Letter to Lord Chief Justice 16/10/06: judicial fraud
Dr. J. A. T. Ovadje
16 October 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.
Unlawful listing of ‘minor’ applications for oral hearing; the court should confirm that the judge and court officers are not freemasons or threatened by them.
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 stated this to you but I am yet to hear from you till date: 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. I make these statements 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 and Attorney General.
The basis of this case is that the freemasons (in collusion with the Metropolitan Police) sponsored Ms. Draper who repeatedly poisoned me in February 2005; and then on 23 April 2005 battered and tried to killme with a six-inch blade knife pressed against the carotid artery of my 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, on 24 July 2006, one of the witnesses, Mrs. Virk confirmed to me that the police never interviewed their family all of whom were key witnesses on the night of 23 April 2005. Mrs. Virk and her son saw Ms. Draper puinch me in the eye (I saw stars) whilst calling me a black cunt. Mr. Virk fixed the dorr to my room that Ms. Draper tore of the hinges. 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 me, for peacefully holding a placard that stated the truth: the freemasons (and its offshoot the pyrates) murdered my 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. The Police on behalf of freemasonry falsely imprisoned me for an alleged crime with a maximum penalty of only a fine and then attempted to poison me with glycol a constituent of anti-freze. 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), 10% of judges and 20% of magistrates are freemasons. Because the God is Eternal, it can never be 100%, Alleluia.
(1) 48% of the lawyers in the lawyers Crown Prosecution Service are freemasons; see: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/467/46703.htm)
(2) 10% of judges and 20% magistrates are freemasons (generally accepted a gross understatement); see: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/467/46703.htm.
(3) Home Secretary Jack Straw stated that new judges should declare membership of freemasonry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/57381.stm
(4) The police is overwhelmed by freemasonry.
These figures are clearly incompatible with the rule of law and analogous to the fascist communist party of Stalin’s Russia: you can only win if you belong.
I have already sent to you, 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): see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/557543.stm.
Clearly if the CPS is institutionally racist, riddled with freemasonry and clearly not fit for purpose; whereas I am black and a born-again Christian with clearly anti-satanic/masonic views that I have expressed openly, then there is clearly double reason and real risk of masonic fraud against me sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
Please note: 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.
5. I have already sent to you, 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……
It is clear that freemasonry is against the rule of law: that justice must be done and seen to be done.
6. 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 me to inspect any documents mentioned including the fictitious witnesses and medical evidence. See Dowsett v U.K. (2004) 38 EHRR 41.
7. I have already sent to you evidence of masonic fraud even in the Royal Court of Justice, Strand where a clerk in charge of this case openly stated you cannot sue the Atorney General whilst performing masonic acts and physically preventing me from filing this application for judicial review. On that day, I knew the rule of law is not yet in the U.K. But God is alive and has changed the U.K. from the ‘Isle of Dogs’ to the ‘Isle of God’s’.
I already submiitted to evidence that the book (authority of human rights, costing £300+) that I was using for my case preparation suddenly disappeared in Redbridge Library. The Library staff (in favour of the Attorney General) refused to inform the police confirming that they were party to the disappearance.
If these masonic activities are not mafiosi, I do not know what is.
8. I stated that my ‘minor’ applications to the court be determined without a hearing. When I 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 the applications to be determined without a hearing, then stated he would list it for hearing even against the law and my written legal wishes.
Clearly I am aware of the satanic masonic plan to repeat judicial fraud even at an oral hearing. I am not an orator and has nothing whatsoever to add at any hearing hence I legally opted for my application to be determmined without a hearing as backed by law, the form and case precedent. Here are some case precedents for your attention:
‘I have (as is my legal right) has opted for my applications as detailed in Form N244, to be determined without a hearing (see Form N244) and hereby waive my right to be present at a hearing, see Potrimol v France A277-A (1993) 18 EHRR 130 ECtHR para 31; CPR; Human Rights Act 1998.
In any case, in civil cases, presence at an oral hearing is only fundamental in cases that involve personal conduct, personal character or manner of life, clearly not issues in my applications. See Muyldermans v Belgium (1991) 15 EHRR 204, ECtHR para 64; Application 434/58 X v Sweden 2 YB 354, at 372, EComHR.
I have always pleaded the message and not the medium even in the courts overiding objective to provide justice and save costs, see CPR 1. Moreover, I am not a lawyer or orator, I have not one word to add to his written submissions and bundle to the court.
Legally, a civil hearing may proceed without a party in the interest of administration of justice: as in this case where I am not a lawyer and he can only answer after patient detailed research as in his written submissions. Furthermore, the absence of an oral hearing will eliminate any possible bias against me since I am not well versed in legalese, court room drama and presentation. See Colozza v Italy (1985) 7 EHRR 516 ECtHR; Baada and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany 14 DR 64 (1978) EComHR. It is a man’s right to let his case fail on its merit. I have opted to exercise that right.
11. Moreover, I have been a victim of severe masonic judicial fraud (that you refused to investigate) including a judge who (had earlier refused a transcript of the proceedings) told a defendant to serve me with court papers during an oral hearing and gave me ten minutes to read the submission and answer legal questions, a feat worthy of Stalin’s facsist Russia. The same judge falsely claimed in his judgment ‘after hearing the claimant…. gave a judgement without giving legal reasons for his decision. It is now clear that oral hearing is now an excuse for racist and masonic judicial fraud against me that can be sumarised as ‘after hearing the Claimant’ without allowing one to speak or addressing the legal issues or giving legal reasons.
I supported my letter of complaint of judicial fraud to you (the Lord Chief Justice) supported with an affidavit. I requested that you prosecute me for perjury if any of his allegations my affidavit are false. Unfortunately you have refused to invetsigate my complaint and have refused to arrange for my prosecution.
12. I believe that all these acts (including for my applications to be determined without a hearing) are against natural justice and the Human Rights Act 1998 including fair trial, access to justice and remedy.
13. Once again, I hereby plead that you investigate these unlawful and corrupt actions of the court 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.
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 this case is against freemasonic corruption.
I hereby assert 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. In these instances, there is a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of the courts (including court officials) in the U.K., relating to freemasonry and the Ovadje family: the facts are ascertainable and hence the doubt is justified, even in evidence already sent to you, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 46-48.
I hereby plead again, that you ensure 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 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.
14. I hereby plead 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.
15. 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. I have 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.
16. 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 perhaps a freemason along with the Attorney General, and subject to the dictates of the freemasons (that includes protecting one another), I am legally entitled to entertain legitimate doubt. See Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351.
17. Despite my applications to the court (months ago) opting for written determination, the court has corruptly refused to reply. It is a case of does the court obey the law or is the court engaing in masonic fraud?
Freemasonic judicial fraud on behalf of the freemasons, headed by a Prince, Prince Edward is nothing new even as the Bible states in Micah 7:3: That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his miscievious desire: so thay wrap it up.
18. I have sent this letter to your offices both at 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:
Isaiah 59:14-15: And judgement is turned away backwards and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen on the street and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: And the Lord saw it and it displeased Him that there was no judgement.
Deutoronomy 1:16: 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.
19. As I have already asserted before, if my allegations are false, please prosecute me for perjury. But kindly investigate my complaint.
Once again, I plead that you ensure that the court should determine my ‘minor’ applications without a hearing as backed by law, form N244, case precedent and usual practice and in order for justice to prevail. Months ago, I applied and stated that I have nothing more to add to my written statements. I have not heard anything from the court till date.
Whatever happens, I trust in the Lord as the Bible states: The Lord executeth righteouness to the poor and justice to the oppressed.
I hope to hear from you soon, before the court’s corruptly ‘listed’ date of hearing i.e. 9 November 2006.
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: 16/10/06
J. A. T. Ovadje (Dr.)
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
16 October 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.
Unlawful listing of ‘minor’ applications for oral hearing; the court should confirm that the judge and court officers are not freemasons or threatened by them.
