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

Here is the list of 191 people who have been deemed to be ‘vexatious’ by those who claim to deliver ‘justice’…

It is tragic: a firewall of ‘mutually protective professionals’ – at the cost of the taxpayer and / or victims.

104 Responses to Vexatious Litigants

  1. Derek says:

    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.

    • Lisa says:

      Bunch of criminals in robes operating all over the world. You summed it op very well: 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.

  2. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    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    Schedule 7 of the Senior Courts Act 1981- The Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925 had been repealed. So Why make a Greep & Loam Order under a Repealed Parliament Act.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

    • mauricekirky says:

      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.

    • ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

      Hi Ismail

      I note you have mentioned my FOIA case in dispatches.
      Please come back to me if you would like to learn more on the Dransfield V ICO&Devon County Council Case GIA/3037/2011 which I believe is the most important FOI case at this current time because the survival of the FOIA 2000 depends on that case.

      That GIA case was kicked out by the Court of Appeal 2 weeks ago and is now back before them on a 2nd hearing appeal.

      In short the FOIA is under attack from the policemen paid to protect it,is Christopher Graham

  3. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    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.

  4. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    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

  5. mauricekirky says:

    Maurice Kirk thoroughly agrees and shouts we all need direct action NOW

  6. mauricekirky says:

    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!

  7. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    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

  8. 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. :)

    • 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!

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Hi
      The USA citizens are in the same unjust condition as the UK was fourteen years ago; before the UK signed the 1998 Human Rights Act in 2000; where the UK are now required to hear HR cases pertaining to abuses public officials commit towards the public.

      Whereas (in the UK) before the 1998 HR act, anyone abused (denied Justice) by British Courts regarding HR breaches, had to pay out of their own pocket for a HR case at Strasbourg. Where this is documented indicating that many people became criminals, or just advised family and friends to become have no regard to national law.
      In recent UK Government Human Rights advisory papers, UK males are documented as having been given particular short shrift by the Judiciary/Courts (especially in Civil cases against the police etc “compared to race discrimination and/or sex discrimination cases”]). No surprise so many men become/becamse drunks or worse.

      An appeal to Strasbourg HR Court prior to 1998/2000 would run to over a million dollars in legal fees in many cases.
      Now if your rights/life are/is abused by public officials, and the UK appeal process has not made you give up and die, then you can appeal to Strasbourg at no penalty, and who can take the UK to book over the evidence the host country (UK) dodges with seemingly criminal intent.

  9. 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

    • ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

      The FOIA2000 is under attack from WITHIN and the biggest and most important case in the history of the FOIA 2000 is the Dransfield V ICO&Devon County Council GIA/3030/2011.

      The honesty and integrity of the ICO &HM judges are under the spotlight on this case because they ROGUE Judges are complicit with the ICO to use the GETOUTOFJAILFREE car on a whimsical VEXATIOUS decisions.

      The ICO barrel is rotten to the core.
      It sounds as thought your local PA &the ICO are abusing you in the same manner. Did they use my GIA case as a Court Authority.

      My case (GIA) has been used UNLAWFULLY over a 150 time in the last 12 months from departments which SHOULD know better, MoJ,DWP,Home Office.

      They all thought the DRANSFIELD GIA case was their silver lining to cover up their dirty laundry

  10. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    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

  11. 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

    • 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!

      • 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

  12. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    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

  13. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    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

  14. 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.

  15. Anonymous says:

    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

  16. Anonymous says:

    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

  17. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    It is very interesting that the HM Courts ,whom, sole remit is to cover FOIA cases do not recognise Vexatious Litigants but DO recognise Vexatious requests.
    I am currently awaiting a green light from the Court of Appeal to proceed with my appeal from the Upper Tribunal GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO&Devon County Council(DCC)
    I believe me case is GRAVELY IMPORTANT for the survival of the FOIA 2000.
    Watch this space

  18. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    RE:- THE PUBLIC BODIES (ABOLITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND TRIBUNALS COUNCIL) ORDER 2013
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2013 NO 2042.
    DAMIAN GREEN, THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ON THE 18TH AUGUST 2013 HAS SIGNED THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

    RE:- BLACKBURN VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1971) EWCA civ 7
    (10th May 1971)

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1971/7.html

    You should kindly check the above Statutory Instrument, as other Statutory Instruments have been revoked, and whilst other Acts have been amended.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

    • Dear Ismail,

      I wish I could benefit more from your remarkable knowledge!!!

