Vexatious Litigants
If you start out as a victim, you may become a litigant in person because
- you can’t afford a lawyer or
- got cheated by one or more
- or found them incompetent.
However, you then run the risk of becoming a “vexatious litigant”. You may want to wear this title with pride. But read here how Mr Ebert is cited in Vexatious Litigants & access to justice: Past, present, future
It is tragic: a firewall of ‘mutually protective professionals’ – at the cost of the taxpayer and / or victims.
![Why Everyone Is a Victim [Except Rich Criminals]](http://edm1297.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ocls.jpg?w=171&h=264 "Book by Evan Whitton")
Sep 15, 2011 @ 19:58:33
It makes me sick how these tosser judges label people as vexatious litigants, when all they are doing is trying to obtain justice from a very corrupt system. The reason they re apply to the courts is because of serious corruption. The judiciary then commit more corruption to cover up previous corruption, and so it goes on. All the litigant is attempting to do is expose serious wrongdoing and obtaining justice.
British justice stinks rotten to the core with corruption.
Sep 09, 2012 @ 22:30:04
Section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which was in force between the 1st January 1991 and 31st December 2010 has not been taken into consideration.
Section 5, 23 (1), 38, 76 and Schedule 1 of the County Courts Act 1984;
The County Court Circuit Judge can make any Order which could be made by the High Court as if the Proceedings were in the High Court.
Schedule 7 of the Senior Courts Act 1981- The Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925 had been repealed. So Why make a Greep & Loam Order under a Repealed Parliament Act.
On an Application by the Attorney General for an Order under Section 42 of the SCA 1981.
Section 28, 28A, and 29 of the Senior Courts Act 1981-
Appeal from the Crown Court or Inferior Courts
Section 42 (3A) of the SCA 1981 APPLIES TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Section 41 (2) (5) (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
On the 24th October 1964 by an Order in Council that is Section 1 of the Zambia Independence Act 1964, Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom had ceased to have Jurisdiction and Legislation Power over the Republic of Zambia
Section 63 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does apply also as with regards to Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as those documents are no longer Exempt Documents
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 which will soon become Civil Procedure Rules 2012 Part 5 Court Documents-
Litigants in Person are being directly or Indirectly discriminated by other Court Officers.
The Criminal Damage Act 1971-
THE HIGH COURT HAS NO POWER TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT-
SO WHY RESTRICT PERSONS FROM MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE MAGISTRATES COURT.
SECTION 53 (1) OF THE SCA 1981-
THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION SHOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED OTHER MATTERS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE MEANING OF THE WORD “PERJURY” THIS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 1, 5,OR 7.
I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
Jan 28, 2013 @ 19:40:31
Ismail, a superb summary of just how serious and in jeopody ‘ The Rule of Law’ is in, not just in South Wales but in ALL our British law courts.
Oct 28, 2012 @ 18:41:15
RE:- BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (APPELLANT) V ABDULLA AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) UKSC 47.
RE:- BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (APPELLANT) VERSUS HUDA ABDULLA & OTHERS.
CASE NUMBER A2/2011/0078
NCN: (2011) EWCA CIV 1412 29th November 2011.
RE:- MRS HUDA ABDULLA AND OTHERS CLAIMANT
AND
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DEFENDANT.
CASE NUMBER HQ10 X 0296
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: (2010) EWHC 3303 (QB)
17th December 2010
Before Mr C Edelman QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queens Bench Division)
______________________________________________________________
The Birmingham City Council have lost three Cases in the United Kingdom Courts under the Equality Act 2010: Equal Pay Act 1970.
LITIGANTS IN PERSON- THEY ARE NOT PAID AS THE RATES THAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE SOLICITORS AND BARRISTERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM-
THIS IS DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LITIGANTS IN PERSON
I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you
Yours Faithfully
ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE.
Nov 04, 2012 @ 00:00:13
RE:- MAHON V RAHN & OTHERS (1997) EWCA 1770 (23rd May 1997)
23rd May 1997
Appeal in the Court of Appeal from the High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division: (Mr Justice Brooke)
__________________________________________________________
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 IS A PARLIAMENT ACT. THE PARLIAMENT ACT DID OVERRIDE AND SUPERSEDED THE JUDGMENT OF THAN MR JUSTICE BROOKE.
