Royal Court of Justice London

Challenging Harrow Crown Court's CONTEMPTUOUS DISREGARD for SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998, SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 and Article 7 HRA 1998 to the High Court

45. On 20th July 2012 (Harrow Crown Court) whilst observing proceedings from the public gallery, a Judge (Mr. Curtis Raleigh) flagrantly violated an existing Appellant victim of judicial violation's right to invoke SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 in the proceeding; proclaiming that he, (the Judge) is the absolute law and authority to do as he wills, irrespective of whatever the law may say, or be written. Sounding to me, like a man in total contempt and disregard for the law, its proper application and interpretation.

46. In the proceeding the judge (Mr. Curtis Raleigh) bullyingly threatened to label the Appellant 'a Vexatious Litigant' (if he continues to insist on asserting his accusation and challenges demanding redress for having been a direct victim of FALSE IMPRISONMENTS committed by the Judiciary and the Courts) and then further went on to breach SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 6(6) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(2) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 5(1) HRA 1998 and ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998.

47. The blatant and odious violations of the law by the judiciary's Judge Curtis Raleigh on the day culminate in Harrow Crown Court, 20th July 2012 Contempt of Court allegation charge, to silence opposition to its Corrupted members DEFIANCE of the law as CONFERED and laid down (by the legislative body) for him to interpret.

48. However on 6th August 2012 at Harrow Crown Court, the Contempt of Court allegation went for trial before Judge H.H. Greenwood of the same court; who Found and Convicted in breach of SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(3)(d) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(2) HRA 1998.

49. The Conviction carried an automatic right of Appeal to the High Court (Royal Court of Justice).

50. Subsequently an Appeal was lodged against the UNLAWFUL Conviction AND False Imprisonment, sighting as grounds of Appeal the Judiciary and its member's UNIMPEDED on-going brazen abuse of the Rule of law accordingly:

SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 6(3) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(2) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE, 6(3)(d) HRA 1998.

See Exhibits:

·  HMCS Certificate of CONVICTION, HARROW CROWN COURT, 6TH August 2012

'The Fish Rots from the Head Down' as Evidenced in the Failures of the Judges of the High Court itself, After Having Knocked on its Doors   

DELIBERATE USE OF BAISED AND PREJUDICED INFORMATION TO DENY LEGITIMATE APPEAL  

51. Following Conviction (Harrow Crown Court, 6th August 2012 by Judge H.H. Greenwood) an Appeal against Conviction was lodged 24th August 2012 with the convicting court.

See Exhibits:

·    24th August 2012 Harrow Crown Court Stamp Marked Receipt, of Appeal Application lodged to it against its UNLAWFUL Conviction

52. However, like a corrupt cabal did before with Appeals from Highbury Corner Magistrates’ to Inner London Crown Court in 2003, they sought to use the same conspiratorial trick to BLOCK the Appeal entering court.

53. Despite the conviction emanating from a Crown Court, possibly the same corrupt Criminal Cabal within the judiciary and its Courts attempted to DENY the Appeal Application, (which was as of right) access to the Appeal Court; claiming FALSELY that the conviction which was being challenged was emanating from a Magistrates' Court and as a consequence the High Court had 'no jurisdiction to hear the Appeal'.

54. Subsequently the entire Appeal documents were returned to my home address unprocessed, in anticipation that their action would be sufficient to baffle and dispirit me from further pursuing the Appeal against the UNLAWFUL CONVICTION.

See Exhibits:

·    19th September 2012, HM Courts & Tribunals Service letter, which conspired with Criminal gangs within the Judiciary to WITTINGLY/UNWITTINGLY MISINFORM in attempt to UNLAWFULLY deny Appeal Access to the Courts following an unlawful Conviction, by claiming FALSELY, that the Courts had NO JURISDICTION to hear the Appeal Application.

55. I made a complaint about the Covert efforts designed to bamboozle unsuspecting Appellants away from pursuing a lawful challenge of convictions and was eventually made privy to the fact that it was the courts who were at fault.