      But there is only so much one can do and so many victims I can help. I’m going abroad today but wonder whether we could meet up some time in September?

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Interesting.
      It leaves the door open for;- “Home Rule for Yorksheere” or the local equivalent.

  19. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    YOU CAN PHONE ME ON THE MOBILE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 07882129431 AFTER YOU COME FROM ABROAD.

    BUT I HAVE TO SAY AS FOLLOWS THAT:-

    ALWAYS SAY THE TRUTH AS THE ALL-MIGHTY ALLAH (GOD) IS SUPERIOR AND HE DOES GIVES AND HE IS MOST MERCIFUL, AS THOSE WHO LIE AND CHEAT THEY DO COMMIT A SIN AND ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED HERE ON EARTH AND THEREAFTER.

    I HAD A GOOD SAMARITAN PERSON WHO HAVE DIED SOME YEARS AGO, AND I’LL NEVER FIND THAT TYPE OF PERSON AGAIN LIKE THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA THE LATE MR MAINZA M. CHONA SC AND THE LATE MR GIBSON CHIGAGA SC THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS IN THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

  20. Alan M Dransfield says:

    The Court of Appeal are still considering my GIA/3037/2013 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council case and I believe this current case is paramount for the honesty and integrity of the FOIA 2000.
    Also good news the Upper Tribunal have recently overturned a FTT contempt of court chage which was wrongfully levelled at me.

  21. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    TAYLOR AND ANOTHER VERSUS LAWRENCE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.
    PARAGRAPH 14 OF THE JUDGMENT.
    THERE IS NO INHERENT JURISDICTION POWER AS APPEAL IS CREATED BY STATUTE.

    THE UPPER TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CREATED BY STATUTE
    THE TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
    IT IS A SENIOR COURT OF RECORD AND HAS ALL THE POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT.

    THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 SECTION 38 (1)
    IT CAN MAKE ANY ORDER WHICH COULD BE MADE BY THE HIGH COURT

    THE CIVIL PROCEDURE PRACTICE DIRECTIONS ON VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS IS ULTRA VIRES.

    WHERE THERE IS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL, THAN THE COURT CAN REFER THE MATTER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN LUXEMBOURG

    THE CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS ACT 1982 IS NOT MENTIONED UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 54.

    SECTION 53 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981
    TRANSFER FROM ONE DIVISION TO ANOTHER DIVISION

    CAN YOU PROVIDE THE COURT OF APPEAL REFERENCE NUMBER
    AS WE CAN APPLY TO HAVE THE MATTERS CONSOLIDATED AND PROCEED TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME. THIS WILL REDUCE COSTS AND TIME OF THE COURTS.

    WE WANT TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION OF THE COURT TO BRING CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO OBEY THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 PART 3 DECLARATION OF MARITAL STATUS.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

  22. William says:

    Unfortunately not even the police know that they are breaking the law each time the either do not arrest or arrest someone, as they are taught that Acts of parliament constitute the law. What a joke! Our legal system hates law, will not entertain it, only legalise, and whilst corrupt Judges, barristers, solitcitors, and even the, cough, odd policeman, take their wages they derided the law, making the law to stink in the eyes of the public, a public that do not know the difference between law and Acts of parliament, and the judiciary love to have it this way, love it, the law to be derided, whilst injustice just wipes its bloody mouth and says that it has done no wrong. Unless law is acted upon there can be no justice, only penalty. Only law contains justice and proper reperation.

  23. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    RE:- BURRELLS WHARF FREEHOLDS LTD VERSUS GALLIARD HOMES LTD (1999) EWHC TECHNOLOGY 219 (1ST JULY 1999)

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/1999/219.html.

    This does mention of the CPR 1-3 Duty of the Parties

    Paragraph 56. Finbow V Air Ministry [1963] 1 WLR, 697

    THE CPR 31-16 DOES APPLY FOR DISCLOSURE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.

    THERE IS A JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL-
    SMITH VERSUS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

    This should be taken into consideration.