WHEN HE WAS LORD JUSTICE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, LORD JUSTICE BROOKE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF HIS JUDGMENTS THAT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.
THIS DOES AMOUNT TO ABUSE OF POWER AND DIRECT OR INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LITIGANTS IN PERSON.
THE WITHAM CASE AGAINST THE LORD CHANCELLOR- IT WAS DECLARED UNLAWFUL IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WHILST LEAVE TO APPEAL HAD BEEN REFUSED IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT.
IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER OR NOT AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL HAD BEEN MADE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL,
SECTION 130 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 HAS BEEN REPEALED-
THIS HAS BEEN REPLACED AS UNDER SECTION 1, 2, AND 92 OF THE COURTS ACT 2003.
THE BAR MUTUAL INDEMNITY FUND LTD- WHO ARE THE PROFESSIONAL FUNDERS FOR THE BARRISTERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THEY ARE LIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE TO PAY DAMAGES AND COSTS FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS IN ANY PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
THERE IS AN ORDER DATED 22ND JULY 2005 IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION BEFORE THAN MR JUSTICE PARK-
“EXCEPT THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS” FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.
THERE ARE OTHER PERSONS RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT GIVEN ON THE 25TH JULY 2003 WHILST CONCEALING OF THE ORDER MADE ON THE 22ND JULY 2005.
i thank you in advance and wait to hear from you
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
Nov 04, 2012 @ 00:29:31
Maurice Kirk thoroughly agrees and shouts we all need direct action NOW
Nov 04, 2012 @ 00:34:40
You must all understand the enemy are intent on dividing us because very well know our correct use of cyberspace, to deseminate just what is going on in our UK law courts, driven by avarice, will finally educate too many for them meaning we will bust’m!
Jan 10, 2013 @ 23:12:34
THE FRAUD ACT 2006 IS A PARLIAMENT ACT WHICH CAME INTO FORCE IN THE YEAR 2007. THE HOME OFFICE CIRCULAR HAD BEEN SENT TO THE POLICE, THE MAGISTRATES COURTS, THE CROWN COURTS AND OTHER JUDGES
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 (C. 36)
SECTION 1 (2) (Group A Offences)
(bb) an Offence under any of the Following Provisions of The Fraud Act 2006
(i) Section 1 (FRAUD)
(II) Section 6
(iii) Section 7
(iv) Section 9
(v) Section 11 (Obtaining Services by Deception)
Stretch V The United Kingdom – 44277/98 (2003) ECHR 320 (24th June 2003)
Judgment given on the 24th June 2003
Final Judgment 03-12-2003
Transcript can be downloaded at http;//www.bailii.org/EU/cases/ECHR/2003/320.html
Sherifdom of South Stratchclyde Dumfries and Galloway
A2012/05
2nd May 2008
Section 187 (1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992
Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002
There is a Petition for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of UK
UKSC 2012/0010
Case Name Hayes (FC) Respondent V Willoughby (Appellant)
The Court of Appeal Judgment does not acknowledge Mr Willoughby’s Human Rights of Freedom of Expression in reporting grounds for suspicicion of Crime
raised- details to Investigatory and Law Enforcement agencies and in correcting the agencies misrepresentation of such information.
The Scope of the defence to a claim for Protection from Harassment under Section 1 (3) (a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Whether the course of Conduct has to have the sole purpose of preventing or detecting Crime.
There will be a hearing in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,
The Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd, they have provided the Funding for the Barristers in the United Kingdom in Bhamjee Versus David Forsdick Case without lodging the Notice of Funding in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, any Person with a Civil Restraint Order in any Part of the United Kingdom should make an application for a Costs Order against Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd, there is a Judgment in the Chancery Division on the 22nd July 2005- For a Period of Two Years
No Restrictions for making
(Except the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords)
This Judgment has not been published in the Public Domain Document which does prove and show that there is direct and Indirect Discrimination against Litigants in Persons in the United Kingdom
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
Jan 28, 2013 @ 19:03:22
Hi. There is a group of us in California in the former United States who have been the targets of judicial corruption. What we have in common is that we, individually, have all challenged the court for its crimes. Needless to say, we all discovered that the right to petition for redress of grievances is yet another right we have lost as, in order to cover up judicial impropriety (and more), the California courts are expanding their litigant wastebasket corruption cover-up statute CCP 391 — the Vexatious Litigant Statute.
