The Facts of Claim

From Business to Community Human Rights Activism

Before encountering Caul Grant I was the Proprietor of a modestly successful Cleaning Management Business, which I started just before my completing a Social Policy 4 Years Sandwich Honours Degree at Middlesex University (with 1 year full time Occupational Sandwich work placement at the Citizen's Advise Bureau (CAB)).

The overall Business Contracts value back then was between £45,000 – £55,000 per annum with growth Rate of 150% - 300% per annum projection spanning to a peak in 2025; wherein the Growth Rate projectiles reduce to a modest but steady 30% - 40% per Annum.

The Inception of CTJ Grassroots Community led Affirmative Action Campaign Group

However, it was sometime in 2000, whilst listening to an Independent African and Caribbean Community Radio station, (GALAXY AFI WE STATION, 102.5 FM) I heard a near unbelievable ordeals of a fellow citizen for the first time.

 

In the broadcast, Caul Grant relay the story of how he had retained the services of Bindman & Partners Solicitors to pursue a complaint against King’s College NHS Hospital Trust for negligently giving him false information about the circumstances leading up to the death of his 14 month old son named Prince Anthony Grant.

 

He went on to describe how Bindman & Partners later retracted by advising him in writing, that ‘… there is no law in the United Kingdom that gave protection against false advice…’ 

(See Prima Facie 1: The Facts, for the Caul Grant Story Thread)

 

Nonetheless, because of my Social Policy Research and Advisory background at the Citizen Advise Bureau, I was immediately privileged to recognise, Bindman and Partner’s law firm’s statement was totally untrue and that Mr Grant’s instinctive gut feeling as he expressed was absolutely correct; as I struggle to understand why Bindman & Partners advised differently, save for a possible undisclosed ulterior motives and interest.

 

Logically, if there were no laws against FALSE or MISLEADING INFORMATION, then what is to stop anyone from giving FALSE or MISLEADING INFORMATION to the Police; the Courts; Birth Registrars; etc.,. It is precisely because there are laws against FALSE or MISLEADING INFORMATION, why people do NOT readily make false accusations to the Police; or give misleading information to the Courts; Birth and Death Registrar’s Offices; etc.,.

Furthermore, this point is amply demonstrated in litigating court materials, which clearly warns of consequences for knowingly giving false information.

 

The calculating attempt (of Bindman & Partner law firm as well as other seemingly trustable Professionals like Diane Abbott M.P.) to deliberately misguide and bamboozle Mr Grant and unsuspecting ordinary members of public with regards to the law pertaining to FALSE INFORMATION/ADVISE prompted my further interest and curiosity into the broadcast.

 

As the story unravelled, I heard recounts of further wrongful Acts of State, compounded by the Lord Chancellor’s Department (02 March 2001) letter which in itself confirmed that indeed as complained of, ‘… a Justice Toulson, knowingly presided in his brother (Alan Toulson or his Law Firm) Reynolds Porter Chamberlain INTEREST, stating accordingly: ‘… the hearing was an ex-parte application made by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on behalf of Bindman and Partners …’. 

Despite this being true, the Lord Chancellor’s Department 02 March 2001 letter then went on to deliberately misled on facts of law by claiming DISINGENUOUSLY that ‘… the fact that the Judge’s brother is a member of the firm of solicitors who represented Bindman and Partners … is not sufficient ground for the Judge to stand down or substantiate an allegation of bias. …’ when indeed, there could never have been a better case that ‘… a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased …’ and must recuse himself.

After having taken time to objectively study, analyse and digest the INDISPUTABLE acts of violation complained about, next to the very letter of the relevant applicable law (on Judicial Bias and Interest) there was no reasonable explanation OTHER than absolute corruption to justify the Lord Chancellor’s Department position which clearly misinterpret, misrepresent and misapplied the law; as is proven and evidenced by the following case law precedent:

 

Dimes -V- Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others 26th June 1852; Before Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell. An Application was herd where the ‘… Lord chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose

judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the grounds that the Lord Chancellor was disqualified …’ . 

The Appeal was successfully HELD. 

 

And indeed after ‘… consultation Lord Cottenham was disqualified from sitting as a judge in the cause because he had an interest in the suit …’.

