Letter to Lord Chief Justice: Court plans fraud through unlawful oral hearing
link to yahoo
Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje
21 September 2006
Lord Phillips
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Royal Court of Justice at the Strand, London WC2A 2LL & Chair: Office of Judicial Complaints, 4th Floor, Petty France, London SW1H 9HD
Dear Sir: Application for Judicial Review; Royal Court of Justice, Strand: Case no: CO/765/06: Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje v Attorney General of the United Kingdom and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Complaint of unlawful listing of ‘minor’ applications for oral hearing
1. Within my ‘major’ Application for Judicial Review, the court officer has unlawfully listed for Oral Hearing my ‘minor’ applications including for:
(1)Application for Renewal of Judicial Review dated 08 June 2006 (against the proceedings rules of the court attached, the court unlawfully did not give me time to file my skeletal arguments and made a judgement on my case without my skeletal arguments).
(2) Application dated 29 June 2006 for disclosure by the Metropolitan Police all documents relating to the matter of Ms. Sarah Draper and Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje:
(3) Application dated 08 June 2006 that the defendants dosclose all materials related to this case.
2. In accordance with the law including Human Rights Act 1998 (including access to justice, fair hearing, remedy etc.) and other relevant Acts of Parliament, I , Dr. Ovadje hereby make this complaint. I have already requested that the court confirm in writing that the judge and court officials handling this case are not members of, or related in any way to, or threatened by the freemasons or indeed any other secret cult.
3. Dr. Ovadje makes this complaint knowing that the basis of this case is freemasonry and its satanic mafia-like evil, including the masonic use and/or intimidation of officials in every institution in the United Kingdom, including regretably, the judiciary and office of the Prime Minister.
The basis of this case is that the freemasons (in collusion with the Metropolitan Police) sponsored Ms. Draper who repeatedly poisoned Dr. Ovadje in February 2005 and then on 23 April 2005 battered him and tried to kill him with a six-inch blade knife pressed against the carotid artery of his neck. The Attorney General and CPS fraudulently acted as to pervert justice and then refused to prosecute her.
As evidence of this fraud, the CPS and Attorney General conspired to concoct a secret and fictitious Ms. Draper and witnesses version of events. Till date they have acted as to pervert justice and have refused to disclose these versions of events. Ms. Draper’s husband had earlier boasted even if you report the matter to the police, nothing would happen.
Whereas the CPS and Attorney General stated that the witnesses statements supported Ms Draper’s version of events, only last July, one of the witnesses, Mrs. Virk confirmed to Dr. Ovadje that the police never interviewed their family all of whom were key witnesses on the night of 23 April 2005. This confirms the concoction by the CPS and A.G.
On 08/07/06, the CPS on behalf of the freemasons conducted an unlawful and malicious prosecution against Dr. Ovadje, for peacefully holding a placard that stated the truth: the freemasons murdered his brother Ejoke Ovadje ( a solicitor) in Nigeria. Ejoke refused to be a freemason despite the inducement of winning cases before he gets to court, i.e. perversion of justice. Clearly perversion of justice goes hand in hand with freemasonry. See attached letter to the CPS.
4. I have already submitted to your goodself, the parliamentary enquiry that confirmed that 48% of the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers (i.e. the defendants) are freemasons. Dr. Ovadje’s estimate is 90% (because the God is Eternal, it can never be 100%, Alleluia).
Please find attached, a report showing that the Crown Prosecution Service (i.e. the defendants) is rife with racism even against its own staff i.e. lawyers (some of whom are freemasons). Clearly if the CPS is institutionally racist, riddled with freemasonry and clearly not fit for purpose; whereas Dr. Ovadje is black and a born-again Christian with clearly anti-satanic/masonic views that he has expressed openly, then there is clearly double reason and real risk of masnic fraud against him, sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
5. The same parliamentary enquiry confirmed that up to 10% of the judges are freemasons.
6. Please find attached the Home Secretary’s statement showing clear concern about judicial fraud by the freemasons. He stated:
"Membership of secret societies such as freemasonry can raise suspicions of a lack of impartiality or objectivity. It is therefore important the public know the facts."
"I think it is widely accepted that one secret they should not be keeping is who their members are in the criminal justice system."