There’s a lot of talk about “vexatious litigation” over here that vilifies anyone deemed a “vexatious litigant” by the court system. Witch burning essentially. Now there is talk of even VL’ing someone even if they have an attorney. What is being set up is nothing less an an illegal purgatory for anyone fighting judicial corruption.
We are currently establishing a wider network of victims of this brand of judicial corruption and wanted to give a thumbs up to our fellow VL judicial discrimination victims across the pond.
Jan 28, 2013 @ 22:40:56
Well, that’s a kind ‘consolation’ for us not being alone here! THANK YOU!!!…
Keep fighting and, above all, CONNECTING, I suppose. What else is there!?… Giving in or giving up? NO! We must be able to look ourselves in the mirror after all!
Apr 03, 2013 @ 12:18:59
Hello,
I have just discovered this blog. I have been trying to find people who have had similar experiences to myself.
Because mine is not a ‘life and death’ scenario it can be trivialised. But I did report bullying in the workplace, was victimised and dismissed as a direct result. Now in the tribunal the the judges just repeat the lies of the Respondent in spite of the fact that I have evidence to prove my innocence. I am now umemployable and am suffering the mental anguish that is inevitable.
I have not given up yet. I have a hearing under rule 3(10) and then the option to go to the Court of Appeal – which I have not fully explored yet.
I have started to tell my story. Please read my blog on http://www.blogspot.com tribunalsandtribulations
The first refusal to allow an amendment to my claim was turned down – and the ‘reasons’ do not comply with the caselaw quoted. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation under the judge’s ‘explanatory duty.’ This original judgment has been quoted in every subsequent refusal I have had.
So now, just for appealing I am being labelled as vexatious. My friends ask me how can I be vexatious, I am telling the truth and have cause?
I have such a long story to tell – the ‘cover’ under my insurance policy was the first disaster – The aim is just to get rid of you quickly and cheaply and to keep the insurance contract. You cant disagree with a lawyer,or complain because they are always right.
I have been working alone. The more setbacks I get the more determined I am:
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
Abraham Lincoln
Apr 03, 2013 @ 14:42:32
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee refer to Sheila E Lawrence 3rd April 2013 and request her to take into consideration of the Litigants Act 1975.
RE:- PRACTICE GUIDANCE MARCH 2013.
TERMINOLOGY FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON
5. THE TERM “LITIGANT IN PERSON” (LIP) Should continue to be the sole term used to describe individuals who exercise their rights to conduct legal proceedings on their own behalf.
6. THIS GUIDANCE APPLIES TO ALL PROCEEDINGS IN ALL CRIMINAL, CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS.
LORD DYSON MR
MARCH 2013.
______________________________________________________________
MANY SOLICITORS AND BARRISTERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WHO ARE NORMALLY FUNDED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES SUCH AS BAR MUTUAL INDEMNITY FUND LTD, NORWICH UNION INSURANCE CO, AND MANY OTHERS, AS THEY WILL MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER UNDER THE CPR 3-11- WHILST NOT DISCLOSING OTHER EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
ANY LITIGANT IN PERSON IN THE UNITED KINGDOM CAN NOW MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID FUNDING TO ANY HIGH COURT OR CROWN COURT JUDGE,,,
YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO MR JOHN Lloyd of Roguemont Chambers, as He is experienced in Misfeasance in Public Office, or when making an Application to the High Court Judge or the Crown Court Judge you should provide his name to the High Court or the Crown Court Judge, as this may or might resolve other persons complaint.
The High Court, The Court of Appeal, The HM Attorney General, The Lord Chancellor’s Department, The Parliamentary Ombudsman Commissioner, The Local Government Ombudsman Commissioner, The Treasury Solicitors, they do have the decision of Dunoon Developments Ltd Versus The Secretary of State and Poole DISTRICT Council which was decided in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal in the year 1992, but they will not admit the facts, and rely on Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The CPR PART 17 AND CPR PART 19.
