|
UK Supreme Court Part Four
So far the argument that I have been advancing is that the creation of a Supreme Court in the UK would make no difference in so far as the administration of justice is concerned. I am saying that Justice will continue to miscarry and Judges will continue to put themselves above the law.
In this Part Four I set out further specific instances of wrongs built into the English legal system and while I am at it, I identify more Judges who knew or ought to have known that they were harming the inhabitants of the nation and who continued to dispense justice with their eyes shut and their minds closed to the requirements of justice notwithstanding the Judicial Oath that they took on appointment that “I SWEAR I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of a Justice of the Her Majesty’s High Court – and do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”
Expertise in smears
There is one thing above all other things that the English legal system is good at – it is good at splashing smears selectively, in line with a moral compass which the institutions functioning under the English legal system have developed
A newspaper proprietor can bring down a government or put up someone for occupancy of Number 10 Downing Street but if a mere mortal were to speak a word of truth about a reporter who publishes a defamatory statement, the Judges might even declare such a citizen a vexatious litigant.
Basically 99.999999999% of the laws of the land is for THEM and the rest point nought nought whatever is for the rest of us. To put this matter in context, here is a short passage from one of my manuscripts awaiting publication: The title is REASONS FOR MURDER:
“Just in case you are not aware, there are five oldest professions known to humankind: Theology, Philosophy, Anthropology Medicine, and Law.
"Theology is all about purpose-driven existence. It’s all about knowing that human beings play no part in their own creation. Philosophy, on the other hand is all about elevating the processes of the mind over matter.
"Medicine concern itself with human survival in its most rational form and of course, to get to know who we are as human beings, an understanding of Anthropology is all the more important. But when we start thinking about Law, well, that is something else.
"Does society need lawyers and their laws? Well, I don’t know the answer to this one and even if I do I do not intend to discuss the issue at this point of time. It cannot and should not be disputed though that, lawyers and their laws are causing the world so much heartache, so much headache, so much stomachache, so much earache, so much toothache, so much eye ache, and so much police ache, and when one sits back and considers these things, it is difficult to see what else humanity has left to loose which it has not already lost, at the hands of lawyers, their laws and their judges.
"Lawyers, laws, and judges are all about manipulation condemnation, aggravation, frustration, punishment, and doing things which, at the best of times, humanity finds repugnant and obscene.”
Why am I criticising the Judiciary?
A reason is as a result of the actions of others. In 1996 the Public Law Centre carried out a Survey of 175 County Court Centres in England and Wales. The findings were published on January 2 1997. The findings accused the judiciary of racism. We notified the “lord” chancellor of the day. On 7th February 1997 he wrote to us. In 1997 the “lord” chancellor of the day, Mackay acting severally and jointly with other judges, set the law in motion against the Public Law Centre and me. A high profile secret meeting took place in the HQ of Mackay on Wednesday 12 March 1997. That meeting was chaired by Stephen Wilcox.
On April 9 1997 a detective sergeant by the name of John Torpey appeared before a lay magistrate in Croydon. The magistrate was a female by the name of Vera Mead. She issued a Search Warrant in respect of THE PUBLIC LAW CENTRE, 74A HIGH STREET, SOUTH NORWOOD, LONDON SE25. The instructions contained in the Warrant were to seize “documents, belonging to persons who were deceived into parting with money for the services of a solicitor who did not have the qualifications to act as such”
On Wednesday 16 April 1997 John Torpey and a clerical officer working for the Charity Commission by the name of Emily Jenkerson together with a dozen or more police officers went to 25A HIGH STREET, LONDON SE25. Having badgered their way into the premises, John Torpey pinned me to the wall - he told me that “he was arresting me on suspicion of practising law as a “solicitor”.”
I asked him to show me the Warrant. At first he refused but eventually he showed it to me. I looked at it and I pointed out to him that his presence on the premises of the Public Law Centre was an unlawful raid; and that the Warrant was invalid because he should have executed it at 74A HIGH STREET, SOUTH NORWOOD. I also asked him to tell me where he got his information from that I was “practising law as a solicitor”.