Last year's Home Affairs Committee report into "Freemasons in the Police and the Judiciary" found widespread suspicion about masonic links. It recommended judges and police officers be forced to declare masonic membership……
7. The Police has repeatedly acted as the masonic police and on behalf of the freemasons, kidnapped Dr. Ovadje (falsely arrested) and unlawfully imprisoned him without charging him to court. The CPS then changed its fraudulent tactics and started malicious willingly prosecutions against Dr. Ovadje behalf of the freemasons, in a mafia-like bid to intimidate him and force him to withdraw this case or divert his attention from this case. See attached letter.
8. The Cabinet Secretary has against the law including the Freedom of Information Act 2000, refused to disclose the members of the cabinet including the defendants (Attorney General) who are freemasons or related to any secret cult.
9. Whereas the defendants stated in Crown Prosecution Service (DPP) Statement of Case, paragraph 6: The Crown Prosecutor reviewed the evidence on 20 May 2005 and advised the investigating officer that there was no realistic propect of conviction due to the conflicting nature of the evidence and the fact that the witnesses and medical evidence appeared to support Ms. Draper’s account of what took place rather than the Claimant’s. Contrary to the law including CPR 31 which states that a party may inspect a document mentioned in a statement of case, the defendants have (in judicial fraud) refused to obey the law and allow Dr. Ovadje to inspect any documents mentioned including the fictitious witnesses and medical evidence. See Dowsett v U.K. (2004) 38 EHRR 41.
10. Please find attached evidence of masonic fraud even in the Royal Court of Justice, Strand and in Redbridge Library in favour of the Attorney General, that I already submiitted to the court since January 2006.
As evidence, a court official at the Royal court of Justice Strand clearly stated you cannot sue the Attorney General whilst performing masonic acts and physically preventing Dr. Ovadje from filing this application for judicial review.
Dr. Ovadje clearly stated his application to the court for disclosure (since the defendants have fraudulently and corruptly refused to disclose these documents) be determined without a hearing. When he went to submit the ‘minor’ application forms at the court office, the same court officer (that in January 2006 engaged in masonic practices at the Royal Court of Justice including stating you cannot sue the Attorney General); quickly read this application for disclosure to be determined without a hearing, then stated he would list it for hearing even against the law and Dr. Ovadje’s written legal wishes.
Clearly Dr. Ovadje is aware of the satanic masonic plan to repeat judicial fraud even at an oral hearing. He is not an orator and has nothing whatsoever to add at any hearing hence he legally opted for his application to be determmined without a hearing as backed by law, the form and case precedent.
11. Moreover, Dr. Ovadje has been a victim of severe masonic judicial fraud including a judge who (had earlier refused a transcript of the proceedings) told a defendant to serve Dr. Ovadje with court papers during an oral hearing and gave Dr. Ovadje ten minutes to read the submission and answer legal questions, a feat worthy of Idi-Amin’s Uganda. The same judge falsely claimed in his judgment ‘after hearing the claimant….' without giving legal reasons for his decision.
See Dr. Ovadje’s letter of complaint of judicial fraud (under threat of the freemasons) reported to the Lord Chief Justice that supported with an affidavit. Dr. Ovadje has already informed the Lord Chief Jusice to prosecute him for perjury if any of his allegations in his affidavit are false.
It is now clear that attendance at oral hearing is now an excuse for racist and masonic judicial fraud against Dr. Ovadje that can be sumarised as ‘after hearing the him’ without allowing him to speak or addressing the legal issues or giving legal reasons.
12. Dr. Ovadje ticked the box for his application to be determined without a hearing. He stated that he had nothing to add to his case other than his written submissions and stated that the court that in the interest of Human Rights Act 1998 including fair trial, access to justice and remedy, should determine his application based on his written submission.
Most importantly, Dr. Ovadje opted (as is his legal right) for his applications as detailed in Form N244 to be determined without a hearing and hereby waived his right to be present at a hearing,. He did not need to but gave reasons and cases precedents:
(1)Potrimol v France A277-A (1993) 18 EHRR 130 ECtHR para 31; CPR; Human Rights Act 1998.
(2)In any case, in civil cases presence at oral hearing is only fundamental in cases that involve personal conduct, personal character or manner of life, clearly not issues in this case. See Muyldermans v Belgium (1991) 15 EHRR 204, ECtHR para 64; Application 434/58 X v Sweden 2 YB 354, at 372, EcomHR.