This rule does allow and permit any person to amend his or her Pleadings, and to have another person added as a Party to the Proceedings.
I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
i.bhamjee2@talktalk.net
Apr 03, 2013 @ 16:39:59
Ismail
Thank you for your response. Should I write to Mr John Lloyd to enquire about legal aid funding? I have applied for assistance under the ELAAS Scheme. The last time I attended a hearing under Rule 3 (10) I applied. The person appointed reorganised my paperwork, which made it difficult for me. Then in the short time before the hearing informed me that he would not be accompanying me as I ‘would not get a judge to disagree with another judge’s decision.’
I received the bulletin below this morning.
This new rule may mean that I can get ‘costs protection’ even though I have lost in the ET and the EAT. The Respondent was awarded costs against me in the ET by Judge Taylor, who refused to look at the details of my fresh claim and pronounced me as ‘vexatious’ for attempting to override the decision of Judge Cowling. Judge Cowling had told me I could put in a new claim, so I did. The insurance funded lawyers would not support me but told me I had ‘less than 30%’ chance of having the new claim accepted. Then at Appeal level I was told that it was ‘simply not permissible.’
Bulletin: 3rd April 2013
Daniel Barnett:
[Thanks to Nathaniel Caiden for preparing this case summary]
Can a party to an appeal from the EAT to the Court of Appeal successfully apply (before the final hearing of the appeal) for the usual cost consequences not to apply?
Yes, says Jackson LJ in Manchester College v Hazel & Anor.
The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the employees, whose application was made under CPR r.52.9, were entitled to cost protection in an upcoming appeal by their employer in the Court of Appeal. The court decided that there was “a compelling reason” as required by CPR r.52.9 for it to apply the cost protection condition to the appeal as, amongst other things, the employees: had won at both the employment tribunal and EAT, had limited means, were relying on pro bono representation and would not be able to continue resisting the appeal unless they received costs protection.
Although fact specific the case is of more general importance as one of the reasons relied upon by Jackson LJ was that from 1 April 2013 the case would fall squarely within the new CPR r.52.9A. This new rule allows the court to exclude or limit cost recovery when a case passes from a “no costs” or “low costs” jurisdiction to a court with full costs shifting powers. Notably this new rule does not require a “compelling reason” and will mitigate the harshness of Eweida v British Airways PLCin which the court held that despite the appellant moving from the “no cost” jurisdiction of the EAT to the cost shifting jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal it had no power to make a protective costs order or costs capping order.
Re: The CPR PART 17 AND CPR PART 19.
This rule does allow and permit any person to amend his or her Pleadings, and to have another person added as a Party to the Proceedings.
I was told that it was a discretionary decision. There was no explanation of why Judge Cowling chose to turn down my application to amend. He quoted ‘Selkent’ in which the potential hardships of either party have to be considered. The recent case of ‘ Redhead v London Borough of Hounslow UKEAT/0409/11/MAA has confirmed that a judge has a duty to explain the relative hardships and how he came to his decision. Since I received his ‘reasons’ I have been asking for these details, but am just fobbed off with bland comments. ‘I have nothing more to add’ is a recent one from a judge who agreed with his decision and of course also agreed that I was vexatious and abusing the processes.
I apologise for my lack of knowledge or ‘reasonable ignorance’ but I do not understand what you are saying about a ‘civil restraint order.’
“Being defeated is temporary. Giving up is permanent.” -Marilyn Savant
Thank you again. I appreciate your time. Yours sincerely, Sheila E Lawrence
Apr 03, 2013 @ 21:21:18
Did you ever appeal against the single judge’s order, Sheila?
Always rather write a letter too many than too few. You might regret NOT having written!
Apr 16, 2013 @ 22:01:14
Dear Sabine Kurjo McNeill
I have attempted to appeal the judgments made at each hearing. I have not received any explanation of why I have been turned down. I have continued to ask and written letters to every official involved.
Here is my latest exchange with the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I am in the process of writing further letters.