    Since other Officers in the Treasury Solicitors who does represent many Government Ministers and Department with other Officers in the Local Authorities are benefiting from the proceeds of unlawful conduct by way of Entrapment, and Collective Harassment by relying on Repealed Parliament Acts or Statutory Instruments issued by any Minister of the Crown

    This does also apply to other Officers in the Information Commissioner’s Office.

    The Secretary of state for Communities and Local Government has agreed that there should be One Ombudsman-
    The Parliamentary Ombudsman, The Local Government Ombudsman.

    The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and the Bar Standards Board needs to be abolished.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee.

  24. alanmdransfield says:

    The integrity and honesty of the ICO is under suspicion with the Dransfiel vICO & Devon County Council case GIA/3037/2011 which is back at the court of appeal for a2nd hearing application.

  25. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 OST
    Tell 0203-6010-417 refer to Alanm Dransfield March 03-2014 and say as follows that:-

    1. There are two types of Vexatious Litigants Orders-
    One is a Civil Proceedings Restraint Order
    and the Other is a Criminal Proceedings
    whilst there is another Order which does cover all Proceedings Order.

    Section 42 (3) applies for Civil Proceedings

    Section 42 (3A) applies for Criminal Proceedings.

    2. There is a decision made before the First-Tier Tribunal-
    In Paragraph 31-
    Allthough both the Council and the appellant accepted that we are not bound by the decisions made in previous appeals to this Tribunal,
    They both invited us to follow the approach to Section 38 set out in two previous decisions;
    Our Approach, influenced, but not dictated, by that case law has been as follows.

    Hogan and Oxford City Council Versus The Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0026) AND PETA VERSUS INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (EA/2009/006)

    I have been unable to access the two decisions on the Bailii Web Site.

    3. Section 147 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, this is and has been on the Public Domain-
    Part 1, 2 and 6 and this Part extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    Which means that This Act applies only to the United Kingdom and not any other Country outside the United Kingdom.

    The BBC decision on Sugar Case was wrongly decided-

    4. The Constitutional Reform Governance Act 2010-
    This does make some changes that documents are no longer exempt after a period of 20 Years
    which is going to be in stages from the year 2013.
    The County Courts Act 1984 is a Parliament Act where Section 3, 21 and 22 of the Interpretation Act 1978 does apply-
    Section 23 of the County Courts Act 1984 does apply for Equal Jurisdiction-

    Why restrict persons from taking proceedings in the County Court-
    as the Civil Procedure Rules practice Directions on Vexatious Litigants is and has been ultra Vires.

    5. There is a Statutory Instrument 2004 No 3363 which was issued by the Lord Chancellor, This has not been taken into consideration by the Local Authorities and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
    The Local Authorities and The Treasury Solicitors are wasting more public funds by taking an advantage and placing other Citizens at a Disadvantage.

    6. The Civil Procedure Rules Practice Directions part 23-
    Application to stay claim where related criminal proceedings,

    When making an Application to the Court of Appeal for a Stay of the Orders made in the Court of Appeal, does not mean that Legal Proceedings had been taken against Lord Justice Dyson and than Mr Justice Sullivan
    Since they had no Jurisdiction Power to deal with matters under the TCPA 1971 under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

  26. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    Dear Alan M. Dransfield,

    I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee refer to the GIA/3037/2011 whilst there is no Court of Appeal Reference Number.

    You have my Telephone and Fax Number is 0203-6010-417.

    Since there are many Statutory Acts and Statutory Instruments that are being issued in the United Kingdom, where I believe that when the Court of Appeal does deal with the Application for Permission to Appeal against the decision of the Lower Courts or Upper Tribunal-
    They shall be dealing with the Legislation that was in force at the time the decision which was made by the Lower Court or the Upper Tribunal.

    The Information Commissioner, The Office for the Judicial Complaints and Judges before any Court of Law or Tribunal, the Lord Chancellor SS Ministry of Justice is responsible for them.

    The Protection from Freedoms Act 2012, this did make some changes to the United Kingdom Legislation, where all decisions made in the Information Commissioner’s Office are not made by the Commissioner himself personally as the Officers does deal with them.