 

Lord Campbell said: ‘… no one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the interest he had in this concern; but my Lords, it is of the last importance that the maxim that no man is to be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest …’

See Exhibits:

·  9^th January 1998, Buckingham Palace letter

·  02 March 2001, Lord Chancellors’ Department letter

The standard of measurement (test on Bias Statements and Utterance Expressed by a Judge during Judicial Proceedings) which the Lord Chancellor’s Department for nothing short of a most INCOMPETENT reason decided to use, was the least relevant applicable law, with no connection to the legitimate Challenge that was before it.

If for none other than premeditated corruption, then the entire Lord Chancellor’s Department must be complete IMBECCILES, to think in the age of liberalised information which is no longer the exclusive preserve of the rich and privileged, it can get away with nonsense the way it used to do in the past.

 

Determined not to allow a fellow citizen and member of our community be alone to fight an all-powerful State and its well resourced corrupted institutions all by himself, led primarily to my making arrangements with the Community Station to meet Caul Grant and enlisted in commitment to support his pursuit for Justice. 

The ensuing weeks and months that followed, brought about the formal incorporation of CTJ wherein my role as Secretary formally began.

Articulating a Community's legitimate Challenge to prevailing Institutional Racism and Inexplicable Failures of the Metropolitan Police Department to Act

It was not far off the back of the publications into the overall outcome findings of the 1999 Macpherson Report, which courageously concluded in a most unexpected break from customary taboo of not speaking candidly in public about any conceived failings in key British public establishment authorities; when much to the displeasures of the Metropolitan Police Department, it was (for once) actually called out as being ‘… Institutionally Racist …’.

Although the context was in relation to the handling of the Stephen Lawrence RACIST murder investigation conducts and inquiry process, the only misfortune of the Metropolitan Police Department at the time is that it was the only institution that was under consideration for such examination. 

The Judiciary itself would have shared the condemnation with the Metropolitan Police Department, because like the esteem Doreen Lawrence and Neville Lawrence later discovered, the Courts were neither fair, independent and impartial, because ‘… when a Case go to court for trial, it is (often) already decided before a single word is spoken …’ and that is owing to the fact that British justice has always been dependent on colour and status of who you are, rather than the meritorious one it is projected to be.

Inspite of all the façade designed to make the Courts and its judges appear fair, independent and impartial, the reality (unless this case is exceptional with no other occurring instance as the apologist state professionals would like to think) is that the Courts and it’s judges are far from the benign projections. Indeed, just like other British institutional establishment authorities, most particularly, the judiciary of England and Wales has always had its own share of Institutional Racism with deep seated Corruption Culture, that nonetheless culminate in the eventual abolishment of the Lord Chancellor’s Department on the back of this Campaign’s complaints to the Prime Minister (tony Blair ) in Downing Street that ‘… a Lord chancellor whose role and function is meant to be INDEPENDENT, unquestionably fails to meet that obligation by having dual seat and function of the Courts as well as a permanent seat in the Governments cabinet Office …’ 

In sum, Institutional Racism is not only applicable to the Metropolitan Police Department, but rather it is a charge which the Judiciary is equally guilty of, but managed to evade for a considerable length of time, because of an overall weak and unassertive spineless Black lawyers, Solicitors and Barristers Association (who only too selfish and grateful to be in seemingly successful key token positions) didn’t have the courage to CHALLENGE Institutional Racism in the Judicial establishment.   

The remnants of yesteryears prevailing Institutional Racism as described and rightly found to exist within the Metropolitan Police Department, (by the Macpherson Report) serves along with inherent Corruption Culture to provide possible explanation why the Department refused to see Justice Toulson’s Criminal Perversion of Justice as a Crime that it had a DUTY to RECORD and INVESTIGATE under:

a)        Prevention of Corruption Act 1889, s1

b)       Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1906, s1

c)        PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1916, S1

Another explanation is that the POLICE DEPARTMENT failed to act in order to hide its own complicit participation in what was a most audacious and ELABORATE SERIOUS CRIMINAL PERVERSION OF JUSTICE, that it found itself appearing to have been involved, (WITTINGLY/UNWITTINGLY) as it executed an UNLAWFUL WARRANT secured outside the framework of law, which in turn, led to FALSE ARREST and unlawful IMPRISONMENT. 