16th April 2013
Dear Martine Wymer, – (delivery manager Employment Appeal Tribunal)
Thank you for your response. The complaint I am referring to is one concerning the conduct of the judges in refusing to explain their decisions. It is clear on the website for the judiciary that all judges have an ‘explanatory duty’ which is essential to maintain the status of their office and reputation.
In essence, I am not complaining about the decisions. I am complaining that the decisions do not comply with this duty. It is a complaint that the legal duty of judges has not been fulfilled.
I do not consider one sentence – ‘there are no points of law identified and no perversity in the decision’ to be an explanation. This is a blank refusal and merely a conclusion. None of the points I have raised in my appeals have been acknowledged. I have shared these points with many ‘fair minded’ citizens and none of us can understand why they are not relevant considerations.
In my letters to the judges I have asserted that if I am not given these reasons, I am not on a equal footing with the Respondent. It is difficult to appeal a decision if information if being withheld. It would be more expedient to allow me to understand why it is pointless to pursue my arguments now. I have read and researched thoroughly and if I am wrong it cannot be difficult for a judge to explain this to me. How can I put forward a comprehensive and accurate appeal if I do not know why I have been turned down? The ‘reasons’ I have been given to date do not comply with caselaw or the rules of the tribunals.
In particular, it is part of the overriding objective to ensure that parties are on an equal footing and that all cases are dealt with fairly and with expediency. All judges have a duty to have this objective in the forefront of their mind when issuing judgments and orders. It is peculiar that I have not had any feedback to my contention that Rule 25 of the Tribunal practice statement was relevant. This allows the reinstatement of claims that have been withdrawn but not dismissed. The part of my claim that was withdrawn by my solicitor was not dismissed. The application of Rule 25 is a discretionary decision. It is even more important for a judge to explain how he uses his discretion. It is not something that I can look up in rules and regulations.
I sent a letter to Judge Cowling at Southampton, repeating my request for the criteria he used in refusing my amendment. Every judgment since has been based on his refusal. No subsequent judge has parted from this decision so in reality it is still live.
I have referred to current caselaw that supports my contention. Judge Cowling did not explain the potential hardships to both parties that he considered in his decision. This is essential to the ‘Selkent’ principle which he claims to have applied. If you look back to my notice of appeal for this decision, I made it very clear that I could not see any hardships that the Respondent may have suffered. It is not considered to be a hardship to have to defend a claim. I used the word ‘criteria’ rather than the more accepted legal jargon ‘relevant considerations’ but the meaning is the same. I had a blank refusal from Judge Wilkie to this notice of appeal.
The staff at Southampton Tribunal interpreted this letter to Judge Cowling as a complaint and forwarded it to Petty France. I am currently attempting to precis the appeal I submitted into a chart and will be using this to re frame my complaint. I am taking advice on the correct steps to take and the correct channels to pursue. Ultimately the responsibility must lie with the Chancellor or with the person who appoints judges, to whom they personally give their oath.
Please repeat my request to Judge Wilkie for the reasons for his refusals. I do not believe a ‘sift judge’ is exempt from these duties. I am making this request not only for personal justice, but in the public interest. My growing band of fair minded citizens are awaiting the response to the points I put forward.
One of my biggest concerns is that legal representatives acknowledge and accept the injustice. I kept a record of comments made to me. Indeed the ELAAS representative that was appointed to assist me concluded that ‘you won’t get a judge to disagree with another judge’s decision.’ The only ones that seem to succeed are conducted by high profile barristers who seem to have the status. I have read cases where the evidence has been re examined by the EAT. Yet I have just been informed in one of my replies that it is not the remit of the EAT to do this. Then I read that re examination of evidence is allowed ‘in exceptional cases.’ None of these ‘exceptional cases’ that I have read have been conducted by a Litigant in Person. I can only hope that I will be the first. The evidence I provided was indisputable and from the Respondent’s own documents. It was ignored. Judge Parker simply repeated the lies of the Respondent that I produced evidence to disprove.
There seem to be a growing number of mantras used by judges that do not make sense to any fair minded citizen: The tribunal must not disagree with the decision of the employer: The EAT will not overrule the tribunal judges.
The latest one I read was that the outcome did not have to be fair to the claimant, it just had to be a decision that the respondent could have made. Our justice system is supposed to be based on what any ‘ fair minded and reasonably’ informed person considers to be just.
