Officers prematurely into cocooning the Judicial Authorities and its members, with an infallible cloak of unquestioning IMPECCABILITIES; that made accusations of British Judges engaging in deliberate acts of Criminal intents, let alone Odious Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice, INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

Consequently, with the Home Office having the Oversight management and Supervision responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Department, the matter was reported in complaint to the Home Secretary, who equally failed to act and resort in a protection of establishment at all cost mentality, conspiracy to extricate itself, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Judiciary; (both of which may have been under its overall care of responsibility at the time in question) initiated a clandestine execution of an wholly UNLAWFUL Hostile Environment Agenda Policy, spear aimed to prevent and conceal attention away from an highly sensitive unrelenting pursuit of the dissident African and Caribbean Community organisation (CTJ) demand for Systemic Accountability that threatens to expose to the British public, an UNHOLY joint collaboration (of the Judiciary’s Lord Chancellor’s Department, Metropolitan Police Department and the Home Office) to deny justice in a gross and most odious STATE attempts to cover-up institutional wrong doing.

Under normal circumstances, this matter would have been placed out of time by Part l of the Limitations Act 1980. However, because of deliberate acts of Fraud, Concealment and relief from the consequences of Mistake made by the Judicial Authorities, Part ll, Exclusion of Statutory Limitation Act 1980; Clause 32 provide for the Postponement of limitation period in case of Fraud; Concealment or Mistake, APPLIES.

Brief Intro and Summary to Key Point

Principally, the issues evolved from an High Court Judge (JUSTICE TOULSON) having failed to RECUSE himself from Adjudicating in a Matter involving his blood relations DIRECT APPARENT interest. (immaterial whether they be personal or business)

The (Judge's) very ACT, or OMISSION, be it Wittingly/Unwittingly, was a blatant violation of the Defendant's Article 6 Right to a Fair, Independent and Impartial Tribunal, under the European Convention on Human Rights, as enshrined in the UK’s very own Human Rights Act 1998.

When the matter was challenged, rather for the Judicial authorities to acknowledge it had erred, because as in accordance with the Rule of Law, it is INJUDICIOUS for a Judge to have direct involvement in an Adjudication relating to his brother or brother’s law-firm interest.

Instead what ensued was an entrenched, disingenuous arrogant insistence of the Lord Chancellor’s Department; which sought against all conceivable logic to protect the interest of CORRUPTED friends and Colleagues within the Judiciary, by engaging to CONSPIRE a wholly Misleading and DISINGENUOUS interpretation of the law, which in itself can be seen to have been deliberately obfuscated to appear as the most relevant Judgement dealing with Judicial INTEREST, when as a matter of fact, it was non other than a challenge to the ADVERSE COMMENT OF A JUDGE.

The Conduct of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, was disingenuous, and an outright deliberate MISINTERPRETATION of the law for SUBJECTIVE ulterior motives at best. Further, it compromised the entire Judiciary of England and Wales and opened the Lord Chancellor’s Department and the relevant Officials involved up for a possible Charge of a Criminal Joint Venture Conspiracy WITH/WITHOUT others to PERVERT the Due Course of Justice.

Determined to unmask the Judiciary in its hypocritical cloak of brazen 'Deceit', 'Concealment', 'Mistake' and indisputable Fraudulent Misrepresentations of the law, a community of Human Rights Activist under the banner of Campaign for Truth and Justice, modestly equipped and armed with sufficient knowledge, understanding and interpretation of the relevant laws rose to demand Judicial Accountability and Redress; with sustained Lawful Rebellion AFFIRMATIVE ACTION campaigns of the community for over two Decades, as members remarkably sough to enter the Civil/Criminal Courts By Any Means Necessary in Challenge of Prevailing Institutional Corruption Culture of the Judicial establishment in the UK. 

With numerous unprecedented ARREST, PROSECUTION and Embarrassing Hasty Crown Prosecution Service Abandonments of Campaign for Truth and Justice Members Cases without the usual arrogant decorum display of authority, the Police resort to the tactics of De-Arresting CTJ members in order to eliminate the prospects of the members actually getting any access into the courts.

Finally it can safely be said that it was this INDISPUTABLE evidence and the legitimate demand for redress for a most Odious Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice, that the very HEAD OF THE JUDICIARY, the Lord Chancellor, (Lord Irvine of Lairg) and his entire Department had irreconcilably failed to ACT on; despite direct instructions from the CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, (the then Queen Elizabeth II) led to monumental CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, culminating in the sudden Abolishment of the Department and total removal of Lord Irvine (and successive Lord Chancellor's) prestigious permanent seat in the Cabinet. 

In our complaint to the Prime Minister, about the duplicity of his law school friend, mentor and colleague, it was principally argued that Lord Irvine of Lairg, as the Lord Chancellor with a seat in the Government’s Cabinet as its Law Advisor, was himself performing conflicted Dual Roles.

And when shown in the context of the 9th January 1998 Buckingham Palace Letter, it became indisputable, the Lord Chancellor and his Department, had evidently defied intervening instructions of The Constitutional Monarchy to resolve the matter.  The Lord Chancellors' Department Letter of 2nd March 2001, duly confirmed both him and the Office were irreparably compromised beyond any doubt as ACTIVE violators of the Rule of law including the UK's very own Human Rights Act (1998) as mirroring the European Convention on Human Rights itself.

In view of the evidence, it was impossible to dispel with the fact that the Judiciary and its Lord Chancellor were in such a serious violation, that could cause Constitutional Crisis; had Lord Irvine and the Department remained.  These then was the circumstances, which led to the emergence of the Department for Constitutional Affairs that then in turn subsequently evolved into the Ministry of Justice. So in essence, age old colonial mentality tactics of the British establishments to pass from pillar to post so as to cover-up tracks and negate on responsibilities, led to the unplanned Abolishment of the Lord Chancellor's Department.