 

Thus why, as a people and community that have always been at the receiving end of excessive policing, (from SUS laws of the late 1970s up until the indiscriminate modern day Stop and Search) including over Criminalisation and unbridled Sentencing by the Law Courts, we came together in representation of ourselves and the wider African and Caribbean communities to demand with resolute stance of AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS Campaign that ‘… victim’s enforceable rights of redress as guaranteed under the protection of law, be enforced, without fear or favour …’

 

Reporting Institutional Racism and Metropolitan Police Department Failures, Omissions and Inactions to the Home Office and Consequent British Authorities

From my commencement of office as Secretary of Campaign for truth and justice, (2000 -2021) records will show I unrelentingly petitioned a vast array of UK public figures and offices in an extensive list which include past and current:

Prime Ministers; (Boris Johnson, Theresa May; David Cameron; Gordon Brown; Tony Blair)

Home Secretaries, (Priti Patel; Sajid Javid; Amber Rudd; Theresa May; Alan Johnson; Jacqui Smith; John Reid; Charles Clarke; David Blunkett; Jack Straw)

Lord Chancellors, (Robert Buckland; David Gauke; David Lidington; Elizabeth Truss; Micheal Gove; Chris Grayling; Kenneth Clarke; Jack Straw; Charles Falconer; Alexander Irvine)

My petitioning also included former and current Members of Parliament, (Shadow Cabinet Leader Keir Starmer MP; Shadow Cabinet Leader Jeremy Corbyn; Constituent MP Helen Hayes; Shadow Home Secretary; Shadow Justice secretary)

UK National Medias, (The Guardian Newspaper; The Daily Express News Paper; The Mirror News Paper; The Daily Mail News Paper; The SUN Newspaper; BBC News; Channel 4 News; ITV News; Global Radio’s LBC, The Voice)

as well as a number of State Institutions, (The Speaker of the House of Commons; The Clerk to the House of Commons; The Leader of the House of Commons; The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords; The Clerk to the Parliaments; Leader of the House of Lords; Windrush Taskforce; Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; Home Affairs Select Committee; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; The Labour Party; The Liberal Democrat Party; Conservative Party; The Attorney General; The Solicitor General; Director of Public Prosecution; Mayor of London; Association of Police & Crime Commissioners; Equalities & Human Rights Commission)

Most particularly, in my role as Secretary of Campaign for truth and Justice, I wrote in complain to each successive Metropolitan Police Commissioners, (Mark Rowley; Dame Cressida Dick; Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe; Sir Paul Stephenson; Sir Ian Blair; Sir John Stevens; Sir Paul Condon)

These were in specifically in regards to the CRIMINAL CONDUCTS of the Judiciary as complained of since 1998 and most particularly required that the METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORD and INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against Justice Toulson; Alan Toulson; Reynolds Porter Chamberlain; Bindman and Partners; including the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s Head of Division 5 (Malcolm Watts) as provisioned for under:

PUBLIC BODIES CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT 1889

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1916

 

Unfortunately the Metropolitan Police Department and all its Commissioners, (Mark Rowley; Cressida Dick, Bernard Hogan-Howe, Paul Stephenson, Ian Blair, John Stevens and Paul Condon) petitioned on the matter, ignored all request in abject failure of responsibility and duty of their office to RECORD and INVESTIGATE without fear or favour, SERIOUS JUDICIAL CRIMINAL ACTS and PERVERSION TO THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE, as in accordance with the law

 

However when this was not forthcoming, I then turned to take the matter to the Home Office, as the Department was responsible for its Supervision and Monitoring, before it had been reduced on account of its inability to be properly controlled and managed by the previous Home Secretaries.

 

 

The extension of Lawful Rebellion to Enter the Civil/Criminal Courts By Any Means Necessary to Challenge Prevailing Institutional Corruption Culture of the Judiciary

Despite petitioning the authorities on what was evidently an audacious blatant violation of law and no less than a Criminal Perversion of the dual Course of Justice, the Judiciary arrogantly refused to admit the facts and instead engaged in a process of deliberate fabrication, misrepresentation and interpretation of the law.

34. On 6th January 2003, (Highbury Comer Magistrates' Court, Before District Judge Pigott) myself and Five other Co-defendants (Caul Grant, Marcelle Hayden, Denise Lee, Rupert Charles and Jenifer Morris) were alleged in Contempt of Court by the officiating judge.

 

35. The same judge who alleged Contempt, (District Judge Pigott) then wittingly/unwittingly went ahead to Trial; Find; Convict and Sentence her own Cause and Allegation in total breach and violations of: SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 6(3) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6 HRA 1998; etc.,.