I would request that the hearing under Rule 3 (10) does not take place until I am receipt of the reasons.
Thank you for your attention,
Sheila Lawrence
From: martine.wymer@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
To: shelaw53@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:54:45 +0100
Subject: RE: PA/1275/12/BA
Dear Mrs Lawrence
Thank you for your email below
I appreciate that you are a litigant in person and please do not be concerned about any perceived “breach of protocol”. The EAT will do its best to explain processes and procedures, to you, as we progress through the appeal system and your ELAAS representative, at the interview you will have with them before your Rule 3(10) hearing, will explain (without jargon) what they believe to the be situation
With regards to your comment about outstanding “complaints”:
I believe this to mean the letters you sent on 8 March addressed to Mr Justice Underhill (now Lord Justice Underhill), Mr Justice Wilkie and His Honour Judge Peter Clark
I see from the files that you have received a response from both Lord Justice Underhill and from His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Your letter addressed to Mr Justice Wilkie was also referred directly to him and he has advised the EAT that as his involvement was a the sift Judge only he makes no comment – other than to agree with the comments conveyed to you in Underhill LJ’s letter dated 13 March 2013
It should also be noted that your letters of 8 March 2013 cannot be considered as “complaints” as set out by the HMCTS Complaints Procedure (a copy of the relevant leaflet is attached for your ease of reference) because they are expressing a dissatisfaction with a Judge’s decision (i.e. they are Judicial Decisions) and are not about your objections to the service you have received from any HMCTS staff or the facilities provided. Please see the two references to this that I have lifted from the attached leaflet below:
This leaflet tells you what you can do if you are unhappy about the administrative serviceyou have received from HM Courts & Tribunals Service staff or the facilities provided.
When does our complaint procedure not apply?
Judicial decisions
Even if you feel that a decision is incorrect, you cannot use the HM Courts & Tribunals Service complaints procedure to challenge a judicial decision. The correct course of action is to consider whether to appeal the decision. If in doubt, you should seek legal advice.
Staff in HM Courts & Tribunals Service cannot give legal advice, so will not be able to discuss:
• whether you should appeal;
• whether you have the right to appeal; and
• the likelihood of any appeal succeeding.
In the circumstances I do not believe that there are any outstanding issues and the one remaining live matter (PA/1275/12/BA) will now be focused on and I will arrange for you to be notified of a hearing date by the end of the week
Martine Wymer
EAT
Delivery Manager
Tel: 0207 273 1032
From: sheila lawrence [mailto:shelaw53@hotmail.com]
Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
To: Wymer, Martine (EAT)
Subject: PA/1275/12/BA
To: Wymer, Martine (EAT) (martine.wymer@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk)
Re: PA/1275/12/BA
12th April 2013
Dear Martine Wymer,
Thank you for your email message dated 9th April 2013.
I apologise if I have breached protocols in putting forward a fresh notice of appeal. I did not receive a response to any of the points I put forward in my original notice of appeal and have attempted to put it in the accepted legal jargon. As a litigant in person, I can only work from the rules, any observations and advice I have been given and current recommended law books. I have read Edward Jacobs’ book, which is recommended by the President of Tribunals. I identified the points of law and perversity from this publication. If I am wrong, it cannot be difficult for the judge to clarify this in language that any fair minded member of the public can understand.
I have researched judicial responsibilities and know that every judge has an ‘explanatory duty.’ I have now put forward complaints through the correct channels because this duty has not been complied with. While I have read that in the refusal to appeal a judge is not obliged to go into every detail, it is clear that an appellant must understand why they have been turned down. Simply stating that there are no points of law and perversity in the decision does not constitute an explanation. It undoubtedly puts the Respondent in an advantageous position as it is not equitable to expect me to prepare a defence or argument for a hearing without this knowledge. Indeed, if I understand and can see a valid reason for the refusal, I can withdraw and it will be more expedient.
One of the overriding aims of the tribunal is to ensure that parties are on an equal footing.
The true test is that I cannot explain to anyone why none of my points stand. Every ‘fair minded’ and ‘reasonably informed’ citizen that I have shared this with is as perplexed as I am.