See Exhibits:

·    25th September 2012, A. Balogun Complaint letter to Secretary of State for Justice about UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS

·    1st October 2012, A. Balogun Complaint letter to HM Courts & Tribunals Service about FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO UNLAWFULLY DENY ME ACCESS TO THE COURTS

·    2nd October 2012 Harrow Crown Court Stamp Marked Receipt, on Appeal Application lodged a second time with the Court in determination to enforce my right of Appeal of the Courts UNLAWFUL Conviction

56. Eventually, by ordering and enclosing a copy of the Certificate of Conviction from the convicting court with the, Appeal Application I was able to prove that the judiciary and its Court's False and Misleading claim that my conviction was emanating from a Magistrates Court, (despite visibility of the crown court's Seal) was a lie and a possible Criminal CONSPRACY affront to justice in violation of ARTICLE 5(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 5(4) HRA 1998 and ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998

57. Perversion of the Due process of Justice in violations of Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, sl. & Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, s.l have been implicated in these proceedings.

CORRUPT DISMISSAL CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF LAW, APPELLANT APPEAL HEARING, NOT ATTENDED, CHALLENGED, OR OPPOSSED BY THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) OR ITS AGENTS

58. However, prior to the Appeal entering court for a Hearing, I was sent a copy of a very scant and brief summary prepared for the courts.

59. I noticed that the summary prepared for the court was a partial narrated view of account from the Judiciary and its Courts perspective. It made no mention or reference to any of my DEFENCE ARGUMENTS, with deliberate obscuring of words so as to make the contents of my worded arguments totally unintelligible to anyone who assumes the entire facts of accounts were being presented therein the summary, like an unadulterated complete overview, whereas that was not the case at all. 

60. In this particular instance, the most generous conclusion (other than deliberate Criminal explanation) would seem to have it that the Judiciary had engaged in doctoring the BRIEF SUMMARY prepared for the Courts, in a stereotype casting it sought to present me (the DEFENDANT, APPEALLANT or LITIGANT) on the face of it to fit into.

61. Indeed to lay it bare and expose the tactics of the judiciary and its Courts, the summary was overtly BIAS and tactfully drawn to omit any mention of the Article Rights violations and Abuses mentioned and submitted in evidence at court during the Trial Hearing accordingly:

SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 6(6) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998; SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 7(2) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(1) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6(3)(d) HRA 1998 and ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998.

See Exhibits:

·    See 28th January 2013, dated and Signed GROUNDS OF APPEAL Submitted to the Courts.

62. On the Appeal Hearing date (21st January 2013 at the Appeal court, Criminal Division) I WAS THE ONLY PARTY TO THE HEARING PRESENT.  

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) realizing IT HAD NO LAWFUL CHALLENGE TO THE APPEAL AGAINST THE FALSE AND UNLAWFUL CONVICTION, ABSTAINED THE HEARING.

63. The fact of the matter is that Article 7 HRA 1998 STATES NO PUNISHMENT OUTSIDE (WITHOUT) LAW and so whichever way one looks at it, it basically means a LAW-BREAKER CANNOT BE A LAW ENFORCER. As a consequence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) realizing IT HAD NO LAWFUL CHALLENGE TO THE EVIDENCE OF DIRECT CRIMINAL JUDICIAL LAW-BREAKING AND PERVERSIONS OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE WHICH IT (CPS) KNEW WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO PROVE THE JUDICIARYAND ITS COURTS WERE INDEED LAW-BREAKERS WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AS PROSCRIBED BY ARTICLE 7 HRA 1998; therefore had no other choice but to signal its intent to ABSTAIN the Hearing from the off set to the Courts, OR RISK BEING FURTHER INCRIMINATED BY THE CABAL.

See Exhibits:

·    Criminal Appeal Office Summary, showing PROSECUTION indicating that it was not Challenging the Appeal, nor instructing Counsel to attend the Appeal Hearing (13th December 2012 Criminal Appeal Office Summary prepared for the Court, Page 1, Paragraph 8)

64. With the authorities responsible for defending convictions secured by the courts, or challenging opposition to Appeal against conviction absent; there was effectively no legitimate lawful challenge to the Application Appealing against the FALSE and UNLAWFUL Conviction on the grounds submitted thereof.

65. Nonetheless the officiating judge on the day, acting contrary to the Rule of Law, as part of the elaborate Criminal cabal seeking to protect his friends and colleagues improprieties (of judicial violations and law-breaking) PERVERTLY DISMISSED AN UNCHALLENGED, UNOPPOSSED APPEAL APPLICATION in further contraventions of ARTICLE 6(1) HRA 1998.