    IGNORANCE OF LAW HAS NO DEFENCE

    THE DEPUTY MASTER OR MASTER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DOES NOT PLACE OTHER LIST OF AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, AS THERE ARE KNOWN TO THE TREASURY SOLICITORS,
    YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OTHERWISE THE MASTER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL WILL INSIST TO THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO MAKE A CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER-

    THE COURT OF APPEAL DOES HAVE THE DECISION OF DUNOON DEVELOPMENTS LTD VERSUS THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND POOLE DISTRICT COUNCIL WHICH WAS DECIDED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE YEAR 1992, THIS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION WHILST THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND UPPER TRIBUNAL ARE AWARE OF THE DECISION.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

  27. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    The latest shanagins from the FTT is to strike out my appeal against the ICO and the House of Lords.
    The STRIKE OUT was delivered by NJ (No Justice) Warren and he is the GRC President for Gods sake.
    He claims my appeal has little or no chance of success and under HIS OWN rules he cannot strike me out UNLESS I am given an opportunity of due process to counter claim See section 8 of the GRC Rules and Procedures.He delivered the STRIKE OUT without warning and without due process to counter argue.
    NJ Warren is acting as the Judge Jury and the Executioner which does not bode well or the Transparency,accountability and security of the ICO/GRC
    A very cosy relationship exists between the GRC President and the ICO???!!!

  28. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    I am due to appear before the FTT/GRC next Mon in London which has been live since May 2009 and God only knows the public purse cost to date. It is my 6th FTT retrial in which the ICO and the Devon County Council (DCC)have changed their PLEA 6 times and they now rely on the vexatious exemption under section 14/1 of my original GIA/3037/2011 case. Funny that isn’t it??!!. What is the famous saying under law, Justice not only needs to be done it must be SEEN to be done??!!
    I rest my case case your honour.

    The ICO/DCC/FTT/UT thought they had found the Holy Grail in defending whimsical vexatious decisions when they served up GIOA/3037/2011 but they didn’t reckon on the Tenacity of one certain Alan M Dransfield who now finds himself being shaftted by his own case.

    • The public purse seems to be DESIGNED to be used by ‘professionals’ AGAINST victims, especially LITIGANTS IN PERSON…

      At least you can look yourself in the mirror in the morning and go to bed at night saying to yourself “I’ve done my best.”

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      The police are now working on being able to sue the public who try to sue the police.
      Where the police/social services get full legal assistance, and almost always the public do not get legal aid.
      That would be a human rights breach where the Human Right to “Equal access to facilities” `in law` is not being taken notice of by the Public authorities responsible to provide `equal access to legal facilities` `for a “FAIR” Trial`.

  29. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    Indeed I can Sabine and I agree with you the powers that be have got their swords out for the LIPS.

    I see the latest user of the Dransfield GIA/3037/2011 case is no other than the CPS.
    My god, we are all doooomed Mr Manerwing.

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Side point about UK Judiciary double-standards.
      I have a document from the Police PSB (GMP) where they state that the CPS refer a man with around a 30-year history for burglar and larceny (working at Manchester airport parking) is claimed by the CPS to be #A “VERY GOOD WITNESS” (where his statement was obtained by an officer who [we understand] pre-fed him false information, and where that officer the subject of an extensive complaint); and which appears to be the CPS/Courts unlawfully discriminating in regards to who is a fit witness and who is not, to suit their attempts to prosecute the public (where innocent), whilst relying on people with extensive criminal records, who (in our case) made no criminal allegation anyway (as per the `burglary/larceny` man in our case); but where anyone with even a trivial criminal record supporting the public accused in a case is branded “an `unreliable` witness” by the same CPS/Court `service`.

      Double standards are endemic in the UK legal profession and it needs to be changed to be even and fair. The current Judiciary does not appear have anything to do with law/justice. Did they ever?