It is an abuse of power to withhold information. The communication has been one way. I have had no response to any of my contentions. I do not know why they do not stand therefore I do not know why I have been turned down. Each judge that I have been before simply agrees with the original decision without any explanation. This makes any attempt to appeal futile.
Please can you tell me if a hearing under Rule 3 (10) will be stayed pending the responses to my complaints?
Please ensure that all the judges involved see this message.
Thank you for your attention,
most sincerely,
Mrs Sheila E Lawrence
Apr 16, 2013 @ 22:07:56
I suggest you phone Justice for LiPs (Litigants in Person), a tiny charity run by a very experienced person. 020 8795 3481
Apr 16, 2013 @ 22:52:13
Dear Sabine Kurjo Mc Neill,Thank you. I will do so and let you know the outcome.Regards,Sheila
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:07:58 +0000 To: shelaw53@hotmail.com
Apr 03, 2013 @ 21:38:15
Dear Sheila E Lawrence,
I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee refer to your 3rd April 2013.
1. First of All I don’t know about your case, the Transcript of the Judgment Neutral Citation Number:
2. Mr John Lloyd is a Barrister at Rougemont Chambers,
Tell Number 01392 208484
Fax Number 01392 208204
As there are Clerks for the Barristers at the Chambers.
Since there are other Barristers who does have the surname of Lloyd.
3. Article 10 of the Convention Treaties- It is open for any Person to select his or her own Legal Representative without frontiers…
The Choice and decision is yours If you would like to contact him.
4. There are other persons who are Good Samaritan Persons-
Since I had other Samaritan Person when I was living in the Republic of Zambia, say the Late Mr Mainza M. Chona SC, the Former Vice President of the Republic of Zambia, and The Late Mr Gibson Chigaga SC, the Former DPP, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs in the Republic of Zambia, as there are very few persons..
5. There are Civil Procedure Rules-
Family Procedure Rules
Criminal Procedure Rules
and The Upper Tribunal Rules.
6. The Civil Procedure Rules Part 3-11- Civil Restraint Orders-
There is a Transcript of the Judgment on the 25th July 2003
Claim Number B1/B2/B3/2003/0596
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
versus
David Forsdick
Rueben TAYLOR
David Elvin QC
James Mauruci
Robert Walton
The Treasury Solicitors.
and
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
versus
The First Secretary of State.
7. There is a Judgment given in the Chancery Division before than Mr Justice Park on the 25th July 2005.
The Transcript of the Judgment has not been published on the public domain document-
If you can provide me with your Fax Number, than I can send a copy of the Court Order by Fax, otherwise you can obtain a copy of the Court Order from the Chancery Division, The Clerk to Mr Justice Warren upon the payment of Court Fees of £5-00.
I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
i.bhamjee2@talktalk.net
Tell 0203-6010-417
Apr 16, 2013 @ 23:09:38
RE:- BARONESS THATCHER
ONE OF THE BEST LEADER IN THIS WORLD
MAY THE ALL-MIGHTY ALLAH (GOD) BLESS HER SOUL.
THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 PART 3 DECLARATION OF MARITAL STATUS
AND THE M. F. P. A. 1984 PART 3 AFTER OVERSEAS DIVORCE
ARTICLE 9 FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE.
SHE WAS NOT AGAINST THE PERSONS OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION, OR THE JEWS-
BUT IT IS THE LAWYERS, BARRISTERS AND OTHER JUDGES WHO HAVE FAILED TO OBEY THE PARLIAMENT ACT.
___________________________________________________________
1. THERE ARE RULES FOR THE UPPER TRIBUNAL AND FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL AND THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL.
IT IS ONLY THE HM ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOLICITOR GENERAL WHO HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL.
2. THERE IS A LIST OF AUTHORITY WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN BE MADE AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL.
3. A CLAIM FOR DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT CAN BE MADE BEFORE ANY COUNTY COURT OR THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, WHERE THE TIME LIMIT IS A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS-
WHILST IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL THERE IS A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.