See Exhibits:

·   21st January 2013, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division’s Certificate of Refusal of Appeal Notification of Appeal having been Dismissed, despite having NO LAWFUL CHALLENGE at Hearing (on the back of CPS or any prosecuting authority's willingness with expected presence rather than ABSENCE to opposition the Appeal application)

66.  For wittingly or unwittingly assuming conflicting Duo Roles of Judge and Prosecutor in violations of the above stated Articles, an Application of Appeal of the corrupted decision (dismissing an unchallenged and unopposed Appeal Hearing) was made.

67. However, Permission by the Appeal Court to Appeal its corrupted decision to the UK's Supreme Court first had to be obtained and unsurprisingly that Permission was rejected, (using its influence within the judicial establishment) primarily in order to contain the Judiciary's improprieties and deny justice, because quite simply as we know ‘Turkeys Don’t Vote For Christmas, If They Know, They’re The Ones On The Menu.’

See Exhibits:

·    21st January 2013, A. Balogun letter FORMALLY ACTIVATING THE REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

FABRICATION AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE RECORDS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

68. Sometime around April 2013, the JUDICIARY’S Court of Appeal, (Criminal Division) as a consequence of unrelenting pressure and challenges to its CRIMINAL PERVERSIONS of JUSTICE sought to pass off further FALSE and INACCURATE information as being accurate reflections of Court Proceedings and an all important Judges Summing-Up and Verdict at Court, that it had provided me.

69.  As a matter of fact, it had some how OUT LANDISHLY INVENTED a Justice Jackson, Mr Justice Nicol and Judge Beaumont QC. (The Recorder of London) as being seated in the Adjudication and proceedings, wherein they were flatly NOT present and should never have been implied as being present at the Hearing, had there not been a deliberate intent to DECEIVE after PERVERTING THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

See Exhibits:

·    21st January 2013, Court of Appeal JUDGMENT and TRANSCRIPT FALSELY ATTEMPTING TO GIVE IMPRESSIONS THAT MY APPEAL WENT BEFORE THREE LAW LORDS (Justice Jackson, Mr Justice Nicol and Judge Beaumont QC) FOR DUE AND CONSIDERED DELIBRATION, BEFORE BEING REJECTED BY THEM, WHEN NO SUCH THING HAPPENED.  A CRIMINAL DECEPTION

70. It is probable that they were meant to be present, had the proper process of procedure been adhered to. However, because of the on-going UNLAWFUL means that members of the Judiciary were resorting to, in order to summarily SUPPRESS JUSTICE for Human Rights Activist (like myself, Mr. Caul Grant and others) challenging the Judiciary’s violations of the Rule of Law within Campaign for Truth and Justice, it appears they’ve had to dispel with operating within the Rule of law and instead seems to be dispensing justice as in accordance with their own Prejudice WITH A DOSE OR TWO OF CRIMINAL DECEPTIONS THROWN IN AND , EMBOLDENED IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO SYSTEMIC CHECK AND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM OUTSIDE ITS FRATERNITY TO ENSURE ITS MEMBERS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

See Exhibits:

·    28th March 2013, Ahmed Balogun letter to Court of Appeal, REJECTING to accept the FALSE and INACCURATE Court JUDGMENT RECORD and TRANSCRIPT sent me as an accurate reflection of the facts, when it clearly failed to accurately record and reflect the facts as they occurred; without resorting to include INVENTED Judges (Lord Justice Nicol and The Recorder of London identified as Judge Beaumont QC) as being seated in on the proceeding when they were NOT there at all.

·    11th April 2013; Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, rescinding letter.

Court of Appeal letter attaching THE AMMENDED Court of Appeal JUDGMENT and TRANSCRIPT as replacement showing only LORD JUSTICE JACKSON Presided the matter, which was previously FALSELY and INACCURATELY claimed had been before THREE JUDGES until rigorously challenged by me.

PERVERTION OF THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE WITH FURTHER WITTINGLY/UNWITTINGLY INSERTED PREJUDICIAL MISREPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION ON COURT DOCUMENTS

71. The judiciary and its Courts fabricated records of the Appeal Court Judgments, with named judges totally alien and unconnected to the Appeal application process as having been present and taken part in the Procedural/Hearing.

72. Clearly the intent was to deceive an independent observer into inferring from its Court documents that the Appeal Application was provided the full route of access to the FIRST JUDGE who refused and in spite of his refusal, (the appeal) was then further allowed to go before THREE JUDGES who yet only on careful deliberation REFUSED THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIDSSION TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, when actually, it wasn’t so at all.