 

36. Following the conviction, due and appropriate challenge was made to the Magistrates' ULTRA VIRUS (beyond one's legal power or authority) abuse and violations of the Due Process of law, by way of an Appeal Application to the convicting court, (within the time limit) with the areas of violations listed above submitted as Grounds of Appeal.

See Exhibits:

·    13th January 2003 Copy of Original Appeal Applications lodged with the Convicting Court on behalf of each Defendants

 

37. Till date, the Judiciary and its Courts have arrogantly failed to process and facilitate Appeals to Convictions falling due as of right, to either me or any of the Five Co-defendants in the matter since 2003.

 

38. As a consequence of this omission and on-going failure, the Judiciary and its Courts remain, in CONTEMPTUEOUS violations of the following:

SECTION 13(1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960;

ARTICLE 5(1)(a) HRA 1998;

ARTICLE 5(4) HRA 1998;

ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998

See Exhibits:

·    13th June 2003, Judiciary's Court Services Letter, showing a late cancellation of the scheduled Appeal Hearing to the Inner London Crown Court.

·    24th April 2003, Crown Prosecution Service CORRUPTED ARGUMENT set out as Legal Opinions ERRONEOUSLY Advising the Inner London Crown Court to DECLINE JURISDICTION to Hear a rightful Appeal as of right (from a Magistrates’) to the Court

 

39. Further attempts were made to enforce our Appeal Rights to the Convictions by a resubmission of retained copies of the original Appeal Applications documents itself with the Courts, but the Judiciary and its courts claimed even these (further Court sealed NOTICES OF APPEAL lodged with the Courts) was LOST/MISPLACED and COULD NOT BE FOUND.

 

40. Finally with Free Standing Civil Actions taken out against the authorities (for violations against myself and others in pursuit of redress) persistently blocked from gaining access to the Civil Courts, the Judiciary and its Courts are therefore in CONTEMPTUOUS FLOUTINGS OF:

SECTION 13(1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960.

SECTION 7(1) HRA 1998

SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998

 

41. For SECTION 7(1) HRA 1998 allows a person who claims that a public authority has acted or proposes to act in a way which is made unlawful (by SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998) to bring proceedings against that authority under SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998. 

See Exhibits:

·    15th June 2004 Campaign for Truth & Justice Letter reminding the Judiciary of its duty to

provide the named Defendants their right of Appeal         

·    18th June 2004 Judiciary's Court Services letter confirming NO APPEAL EXIST ON RECORD FOR THE SIX NAMED UNLAWFULLY CONVICTED INDIVIDUALS

·    25TH August 2005 Inner London Crown Court Stamp mark receipt of Second privately financed Appeal documents lodged with the Courts

·    24th November June 2005 Campaign for Truth & Justice Letter to Inner London Crown Court, enquiring about pending Appeal lodged with the Court the SECOND TIME on 25TH August 2005.

·    9th January 2006 Inner London Crown Court Stamp mark receipt of SECOND privately financed - Appeal documents lodged with the Courts

 

42. SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 provide individuals who are victims of an UNLAWFUL ACT to RELY on the convention in any Legal Proceedings.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS includes proceedings brought by, or at the instigation of a public authority and an Appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.

 

43. A person is a VICTIM of an unlawful Act if he/she would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention rights, if proceedings were brought in the European Court of human Rights in respect of the UNLAWFUL Act or Violations.

44. Several, privately financed Appeal Applications were made by myself and the Campaign For Truth and Justice members to attain redress, (as in accordance with SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998) for FALSE ARREST and MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS by the Metropolitan Police Department to no avail, as we were continually UNLAWFULLY BLOCKED, with our claims corruptly declaimed as UNJUSTICIABLE or UNMERITUS by Masters whose purpose is to prevent facts of Judicial Violations from entering the Courts for a full Hearing and ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

HARROW CROWN COURT’S CONTEMPEOUS DISREGARD FOR (SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998 AND SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998)

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

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.

The collaborative Joint Force of Home Office, Metropolitan Police Department and Judiciary, to FORCIBLY extinguish all legitimate demands for Systemic Accountability and Redress with Retaliatory State Persecutions targeting the Black African and Caribbean Commonwealth-born British Citizens for UNLAWFUL Deportation Agenda