The events that occurred after that exchange between John Torpey and me have been canvassed elsewhere. But in the mean time, the building was turned upside down. DS John Torpey and his colleagues took everything that they could find on the premises, including my brand new Renault Megane Reg. No. P637 UGJ.
At a later date DS Neil Smith took over that Renault Megane. He used it for his own benefit until around August 2005. He then sold it. The car was never returned to me and I have never received any compensation from the Metropolitan Police Service.
On 30 April 1997 I challenged the conduct of the police in the High Court. The matter went before Justice Poole.
Justice Poole dismissed the part of my complaint relating to the lay Magistrate. I did not accept the argument that a Mr. Crowther who represented the Magistrate put forward on that day, 30 April 1997 that the decision in O’Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237 was correct and I do not accept it today, 12 years later.
In any event Justice Poole said, at page 2 of his judgment –
“I add this. The plaintiff has today made numerous and particularised complaints to me about the conduct of the defendants and others on and about the date of the search and about the absence of any evidence or reasonable cause to justify his arrest, detention, the search of his premises or any of his premises, the retention of the documents and articles in question, or to justify any ongoing investigation. As to all of those matters I make no finding or comment”
That was the finale in respect of the police raid of the premises of the Public Law Centre on 16 April 1997. In 2007 the Metropolitan Police returned my law books. The car and some other items have not been returned.
Malice – a permanent feature of the English legal system
DS Neil Smith, the worst human rights abuser in the employment of the Metropolitan Police Service charged me with 24 “offences” but reduced to 19 following a preliminary hearing. Smith’s conduct was malicious, vexatious, scandalous, wanton, and oppressive.
A number of the charges that Neil Smith laid against me were that I wrote letters to some firms of solicitors saying that the Public Law Centre was acting on behalf of its members. Smith said that it was a criminal offender under the English law and Judge Bathurst-Norman believed him.
He also charged me with committing criminal offences when I wrote letters on behalf of members of the Public Law Centre to a Building Society, enclosing my own personal cheque for about seven thousand pounds, to help a family that faced eviction. How could it be a criminal offence to help a family with two small children, who were being thrown out of their house, because they fell into arrears?
Other criminal charges included assurances given to members of the Law Centre that I was going to help them, either to pay off their debt or that I have already helped some people who were in difficulties with their mortgage.
False allegations and Corruption
DS Neil Smith accused me of an “attempt” to obtain 10 million pounds from the National Lottery Charities Board although Mr. Gerald Openheim wrote a letter to him in May 1997 that “there was no application”.
On 13 November 1996 a Ms Georgina Brown Senior Enquiries Officer, at the National Lottery Charities Board, sent me a 5-paragraph letter. At paragraph 2 of her letter she wrote:
“You wrote to us on 7 November stating that you wished to apply for ₤10,594,590 to assist in the running of 105 planned branches of the Public Law Centre. We do not dispatch application forms from this office, but instead ask all applicants to telephone our 24 hour Application Line (0345 919191) within the application periods we have set.”
“Para.3 – On 11 November you telephone me to complain that you had not received an application form and I advised you to telephone the Application Line after 27 November ….. I also commented that the average awards we have made so far have been for amounts between ₤30,000 and ₤90,000. In fact, over half the grants we have made have been for under ₤35,000 with the average grant size being ₤65,000. Although there is maximum grant, the largest grant we have made is ₤682,000”
When Neil Smith saw that letter, he drafted a Press Release and circulated it to newspaper in the UK and Republic of Ireland. He also notified some newspapers in other parts of Europe that I "attempted to obtain 10 million pounds from the National Lottery Charities Board". His Press Release was littered with lies but there was nothing I could do about it. He hid the fact that he had already received a letter from Gerald Openheim that there was no application.
Dirty money, Neil Smith and UK Parliament Public Accounts
Neil Smith needed money and he used me to get his hands on dirty money. He was from Devon. He formed a relationship with a female working for Camelot and he formed another relationship with two other people, Gerald Openheim and Hornsby.