4. THERE IS A JUDGMENT GIVEN ON THE 11th April 2013
Case Number 6397/2011
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: (2013) EWHC 802 (ADMIN)
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
BETWEEN
OXFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE CLAIMANT
AND
(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2) WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT IS ON THE BAILII WEB SITE
THERE ARE MANY OTHER LIST OF AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN THAT JUDGMENT, ASHBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD VERSUS MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1965) 1 WLR 1320.
DAVID FORSDICK (Instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the 1st Defendant.
Since in the Proceedings Number CO/163/2000 and CO/2429/2001:
There was no fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention Treaties, as the TCPA 1971, This Act was repealed some years ago.
5. There is a Judgment in the Employment Tribunal where judgment had been given before Mr Justice Silber
It does mention of Arnold Versus National Westminster Bank PLC (1991)
It is not known whether or not other Judges in the Upper Tribunal had taken this into consideration.
YOURS FAITHFULLY
ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE
Apr 17, 2013 @ 13:47:17
The sense of frustration and injustice is palpable in these letters. It is not enough that those who so blatantly pervert the course of justice fail to realise what they are doing, but make huge profits out of doing it.
It is of some comfort that word is spreading through the internet, and the news of these misdeeds is percolating through to people in other countries. As long a we keep fuelling the flow of information regarding these abominations of injustice, despite the machinations of their perpetrators, we can ensure victory for the victims – eventually.
The gradual drip, drip of water made stalagmites; gradual erosion by river water resulted in the Grand Canyon. The saddest fact to be faced is that our lives do not stretch to such longevity; too many will never live to see the justice they deserve – and that is the greatest injustice, as well as the greatest evil.
It is also a mark of the shame and degradation to which those who, having sworn to uphold the law, are reneging on that oath. No one who turns their back on victims deserves to be regarded as great, whatever their title. It is the people who make the country; they are the ones called upon to risk, and give, their lives in the service of the monarch and the country.
For this reason, those who live in, and with, great privilege, must be more accountable. It’s not enough to claim non-involvement in political matters. The appointments of judges is still the prerogative of the monarch; on the recommendation of the prime minister of the day. Claiming ignorance holds no water now; if we can find out these matters via the internet, then so can those who live in palaces.
Apr 27, 2013 @ 23:26:20
CRIME AND COURTS ACT 2013 IS A PARLIAMENT ACT WHICH DOES MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATION.
______________________________________________________________
There is a judgment SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
CITATION: PENNER V NIAGARA (REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD)
DATE: 20130405 2013 SCC 19
DOCKET: 33959
BETWEEN WAYNE PENNER APPELLANT
AND
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD., GARY E. NICHOLLS, NATHAN PARKER, PAUL KOSCINSKI AND ROY FEDERKOW
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS 29 PAGES WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.
CITIZENS RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE-
HERE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IT IS ONLY THE WEALTHY PERSONS WHO DOES GET AWARD FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO FEELINGS,
THE METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICERS NORMALLY SAY IT IS A CIVIL MATTER WHEN A REPORT OF PERJURY IS MADE TO THEM. THEY WILL NOT RECORD THE COMPLAINT.
THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION DOES NOT DEAL WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS, BUT THEY ONLY DEAL AGAINST THE POLICE CONSTABLE WHICH DOES CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS
YOURS FAITHFULLY
ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE
May 04, 2013 @ 06:56:00
DEAR READERS,
PLEASE SEE THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2013 NO 1034
TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES
THE AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULE 6 TO THE TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 ORDER 2013.
This Rules shall come into force in July 2013. otherwise Section 15 & 25 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 has allready been in force.
CHAPTER 6A
TRANSFER FROM THE COURT TO FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
176A:
Additional Powers of First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal
231A
There is a judgment given in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Jawad V R (2013) EWCA CRIM 644 (03 May 2013)
Case Number 20113226 D3 and 201103347 D3.
Paragraph 28: NOTE: CHANGE OF LAW AND EXTENSION OF TIME.
Paragraph 30 of the Judgment: Whilst the Point does not arise in the Present Case, and we do not decide it, we think it important that Defendants should not be encouraged to think that the effect of Waya is likely to be that confiscation Orders made when no disproportionality point was taken, or was rejected, can now be re-opened. We doubt very much that, if an extension of time had been required in the present case, we should have granted it.
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee