Request for disclosure whether the judge and court officers are freemasons
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.
Notice of request for disclosure by the court whether the judge and court officials are members of, or related in any way to, or threatened by the freemasons or indeed any other secret cult.
1. In accordance with the law including Human Rights Act 1998 (including access to justice, fair hearing, remedy etc.) and other relevant Acts of Parliament, Dr. Ovadje hereby request 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.
2. Dr. Ovadje makes this notice 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.
3. Please find attached 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 parliamentary enquiry confirmed that up to 10% of the judges are freemasons. Dr. Ovadje believes this is a gross underestimation and is more like 50%.
5. 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……
6. 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 has since 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.
7. 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.
8. 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..
9. See Dr. Ovadje’s letter of complaint of judicial fraud (under threat of the freemasons) reported to the Lord Chief Justice that he supported with an affidavit.
10. 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.
11. 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 application form (for disclosure) 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 expressed 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 and case precedent.
11. The court 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.
The independence of the court must be assessed on all the basis of facts that are publicly known (see R (Hussain) v Asylum Support Adjudicator [2001] EWHC 852. The judges must be free from influence and pressure including freemasonry, see Campbell and Fell v U.K. (1984) 7 EHRR 165 para 79.
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 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 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 was 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.
Independence requires that the court 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.
Whereas Dr. Ovadje has legally opted and specifically stated that his application be determined without a hearing, the same Court Officer after quickly reading his application has listed it for hearing thus making a mockery of the law and judicial process.
Where a judge or court officer is in a subordinate position to one of the parties (e.g. if the judge is 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. SSee Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351.
12. Accordingly, Dr. Ovadje pleads that the court should and must confirm that the judge and court officials handling this case are not members of, related to or threatened by the freemasons. See Incal v Turkey (1998) 29 EHRR 449 para 65.
13. 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.
A copy of this notice has been sent to various international persons, institutions world wide.
Attached to this notice:
1.Parliamentary Enquiry into freemasonry: Crown Prosecution Sersvice and judges
2. Home Secretary declaration re: freemasonry, judges and corruption
3. Crown Prosecution Service and racism
4. Cabinet secretary unlawfully refused to disclose members of cabinet including Attorney General who are freemasons.
5. Letter to Royal Court Strand detailing masonic judicial fraud in favour of the Attorney General.
6. Letter to Metropolitan Police Charring Cross detailing freemasonic unlawful arrest (kidnapping) and illegal detention and stealing of property.
7. Letter to Crown Prosecution Service 02/08/06 detailing unlawful arrest by the police, attempted poisoning with glycol (anti-freeze) and malicious prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service, all on behalf of freemasonry.
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: 30/08/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje v Attorney General of the United Kingdom and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Notice of request for disclosure by the court whether the judge and court officials are members of, or related in any way to, or threatened by the freemasons or indeed any other secret cult.
1. In accordance with the law including Human Rights Act 1998 (including access to justice, fair hearing, remedy etc.) and other relevant Acts of Parliament, Dr. Ovadje hereby request 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.
2. Dr. Ovadje makes this notice 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.
3. Please find attached 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 parliamentary enquiry confirmed that up to 10% of the judges are freemasons. Dr. Ovadje believes this is a gross underestimation and is more like 50%.
5. 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……
6. 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 has since 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.
7. 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.
8. 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..
9. See Dr. Ovadje’s letter of complaint of judicial fraud (under threat of the freemasons) reported to the Lord Chief Justice that he supported with an affidavit.
10. 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.
11. 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 application form (for disclosure) 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 expressed 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 and case precedent.
11. The court 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.
The independence of the court must be assessed on all the basis of facts that are publicly known (see R (Hussain) v Asylum Support Adjudicator [2001] EWHC 852. The judges must be free from influence and pressure including freemasonry, see Campbell and Fell v U.K. (1984) 7 EHRR 165 para 79.
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 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 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 was 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.
Independence requires that the court 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.
Whereas Dr. Ovadje has legally opted and specifically stated that his application be determined without a hearing, the same Court Officer after quickly reading his application has listed it for hearing thus making a mockery of the law and judicial process.
Where a judge or court officer is in a subordinate position to one of the parties (e.g. if the judge is 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. SSee Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351.
12. Accordingly, Dr. Ovadje pleads that the court should and must confirm that the judge and court officials handling this case are not members of, related to or threatened by the freemasons. See Incal v Turkey (1998) 29 EHRR 449 para 65.
13. 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.
A copy of this notice has been sent to various international persons, institutions world wide.
Attached to this notice:
1.Parliamentary Enquiry into freemasonry: Crown Prosecution Sersvice and judges
2. Home Secretary declaration re: freemasonry, judges and corruption
3. Crown Prosecution Service and racism
4. Cabinet secretary unlawfully refused to disclose members of cabinet including Attorney General who are freemasons.
5. Letter to Royal Court Strand detailing masonic judicial fraud in favour of the Attorney General.
6. Letter to Metropolitan Police Charring Cross detailing freemasonic unlawful arrest (kidnapping) and illegal detention and stealing of property.
7. Letter to Crown Prosecution Service 02/08/06 detailing unlawful arrest by the police, attempted poisoning with glycol (anti-freeze) and malicious prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service, all on behalf of freemasonry.
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: 30/08/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
posted by jato | 2:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home