Neil Smith, Openheim, Hornsby and Emily Jenkerson of the Charity Commission and two senior officers of the Commission accused me of an “attempt to obtain money from the National Lottery Charities Board” on the basis of Ms Georgina Brown’s letter referred to above.
But surely, commonsense would tell anyone that the “offence” of “attempt to obtain ₤10,594,590 out of ₤682,000 was impossible of commission”.
Neil Smith got what he wanted – dirty money, from the National Lottery Charities or Camelot. In the event my name and Public Law Centre came up in an Enquiry by the United Kingdom Parliament Public Accounts.
Dishonest appropriation by Charity Commission
The primary allegation against me was that the Public Law Centre was providing legal services without authority. In other words, that I set up the Public Law Centre "illegally." The applicable law was the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
However, on 22 August 1996 the Charity Commission authorised the Public Law Centre to provide legal services and also the said Charity Commission authorised me to act as the Professional Adviser to the Law Centre.
DS Neil Smith saw the Certificate issued by the Charity Commission but hid it. Other allegations which he made against me were proven to be malicious; at best, they were proven to be false. The Charity Commission authorised the Public Law Centre to provide legal services but the Commission was not a designated body under the Courts and Legal Services Act to authorise any legal entity or organisation to provide legal services. Click this link
Bingham, Tucker, and Hallett
On Thursday 13 January 2000 my application for leave to appeal came before Bingham, Tucker and Mrs. Hallett.
In relation to Mrs. Hallett it is important to point out that she was the Chair of the Bar Council throughout the events of 1997. So, she knew or ought to have known of the secret meeting that took place on Wednesday 12 March 1997 after all, the Bar Council played a key role in the unlawful raid of the Public Law Centre and the full circumstances of my arrest. She should not have taken part in the proceedings.
Bingham too, should not have taken part in the appeal. Stephen Wilcox discussed the Public Law Centre and he discussed me with Justice Wright, the President of the South Eastern Circuit, at the time, and Justice Wright, in turn, raised issues with Bingham during their weekly briefing.
In effect, the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, on 13 January 2000 refusing me leave to appeal, was tainted.
MI5, Simon Brown, British Embassy, and an Irish spy in O’Donoghue’s Department
Shortly after Bingham’s refusal of my application in January 2000, I fled the country on the advice of an Operative in the MI5. I was warned to leave the country, to avoid further persecution by Neil Smith. As I had no passport, I sought clarification from the MI5 Operative what I should do and which country I should go.
When I arrived at the airport the MI5 Operative met me briefly and put me on a flight to a European country. I stayed in a European country for a few days and from there, I found my way to the Republic of Ireland.
Home Office instructions to British Embassy, a spy for UK in O’Donoghue’s department
On my arrival in Dublin I wrote to the Master of the Rolls - I have always admired Woolf. I told him that I had to flee my home in the UK because I was tired of being pursued by Neil Smith and others. I also sent a letter to the Cabinet Office.
To my total surprise, the Home Office had passed on some bogus information to the British Embassy in Dublin that I was no longer a British citizen and that the High Court in London had said so.
Once I became aware of that piece of information, I approached the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I applied for Political Asylum. But within a week of making the application, I withdrew it.
A man by the name of John Lohan was working in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He was an Agent, feeding the Home Office, in London with information. I did try to find out who his contacts were in the Home Office, but without much luck.
Mr. John Lohan knew that I was trying to unmask him as someone who was providing the Home Office in the UK with useless information. So, he hit me first.
Two events of note took place on the premises of the Public Law Centre. The two events were a repeat of the unlawful raid of the Public Law Centre in London in 1997.
A Garda by the name of Michael Cryan was the conduit between John Lohan, British Embassy and Home Office in London. When he raided the premises of the Public Law Centre, he did exactly the same sorts of things that DS John Torpey and Neil Smith did in 1997.