(3)In any case, the civil hearing may proceed without a party in the interest of administration of justice.Colozza v Italy (1985) 7 EHRR 516 ECtHR; Baada and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany 14 DR 64 (1978) EComHR.
13. Clearly there was no reason for the same court official that had stated you cannot sue the Attorney General to quickly read Dr. Ovadje's typed submissions and then list his minor applications for hearing whereas Dr. Ovadje had clearly opted for his applications to be determined without a hearing as within his legal right and in his Application Form N244.
Dr. Ovadje hereby states that this is unlawful and corrupt actions of the court and hereby requests that you investigate this matter and correct the unlawful anomalies.
The court (including court officers who are not judges) must be independent and impartial, see Findlay v U.K. (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 221 para 73; not only in their appointment but the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the appearance of of independence, see Campbell and Fell v U.K. (1984) 7 EHRR 165 para 78 and Bryan v U.K. (1995) 21 EHRR 342 para 37.
Dr. Ovadje pleads that the circumstances and evidence show evidence of bias and/or risk of actual bias, Piersack v Belgium (1982) 5 EHRR 169 para 130, Bulut v Austria (1996) 24 EHRR 74 para 31 since his case is against freemasonic corruption.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that an appearance of independence and impartiality is important and affects the confidence which the courts must inspire in a democratic society, see Fey v Austria (1993) 16 EHRR 387 para 30; Findlay v U.K. (1997) 24 EHRR 221 para 76. He pleads that there is a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of the courts (including court oofficials) in the U.K., relating to freemasonry and the Ovadje family and that the facts are ascertainable and hence the doubt is justified, even in evidence attached, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 48.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that any judge or court official related to or threatened by freemasonry (the U.K. version of the mafia) should and must withdraw from this case. Legally, where there is a doubt about the impartiality of a judge or court officer, he must withdraw from the case, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 46 & 48; Castillo Agar v Spain (2000) 30 EHRR 827; Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No. 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700; Locobail (U.K.) Ltd. v Bayfield Properties 1 All ER 65, CA. Even ‘appearances’ of impartiality (including freemasonic membership in this case), is important and sufficient to prevent a judge or court officer handling this case, see Sramek v Austria (1985) 7 EHRR 351 para 42.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that any fair minded and informed observer, having seen the facts even as stated above and the evidence of freemasonic penetration and intimidation of the judiciary would conclude that there was a real possibility that the court and officials would be biased unless the court expressly confirms in writing that the judge and court officers handling this case are not related to or intimidated by the freemasons; this is against the equality of arms: see Delcourtv Belgium (1970) 1 EHRR 355 para 28.
Even after that, the court would determine his ‘minor’ applications without a hearing as backed by law, form N244, case precedent and usual practice and in order for justice to prevail. Moreover, Dr. Ovadje has stated he has nothing to add to his written statements.
Independence requires that the court (including court officers) be free from outside instructions and/or pressure including parties to the case (including freemasonry), see Demicoli v Malta (1991) 14 EHRR 47; McGonnell v U.K. (2000) 30 EHRR 289. Dr. Ovadje has already shown that the Court Officer hadling his case against the Attorney General openly engaged in masonic practices and stated you cannot sue the Attorney General.
Where a judge or court officer is in a subordinate position to one of the parties (e.g. the court officer clearly stated you cannot sue the Attorney General) or is (e.g.) a freemason along with the Attorney General and subject to the dictates of the freemasons (that includes protecting one another), Dr. Ovadje is legally entitled to entertain legitimate doubt. See Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351. In any case, Dr. Ovadje’s applications should and must be legally dealt with without a hearing as in the law, on the form, in case precedent and the norm.
14. I believe there is a satanic plan to flood me with judicial fraud in order to overwhelm me so that I will give up, even as the Bible states Like death, the wicked are never satisfied. I trust in the Word of God that states in Isaiah 54: Behold they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. No weapon that is fashioned against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement, thou shalt condemn.
I have sent this letter to your offices both at http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/the Royal court of Justice Strand and your office at the Office of Judicial Complaints. and copies to interested international persons and bodies.
Finally and most importantly, the Bible states in Deutoronomy: And I charged your judges at that time, saying, hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God’s. You can see that any fraud is againt God.
I have already asserted that if my allegations are false, you should please prosecute me for perjury. Please investigate my complaint.
Statement of truth
I hereby declare that the statements I have made in this notice and all its contents are true and I understand that it may be placed before the court.