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 stated this to you but I am yet to hear from you till date: 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. I make these statements 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 and Attorney General.
The basis of this case is that the freemasons (in collusion with the Metropolitan Police) sponsored Ms. Draper who repeatedly poisoned me in February 2005; and then on 23 April 2005 battered and tried to killme with a six-inch blade knife pressed against the carotid artery of my 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, on 24 July 2006, one of the witnesses, Mrs. Virk confirmed to me that the police never interviewed their family all of whom were key witnesses on the night of 23 April 2005. Mrs. Virk and her son saw Ms. Draper puinch me in the eye (I saw stars) whilst calling me a black cunt. Mr. Virk fixed the dorr to my room that Ms. Draper tore of the hinges. 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 me, for peacefully holding a placard that stated the truth: the freemasons (and its offshoot the pyrates) murdered my 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. The Police on behalf of freemasonry falsely imprisoned me for an alleged crime with a maximum penalty of only a fine and then attempted to poison me with glycol a constituent of anti-freze. 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), 10% of judges and 20% of magistrates are freemasons. Because the God is Eternal, it can never be 100%, Alleluia.
(1) 48% of the lawyers in the lawyers Crown Prosecution Service are freemasons; see: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/467/46703.htm)
(2) 10% of judges and 20% magistrates are freemasons (generally accepted a gross understatement); see: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/467/46703.htm.
(3) Home Secretary Jack Straw stated that new judges should declare membership of freemasonry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/57381.stm
(4) The police is overwhelmed by freemasonry.
These figures are clearly incompatible with the rule of law and analogous to the fascist communist party of Stalin’s Russia: you can only win if you belong.
I have already sent to you, 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): see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/557543.stm.
Clearly if the CPS is institutionally racist, riddled with freemasonry and clearly not fit for purpose; whereas I am black and a born-again Christian with clearly anti-satanic/masonic views that I have expressed openly, then there is clearly double reason and real risk of masonic fraud against me sponsored by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General.
Please note: 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.
5. I have already sent to you, 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……
It is clear that freemasonry is against the rule of law: that justice must be done and seen to be done.
6. 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 me to inspect any documents mentioned including the fictitious witnesses and medical evidence. See Dowsett v U.K. (2004) 38 EHRR 41.
7. I have already sent to you evidence of masonic fraud even in the Royal Court of Justice, Strand where a clerk in charge of this case openly stated you cannot sue the Atorney General whilst performing masonic acts and physically preventing me from filing this application for judicial review. On that day, I knew the rule of law is not yet in the U.K. But God is alive and has changed the U.K. from the ‘Isle of Dogs’ to the ‘Isle of God’s’.
I already submiitted to evidence that the book (authority of human rights, costing £300+) that I was using for my case preparation suddenly disappeared in Redbridge Library. The Library staff (in favour of the Attorney General) refused to inform the police confirming that they were party to the disappearance.
If these masonic activities are not mafiosi, I do not know what is.
8. I stated that my ‘minor’ applications to the court be determined without a hearing. When I 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 the applications to be determined without a hearing, then stated he would list it for hearing even against the law and my written legal wishes.
Clearly I am aware of the satanic masonic plan to repeat judicial fraud even at an oral hearing. I am not an orator and has nothing whatsoever to add at any hearing hence I legally opted for my application to be determmined without a hearing as backed by law, the form and case precedent. Here are some case precedents for your attention:
‘I have (as is my legal right) has opted for my applications as detailed in Form N244, to be determined without a hearing (see Form N244) and hereby waive my right to be present at a hearing, see Potrimol v France A277-A (1993) 18 EHRR 130 ECtHR para 31; CPR; Human Rights Act 1998.
In any case, in civil cases, presence at an oral hearing is only fundamental in cases that involve personal conduct, personal character or manner of life, clearly not issues in my applications. See Muyldermans v Belgium (1991) 15 EHRR 204, ECtHR para 64; Application 434/58 X v Sweden 2 YB 354, at 372, EComHR.