He went a bit further. He told me that the Home Office in London had advised him to deport me back to Nigeria, where I was born. He tried to bribe the Nigerian Embassy to see if it could issue me with a Nigerian passport, so that I could be deported to Nigeria. However, the Nigerian Embassy told him that, as I had never carried a Nigerian passport, it was not up to the Embassy to issue one, but it was up to me to apply if I wanted a Nigerian passport. That Irish policeman kept me in prison custody for 16 weeks and then, he let me go.
Visit to the Home Office, Lunar House
When I returned to my home in London, I went to the Home Office, to enquire as to why false and bogus information were circulated to the Embassy in Dublin. An official of the Home Office told me that he did not know what I was talking about.
Charity Commission and forgery
In April 2003 the Charity Commission emptied my bank account at Lloyds Bank, George Street, Croydon. An official of the Commission presented a document which, according to the Bank, carried my signature, but I never signed any such document. Up to this day, the Charity Commission has not told me what they have done with my money.
Refusal of renewal of passport
In 2003 I applied for the renewal of my UK passport however; I was refused, upon the ground that I was no longer a British citizen. I was told that I had to renaturalise. A menacing demand was also upon me. A letter written by a Receptionist in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, in Liverpool, a female by the name of Ms J. Eakins, Ref. QA03/82253 dated 13/11/2003 was circulated to British Missions abroad, as "evidence" that the High Court had deprived me of my British nationality. That was absolute nonsense. No court in any part of the United Kingdom has ever deprived me of my nationality. So, I am still at a loss to understand how British Embassies in Dublin, Brussels and Amsterdam came to be in possession of false and bogus information
Judges Blackburne, McCombe, and Beans delivering blind justice
Blackburne, McCombe and Beans are justices in the Administrative Court. They appear to be totally incapable of distinguishing facts from fiction. Their understanding of the Supreme Court Act 1981 sections 42 and 16 appear to be non-existent. Master Weingarten of the Chancery Division is another one whose understanding of basic principles of law, is in dispute.
In the case of David Beans, I would gladly award him the Accolade of ignorance, having regard to his understanding or lack of understanding of the applicable laws relating to the British Nationality Acts, past or present. As far as the law relating to elections is concerned, he has no idea whether he is coming or going.
Epilogue
The administration of justice in the UK is in need of law mechanics, to repair the broken pieces. Most of our judges do not know how to be humble and they do not know how to do justice. Most of them pay lip service to the Rule of law, whereas behind the scene, they are busy doing business online and inland, collecting millions of pounds from governments around the world, pretending to be working for the cause of justice and human rights.
How vexatious? How dishonest? All I ask of the judiciary is to show that they are human, too, to apologise for all the injustices that I have suffered at the hands of Justices Goodman, Cryan, Bathurst-Norman, Mackay, Simon Brown, Newman, Bingham, Tucker, Hallett, Popplewell, and a few others who shall not be named, and to make amends as necessary.
DS Neil Smith was a bad person. He still is. And he will always be a bad person. He has blood on his hands. He put a Judge under so much pressure following the unlawful raid of the premises of the Public Law Centre, so much so that the Judge, Judge Palmer collapsed and died in his own court, while Neil Smith or John Foster was taking a statement from him. Also, a Bangladeshi female doctor, collapsed and died as she waited at a bus stop, having been put under pressure to attend Southwark Crown Court, to give evidence against me, evidence which had been written for her by DS Neil Smith, evidence which she did not wish to give.
Yet, in 1997, Neil Smith prepared a 95-paragfraph document, titled “Evidential Report”. At paragraph 18 of the Report, Neil Smith wrote:
“John-Salakov has clearly made a study at some time of the laws relating to Human Rights. He makes it plain from his statements, both oral and written, that he sees much wrong with the English legal system. He plainly would argue that the invalidity of the search warrant should render inadmissible everything that followed. He would also argue, in support of his failure to answer truthfully questions on credit / loan application, that society has no right to obtain information from any source about past conduct. He sees credit reference agencies as a breach of human rights” AJS/15/10/09
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS ONE? Please Click here
PLC Party euoffice@plcparty.com Tel 0044 (0)20 8133 7447
|