Signed date: 25/09/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje
21 September 2006
Lord Phillips
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Royal Court of Justice at the Strand, London WC2A 2LL & Chair: Office of Judicial Complaints, 4th Floor, Petty France, London SW1H 9HD
Dear Sir: Application for Judicial Review; Royal Court of Justice, Strand: Case no: CO/765/06: Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje v Attorney General of the United Kingdom and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Complaint of unlawful listing of ‘minor’ applications for oral hearing
1. Within my ‘major’ Application for Judicial Review, the court officer has unlawfully listed for Oral Hearing my ‘minor’ applications including for:
(1)Application for Renewal of Judicial Review dated 08 June 2006 (against the proceedings rules of the court attached, the court unlawfully did not give me time to file my skeletal arguments and made a judgement on my case without my skeletal arguments).
(2) Application dated 29 June 2006 for disclosure by the Metropolitan Police all documents relating to the matter of Ms. Sarah Draper and Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje:
(3) Application dated 08 June 2006 that the defendants dosclose all materials related to this case.
2. In accordance with the law including Human Rights Act 1998 (including access to justice, fair hearing, remedy etc.) and other relevant Acts of Parliament, I , Dr. Ovadje hereby make this complaint. I have already requested that the court confirm in writing that the judge and court officials handling this case are not members of, or related in any way to, or threatened by the freemasons or indeed any other secret cult.
3. Dr. Ovadje makes this complaint knowing that the basis of this case is freemasonry and its satanic mafia-like evil, including the masonic use and/or intimidation of officials in every institution in the United Kingdom, including regretably, the judiciary and office of the Prime Minister.
The basis of this case is that the freemasons (in collusion with the Metropolitan Police) sponsored Ms. Draper who repeatedly poisoned Dr. Ovadje in February 2005 and then on 23 April 2005 battered him and tried to kill him with a six-inch blade knife pressed against the carotid artery of his neck. The Attorney General and CPS fraudulently acted as to pervert justice and then refused to prosecute her.
As evidence of this fraud, the CPS and Attorney General conspired to concoct a secret and fictitious Ms. Draper and witnesses version of events. Till date they have acted as to pervert justice and have refused to disclose these versions of events. Ms. Draper’s husband had earlier boasted even if you report the matter to the police, nothing would happen.
Whereas the CPS and Attorney General stated that the witnesses statements supported Ms Draper’s version of events, only last July, one of the witnesses, Mrs. Virk confirmed to Dr. Ovadje that the police never interviewed their family all of whom were key witnesses on the night of 23 April 2005. This confirms the concoction by the CPS and A.G.
On 08/07/06, the CPS on behalf of the freemasons conducted an unlawful and malicious prosecution against Dr. Ovadje, for peacefully holding a placard that stated the truth: the freemasons murdered his brother Ejoke Ovadje ( a solicitor) in Nigeria. Ejoke refused to be a freemason despite the inducement of winning cases before he gets to court, i.e. perversion of justice. Clearly perversion of justice goes hand in hand with freemasonry. See attached letter to the CPS.
4. I have already submitted to your goodself, the parliamentary enquiry that confirmed that 48% of the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers (i.e. the defendants) are freemasons. Dr. Ovadje’s estimate is 90% (because the God is Eternal, it can never be 100%, Alleluia).
Please find attached, a report showing that the Crown Prosecution Service (i.e. the defendants) is rife with racism even against its own staff i.e. lawyers (some of whom are freemasons). Clearly if the CPS is institutionally racist, riddled with freemasonry and clearly not fit for purpose; whereas Dr. Ovadje is black and a born-again Christian with clearly anti-satanic/masonic views that he has expressed openly, then there is clearly double reason and real risk of masnic fraud against him, sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
5. The same parliamentary enquiry confirmed that up to 10% of the judges are freemasons.
6. Please find attached the Home Secretary’s statement showing clear concern about judicial fraud by the freemasons. He stated:
"Membership of secret societies such as freemasonry can raise suspicions of a lack of impartiality or objectivity. It is therefore important the public know the facts."
"I think it is widely accepted that one secret they should not be keeping is who their members are in the criminal justice system."