73. As a matter of fact, it had NOT been anticipated, I would pick up on the discrepancies, because even professional lawyers all too often aid and abet the Judiciary and its Courts in deception, by turning a blind eye or deliberately failing to point out wrong doings and inaccuracies for fear of not wanting to get on the wrong side of Judges who make careers out of intimidating junior Lawyers, Barristers and Prosecutors, until they acquire enough experience to know, A Judge Is Non Other Than A REFEREE.

74. In recap, none of the named judges were present, nor deliberated on the Appeal. The matter was preceded by a single judge and the Judiciary eventually after unrelenting pressure in protest had to retract the false and MISLEADING records and information, it had tried to wittingly/unwittingly pass off as accurate documents of account.

See Exhibits:

·    11th April 2013; Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, rescinding letter.

Court of Appeal letter attaching THE AMMENDED Court of Appeal JUDGMENT and TRANSCRIPT as replacement showing only LORD JUSTICE JACKSON Presided the matter, which was previously FALSELY and INACCURATELY claimed had been before THREE JUDGES until rigorously challenged by me.

DELIBERATE SABOTAGE OF APPLICATION TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE JUDICIARY

75. IN 2013 THE JUDICIARY AND ITS COURT’S WITTINGLY/KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN IMPROPRIETIES TO SABOTAGE APPLICATIONS CHALLENGING UNLAWFUL CONVICTIONS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENTS (SECURED IN VIOLATIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW) TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

76. Knowing that formal Applications of Complain to the European Court of Human Rights had an admissibility time window of Six Months, (from the date entered and showing on the Certificate of Dismissal in last Domestic Adjudication) the JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES DELIBERATELY entered FALSE and INACCURATE dates to make the intended Application in complain to the European Court of Human Rights automatically INADMISSIBILE by one year.

77. The date that it was entered was a wholly fictional and wrong date far from the actual accurate date which should have been entered, if a PERVERTION OF THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE had not been intended. 

See Exhibits:

·    Court of Appeal, Criminal Division’s, Initial Misleading Certificate of Last Domestic Remedy, (Notification of Refusal of Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court) as showing the grossly Inaccurate, Wrong and Prejudicial date entered to be 28th February 2012.

78. Unrelenting protest and complaints ensued in the wake of the Judiciary and its Court’s refusal of an unchallenged Appeal which resulted in (the Judiciary) assuming duo conflicting roles of Judge, Prosecutor and Executioner.

79. The dismissal of my Application Seeking Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court against its members’ unconventional behavior and decision, is un-constitutional behaviour

See Exhibits:

·    15th May 2013; Ahmed Balogun protest and complaint letter to Court of Appeal, Criminal Division about the erroneous information wittingly/unwittingly being provided as accurate data showing on the Notification Certificate of Refusing Permission to Appeal to the supreme Court, as it showed a grossly Inaccurate, wrong and Prejudicial date of 28th February 2012.

80. Unable to evade the ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL DECEPTION with my insistence on the JUDICIARY furnishing me with accurate information, showing on the Certificate of Last Domestic Remedy, (Seeking Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court) the Judiciary in May 2013 eventually RESCIND its FALSE Documented information and provided an Amended Certificate of Last Domestic Remedy (Refusing Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court) with the accurate date 28th February 2013 showing (rather than the previous which had made me automatically way out of time to submit anything before I even attempted doing so). 

See Exhibits:

·      Certificate of Dismissal of Application for PERMISSION to Appeal to the Supreme Court - 23rd May 2013, Court of Appeal letter attaching an AMMENDED Certificate of Dismissal, showing the correct date when ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION for PERMISSION to Appeal to the Supreme Court was made as being 28th February 2013

81. Effectively what can be drawn from these is that the JUDICIARY of England and Wales is NOT as matured as is often thought and assumed it to be. All it takes to see it in its true light is to have a open mind as the Barrister and Chairman of the BRITISH LEGAL ASSOCIATION, Mr Stanley Best said:

‘… The charges you make are very serious indeed. … I do wonder, however, whether what you call corruption would be better termed a perception of bias, but I shall not make any judgment until I have considered your material. …’

 ‘… However, the most unlikely things do happen in this world and, as I have said, I shall keep an open mind, because if only a scintilla of what you claim was right, then it would be a matter for very serious concern indeed.

See Exhibits:

·    9th January 2003, British Legal Association letter, SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.