Request for disclosure whether magistrate and court officials are freemasons
J. A. T. Ovvdje
Notice to court
31 August 2006
R (British Transport Police(on behalf of freemasons)) v Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje: Magistrate Court Horseferry Road. 17/08/06 at 10:00 hours.
Notice of request for disclosure by the court whether the judge (or Magistrate) 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 (or Magistrate) 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. C.P.S., the prosecutors) 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 masonic fraud against him, sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
4. 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 against the Attorney General and C.P.S.). The basis of that 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 refused to prosecute her.
Whereas the CPS and Attorney General stated that the witnesses statements supported Ms Draper’s version of events, only last month, 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. 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.
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. The British Transport Police had tried to poison Dr. Ovadje with anti-freeze whilst in unlawful custody.
5. The same 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%.
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 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.
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. 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 submitted to the court since January 2006..
10. 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.
11. At the last hearing, the Magistrate repeatedly attempted to bully Dr. Ovadje and refused him to speak, threatening him with imprisonment for contempt of court. As a Christian who knows that all power belongs to God, Dr. Ovadje refused to be intimidated. Consequently he kept repeating ‘the C.P.S. have not served me with any documents or evidence’. Only when he finally listened did the judge confirm this basic fact and consequently, he adjourned proceedings so that Dr. Ovadje could be served. He was initially about to proceed with the case without first checking whether evidence has been served! Additionally, he unlawfully RULED that Dr. Ovadje CANNOT HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS; Dr. Ovadje had argued that as a medical doctor not versed in the law, he needs it.
12. After the hearing, Dr. Ovadje asked the court officer about the witnesses he would call to take the stand. She ‘RULED’ (even though the court was not in session) that Dr. Ovadje will NOT cross examine the Custody Officer or the Senior British Transport Police Officer.
13. 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 handling this case openly engaged in judicial fraud, even in dictating who could be a witness.
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 Corwn Prosecution Service and Police 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.
14. 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.
The CPS and freemasonry want to use this bogus prosecution to distract Dr. Ovadje from the real case against the CPS, the collusion with Ms. Draper to poison and attempt to kill Dr. Ovadje. If the court refuses to confirm whether the judge and court officials are fremasons, the court might as well pass a sentence even without a hearing and save the U.K. Treasury the expense of pre-determined trial.
15. 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: 3108/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
Notice to court
31 August 2006
R (British Transport Police(on behalf of freemasons)) v Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje: Magistrate Court Horseferry Road. 17/08/06 at 10:00 hours.
Notice of request for disclosure by the court whether the judge (or Magistrate) 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 (or Magistrate) 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. C.P.S., the prosecutors) 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 masonic fraud against him, sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
4. 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 against the Attorney General and C.P.S.). The basis of that 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 refused to prosecute her.
Whereas the CPS and Attorney General stated that the witnesses statements supported Ms Draper’s version of events, only last month, 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. 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.
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. The British Transport Police had tried to poison Dr. Ovadje with anti-freeze whilst in unlawful custody.
5. The same 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%.
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 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.
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. 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 submitted to the court since January 2006..
10. 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.
11. At the last hearing, the Magistrate repeatedly attempted to bully Dr. Ovadje and refused him to speak, threatening him with imprisonment for contempt of court. As a Christian who knows that all power belongs to God, Dr. Ovadje refused to be intimidated. Consequently he kept repeating ‘the C.P.S. have not served me with any documents or evidence’. Only when he finally listened did the judge confirm this basic fact and consequently, he adjourned proceedings so that Dr. Ovadje could be served. He was initially about to proceed with the case without first checking whether evidence has been served! Additionally, he unlawfully RULED that Dr. Ovadje CANNOT HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS; Dr. Ovadje had argued that as a medical doctor not versed in the law, he needs it.
12. After the hearing, Dr. Ovadje asked the court officer about the witnesses he would call to take the stand. She ‘RULED’ (even though the court was not in session) that Dr. Ovadje will NOT cross examine the Custody Officer or the Senior British Transport Police Officer.
13. 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 handling this case openly engaged in judicial fraud, even in dictating who could be a witness.
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 Corwn Prosecution Service and Police 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.
14. 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.
The CPS and freemasonry want to use this bogus prosecution to distract Dr. Ovadje from the real case against the CPS, the collusion with Ms. Draper to poison and attempt to kill Dr. Ovadje. If the court refuses to confirm whether the judge and court officials are fremasons, the court might as well pass a sentence even without a hearing and save the U.K. Treasury the expense of pre-determined trial.
15. 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: 3108/06
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
posted by jato | 2:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home