Last year's Home Affairs Committee report into "Freemasons in the Police and the Judiciary" found widespread suspicion about masonic links. It recommended judges and police officers be forced to declare masonic membership……
7. The Police has repeatedly acted as the masonic police and on behalf of the freemasons, kidnapped Dr. Ovadje (falsely arrested) and unlawfully imprisoned him without charging him to court. The CPS then changed its fraudulent tactics and started malicious willingly prosecutions against Dr. Ovadje behalf of the freemasons, in a mafia-like bid to intimidate him and force him to withdraw this case or divert his attention from this case. See attached letter.
8. The Cabinet Secretary has against the law including the Freedom of Information Act 2000, refused to disclose the members of the cabinet including the defendants (Attorney General) who are freemasons or related to any secret cult.
9. Whereas the defendants stated in Crown Prosecution Service (DPP) Statement of Case, paragraph 6: The Crown Prosecutor reviewed the evidence on 20 May 2005 and advised the investigating officer that there was no realistic propect of conviction due to the conflicting nature of the evidence and the fact that the witnesses and medical evidence appeared to support Ms. Draper’s account of what took place rather than the Claimant’s. Contrary to the law including CPR 31 which states that a party may inspect a document mentioned in a statement of case, the defendants have (in judicial fraud) refused to obey the law and allow Dr. Ovadje to inspect any documents mentioned including the fictitious witnesses and medical evidence. See Dowsett v U.K. (2004) 38 EHRR 41.
10. Please find attached evidence of masonic fraud even in the Royal Court of Justice, Strand and in Redbridge Library in favour of the Attorney General, that I already submiitted to the court since January 2006.
As evidence, a court official at the Royal court of Justice Strand clearly stated you cannot sue the Attorney General whilst performing masonic acts and physically preventing Dr. Ovadje from filing this application for judicial review.
Dr. Ovadje clearly stated his application to the court for disclosure (since the defendants have fraudulently and corruptly refused to disclose these documents) be determined without a hearing. When he went to submit the ‘minor’ application forms at the court office, the same court officer (that in January 2006 engaged in masonic practices at the Royal Court of Justice including stating you cannot sue the Attorney General); quickly read this application for disclosure to be determined without a hearing, then stated he would list it for hearing even against the law and Dr. Ovadje’s written legal wishes.
Clearly Dr. Ovadje is aware of the satanic masonic plan to repeat judicial fraud even at an oral hearing. He is not an orator and has nothing whatsoever to add at any hearing hence he legally opted for his application to be determmined without a hearing as backed by law, the form and case precedent.
11. Moreover, Dr. Ovadje has been a victim of severe masonic judicial fraud including a judge who (had earlier refused a transcript of the proceedings) told a defendant to serve Dr. Ovadje with court papers during an oral hearing and gave Dr. Ovadje ten minutes to read the submission and answer legal questions, a feat worthy of Idi-Amin’s Uganda. The same judge falsely claimed in his judgment ‘after hearing the claimant….' without giving legal reasons for his decision.
See Dr. Ovadje’s letter of complaint of judicial fraud (under threat of the freemasons) reported to the Lord Chief Justice that supported with an affidavit. Dr. Ovadje has already informed the Lord Chief Jusice to prosecute him for perjury if any of his allegations in his affidavit are false.
It is now clear that attendance at oral hearing is now an excuse for racist and masonic judicial fraud against Dr. Ovadje that can be sumarised as ‘after hearing the him’ without allowing him to speak or addressing the legal issues or giving legal reasons.
12. Dr. Ovadje ticked the box for his application to be determined without a hearing. He stated that he had nothing to add to his case other than his written submissions and stated that the court that in the interest of Human Rights Act 1998 including fair trial, access to justice and remedy, should determine his application based on his written submission.
Most importantly, Dr. Ovadje opted (as is his legal right) for his applications as detailed in Form N244 to be determined without a hearing and hereby waived his right to be present at a hearing,. He did not need to but gave reasons and cases precedents:
(1)Potrimol v France A277-A (1993) 18 EHRR 130 ECtHR para 31; CPR; Human Rights Act 1998.
(2)In any case, in civil cases presence at oral hearing is only fundamental in cases that involve personal conduct, personal character or manner of life, clearly not issues in this case. See Muyldermans v Belgium (1991) 15 EHRR 204, ECtHR para 64; Application 434/58 X v Sweden 2 YB 354, at 372, EcomHR.
(3)In any case, the civil hearing may proceed without a party in the interest of administration of justice.Colozza v Italy (1985) 7 EHRR 516 ECtHR; Baada and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany 14 DR 64 (1978) EComHR.