I have always pleaded the message and not the medium even in the courts overiding objective to provide justice and save costs, see CPR 1. Moreover, I am not a lawyer or orator, I have not one word to add to his written submissions and bundle to the court.
Legally, a civil hearing may proceed without a party in the interest of administration of justice: as in this case where I am not a lawyer and he can only answer after patient detailed research as in his written submissions. Furthermore, the absence of an oral hearing will eliminate any possible bias against me since I am not well versed in legalese, court room drama and presentation. See Colozza v Italy (1985) 7 EHRR 516 ECtHR; Baada and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany 14 DR 64 (1978) EComHR. It is a man’s right to let his case fail on its merit. I have opted to exercise that right.
11. Moreover, I have been a victim of severe masonic judicial fraud (that you refused to investigate) including a judge who (had earlier refused a transcript of the proceedings) told a defendant to serve me with court papers during an oral hearing and gave me ten minutes to read the submission and answer legal questions, a feat worthy of Stalin’s facsist Russia. The same judge falsely claimed in his judgment ‘after hearing the claimant…. gave a judgement without giving legal reasons for his decision. It is now clear that oral hearing is now an excuse for racist and masonic judicial fraud against me that can be sumarised as ‘after hearing the Claimant’ without allowing one to speak or addressing the legal issues or giving legal reasons.
I supported my letter of complaint of judicial fraud to you (the Lord Chief Justice) supported with an affidavit. I requested that you prosecute me for perjury if any of his allegations my affidavit are false. Unfortunately you have refused to invetsigate my complaint and have refused to arrange for my prosecution.
12. I believe that all these acts (including for my applications to be determined without a hearing) are against natural justice and the Human Rights Act 1998 including fair trial, access to justice and remedy.
13. Once again, I hereby plead that you investigate these unlawful and corrupt actions of the court 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.
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 this case is against freemasonic corruption.
I hereby assert 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. In these instances, there is a legitimate doubt as to the impartiality of the courts (including court officials) in the U.K., relating to freemasonry and the Ovadje family: the facts are ascertainable and hence the doubt is justified, even in evidence already sent to you, see Hauschild v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266 para 46-48.
I hereby plead again, that you ensure 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 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.
14. I hereby plead 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.
15. 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. I have 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.
16. 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 perhaps a freemason along with the Attorney General, and subject to the dictates of the freemasons (that includes protecting one another), I am legally entitled to entertain legitimate doubt. See Sramek v Austria (1984) 7 EHRR 351.
17. Despite my applications to the court (months ago) opting for written determination, the court has corruptly refused to reply. It is a case of does the court obey the law or is the court engaing in masonic fraud?
Freemasonic judicial fraud on behalf of the freemasons, headed by a Prince, Prince Edward is nothing new even as the Bible states in Micah 7:3: That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his miscievious desire: so thay wrap it up.
18. I have sent this letter to your offices both at 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:
Isaiah 59:14-15: And judgement is turned away backwards and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen on the street and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: And the Lord saw it and it displeased Him that there was no judgement.
Deutoronomy 1:16: 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.
19. As I have already asserted before, if my allegations are false, please prosecute me for perjury. But kindly investigate my complaint.
Once again, I plead that you ensure that the court should determine my ‘minor’ applications without a hearing as backed by law, form N244, case precedent and usual practice and in order for justice to prevail. Months ago, I applied and stated that I have nothing more to add to my written statements. I have not heard anything from the court till date.
Whatever happens, I trust in the Lord as the Bible states: The Lord executeth righteouness to the poor and justice to the oppressed.
I hope to hear from you soon, before the court’s corruptly ‘listed’ date of hearing i.e. 9 November 2006.
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: 16/10/06
J. A. T. Ovadje (Dr.)
126 Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4AE.
posted by jato | 9:34 AM
|
0 comments
