Prima Facie Case 3

Ahmed Abayomi Balogun

V

The Ministry of Justice

Overview

This is a matter involving a number of 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 brought before the Judiciary of England and Wales; on emergence of the first independent grassroots African and Caribbean Community Human Rights Activist Group under the organisational banner of Campaign for Truth and Justice, (CTJ) which rose in challenge to inherent Institutional Corruption Culture, Racist-Prejudicial Bias and On-Going Human Rights Violations and Abuses by the Judiciary in UK Courts.

Poignantly proving more potent than the professionally trained Lawyers, Solicitors and Barristers all found too compromisingly weak and intimidated by an all-encompassing system of control governing the extent to which they are allowed to REPRESENT State Law-breaking arguments of clients challenging UK State 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 an unbridled confrontational challenge/defence 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 (despite all their acquired qualifications) to deploy themselves, as unapologetic competent representational net worth LEGAL EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE, (unwavering and in lockstep side by side alignment with the pursuit of unadulterated justice) that led to the wholesale adoption of SELF REPRESENTATION being adopted by the campaign and its members.  

Admirably, as leadership from those highly educated and studied 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, infused with its own unique brand (never before heard or seen) of FEARLESS Affirmative Action campaigns which sought to enter the Civil/Criminal Courts of law by any means necessary.

The sole stated aim being to have member’s, enforceable rights to redress and compensation 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 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 Misrepresentation, Misinterpretation and Misapplication of the law, in order to avoid Judicial 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. 

The Simple and logical explanation being prevailing Institutional Racism and Prejudicial Bias indoctrination of the Metropolitan Police Department, enveloped the Judicial Authorities and its members in an infallible cloak of unquestioning IMPECCABILITIES; that made accusations against 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 whom may have been under its overall care of responsibility) initiated a clandestine execution of an wholly UNLAWFUL Hostile Environment Agenda Policies, 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 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.

Now importantly, 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 Mistakes made by the Judicial Authorities, as contained in the case itself; Part ll, Exclusion of Statutory Limitation Act 1980; provide within Clause 32 for the Postponement of limitation period in case of Fraud; Concealment or Mistake.

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 seemingly engaging to CONSPIRE a 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 not, but solely directed at the focal issue of nothing other than ADVERSE COMMENT OF A JUDGE challenge.

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 in arms with adequate understanding, knowledge and interpretation of the relevant laws, rose to demand Judicial Accountability and Redress; with an effective sustained AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Lawful Rebellion campaign of the community members seeking to Enter the Civil/Criminal Courts By Any Means Necessary to Challenge Prevailing Institutional Corruption Culture of the Judicial establishment in the UK 

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

Finally it suffice to say, it was this INDISPUTABLE evidence and a legitimate demand for redress for a most Odious Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice, which 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 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 instructions of The Constitutional Monarchy. Supporting this was also enclosed a second evidence. This was the Lord Chancellors' Department Letter of 2nd March 2001, which duly confirmed both him and the Office irreparably compromised beyond any doubt, that indeed he was then an ACTIVE violator of the Rule of law including the UK's very own Human Rights Act (1998) as mirroring the European Convention on Human Rights itself.

These then are 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 responsibility will not work !!!