13. Clearly there was no reason for the same court official that had stated you cannot sue the Attorney General to quickly read Dr. Ovadje's typed submissions and then list his minor applications for hearing whereas Dr. Ovadje had clearly opted for his applications to be determined without a hearing as within his legal right and in his Application Form N244.
Dr. Ovadje hereby states that this is unlawful and corrupt actions of the court and hereby requests that you investigate this matter and correct the unlawful anomalies.
The court (including court officers who are not judges) must be independent and impartial, see Findlay v U.K. (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 221 para 73; not only in their appointment but the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the appearance of of independence, see Campbell and Fell v U.K. (1984) 7 EHRR 165 para 78 and Bryan v U.K. (1995) 21 EHRR 342 para 37.
Dr. Ovadje pleads that the circumstances and evidence show evidence of bias and/or risk of actual bias, Piersack v Belgium (1982) 5 EHRR 169 para 130, Bulut v Austria (1996) 24 EHRR 74 para 31 since his case is against freemasonic corruption.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that an appearance of independence and impartiality is important and affects the confidence which the courts must inspire in a democratic society, see Fey v Austria (1993) 16 EHRR 387 para 30; Findlay v U.K. (1997) 24 EHRR 221 para 76. He pleads that there is a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of the courts (including court oofficials) in the U.K., relating to freemasonry and the Ovadje family and that the facts are ascertainable and hence the doubt is justified, even in evidence attached, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 48.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that any judge or court official related to or threatened by freemasonry (the U.K. version of the mafia) should and must withdraw from this case. Legally, where there is a doubt about the impartiality of a judge or court officer, he must withdraw from the case, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 46 & 48; Castillo Agar v Spain (2000) 30 EHRR 827; Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No. 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700; Locobail (U.K.) Ltd. v Bayfield Properties 1 All ER 65, CA. Even ‘appearances’ of impartiality (including freemasonic membership in this case), is important and sufficient to prevent a judge or court officer handling this case, see Sramek v Austria (1985) 7 EHRR 351 para 42.
Dr. Ovadje asserts that any fair minded and informed observer, having seen the facts even as stated above and the evidence of freemasonic penetration and intimidation of the judiciary would conclude that there was a real possibility that the court and officials would be biased unless the court expressly confirms in writing that the judge and court officers handling this case are not related to or intimidated by the freemasons; this is against the equality of arms: see Delcourtv Belgium (1970) 1 EHRR 355 para 28.
Even after that, the court would determine his ‘minor’ applications without a hearing as backed by law, form N244, case precedent and usual practice and in order for justice to prevail. Moreover, Dr. Ovadje has stated he has nothing to add to his written statements.
Independence requires that the court (including court officers) be free from outside instructions and/or pressure including parties to the case (including freemasonry), see Demicoli v Malta (1991) 14 EHRR 47; McGonnell v U.K. (2000) 30 EHRR 289. Dr. Ovadje has already shown that the Court Officer hadling his case against the Attorney General openly engaged in masonic practices and stated you cannot sue the Attorney General.
Where a judge or court officer is in a subordinate position to one of the parties (e.g. the court officer clearly stated you cannot sue the Attorney General) or is (e.g.) a freemason along with the Attorney General and subject to the dictates of the freemasons (that includes protecting one another), Dr. Ovadje is legally entitled to entertain legitimate doubt. See Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351. In any case, Dr. Ovadje’s applications should and must be legally dealt with without a hearing as in the law, on the form, in case precedent and the norm.
14. I believe there is a satanic plan to flood me with judicial fraud in order to overwhelm me so that I will give up, even as the Bible states Like death, the wicked are never satisfied. I trust in the Word of God that states in Isaiah 54: Behold they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. No weapon that is fashioned against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement, thou shalt condemn.
I have sent this letter to your offices both at http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/the Royal court of Justice Strand and your office at the Office of Judicial Complaints. and copies to interested international persons and bodies.
Finally and most importantly, the Bible states in Deutoronomy: And I charged your judges at that time, saying, hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God’s. You can see that any fraud is againt God.
I have already asserted that if my allegations are false, you should please prosecute me for perjury. Please investigate my complaint.
Statement of truth
I hereby declare that the statements I have made in this notice and all its contents are true and I understand that it may be placed before the court.
Signed date: 25/09/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
posted by jato | 2:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home