  30. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    I invite readers to press onto the ICO decision link
    below and what will you find ,OOPS cannot find the page,Quell surprise. Even the bloody CPS are using the Dransfield Case GIA/3037/2011 as a Court Authority.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Crown Prosecution Service FS50517505 FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld The complainant made a 56-part information request to CPS relating to a criminal conviction against him and asked CPS to bear
    ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50517505.pdf
    page preview image

  31. victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

    Case in process…. Civil claim being `significant`;
    (extensive costs for home/business/life under Human Rights act requiring UK authorities to put us in a socioeconomic position as if the case they fabricated/tried to fabricate and take our children had not occurred]).
    Background;-
    After an airport night-shift worker allegedly suggested to police at a UK international airport that my wife (Quote) “May have` `POSS`ibly been assaulted” (unquote)… regarding a trivial and passing self-inflicted hairclip injury (like a minor shaving cut) so minor it did not even require a sticking plaster; and which my wife tried to explain to police was caused by her going to get a bag from our vehicle, as luggage was being arranged prior to airport parking for a family holiday; the police caused me to be almost imprisoned for 5-years after they gambled on an arrest in some extreme State paranoia or something.
    We have tried to get redress for 7-years; as costs increased exponentially as we lost our home and business (my wife now insists on living in her home country [S.E. Asia] where human rights exist for Ordinary People in practice; and not just on paper `for show` to fool the UK public to think we all have human rights in practice).
    Note;
    ……the `alleged accuser` (never been in any court to answer questions in 7-years [CPS/Courts/Judges prevented that]) had to be issued a warrant to attend court the day before the 3-day (fit-up) trial and she dodged it with an altered sick note (note we understand she appears to possibly have been coerced into changing her statement into something altogether more extreme by the arresting officer informed that he would be the subject of a complaint/investigation [causing him to falsify/fabricate evidence]). At trial (where I was self-represented), the CPS then told the Judge they had no other evidence.
    After my Crown Court Not guilty verdict; we (my wife and I [and two small children]) are still attempting to take 3 public authorities to court for;-

    Public authority 1 (multiple breaches of PACE law and human rights breaches)
    (a) multiple human rights abuses including;- refusal to provide a translator to a S.E. Asian national they immediately knew was not fluent in English during public interrogation at the check-in desk of an airport (Queens Bench Judge ignores even police evidence)
    (b) false/arbitrary arrest; and public humiliation for my family (QB Judge ignores) The Judge also ignores that no police statement support the other police statement/s.
    (c) Police causing an operable injury to this victim (with medical evidence QB also Judges ignores); judge ignores torture experienced while held in crippling pain for an extended period (arms `double-locked behind back [with blood supply all but cut off]).
    (d) Police attempting to cause an unsafe conviction by;-
    i) `getting rid of an independent witness and keeping their name a secret for 7 years` because they supported my/our innocence (Judge ignores); and preventing Check-in staff statements that would support our case.
    ii) Police destroying all CCTV from the location of an alleged allegation (led to my Not guilty Judge Crown Court verdict), (QB Civil Court Judge ignores [and demeans the verdict]). The Chief constable appears to have killed himself after we sent our complaint to him (GMP Mike Todd?).
    iii) GMP preventing the CPS or Court ever seeing any of the CCTV before destroying it. (QB Judge ignores)
    iv) Police injuring/assaulting me in front of my wife and children and the general public (then experienced as torture in the police van for 30-minutes)
    v) Public authorities preventing any `defence witnesses` being called to court using some “exemption rule” (preventing CCTV staff being called [even though law demands the right to question any witness that provides any statement])
    vi) passing on false, misleading, offensive, illegal accusations in the guilty context to Public authority 2 who passed on same to Public authority 3 (social services).
    The S/S then set about fabricating evidence also. The ONLY material evidence in the case all supports our case. The QB Judge ignores/demeans it unlawfully.
    The police & social services caused my wife to flee the UK in the year to trial, and she only returned to give evidence in my defence (but where it is believed now that the CPS would have prevented her giving evidence); where the CPS withdrew/refused to provide a translator for my wife as her evidence supports my innocence, where she was still not fluent in English, and which the current QB Judge uses as a reason to prevent her making a case either.
    En route a QB `Master` struck out our case by claiming he never had it; until we were forced to prove 6-months later that we had a letter form his staff telling us we had sent the case in on time (we suspected the court might try that and pre-requested it). They are trying every imaginable trick to prevent our case going forward. Even ordering every income document from S.E. Asia to be translated into English by “Certified translators” at great cost whilst they know we are now on welfare assistance for the first time in our 11 year marriage.
    The case is too extensive to draft fully here.
    We have been told repeatedly we cannot have legal aid.
    We are at the point where we have applied to appeal after being unlawfully and/or unreasonably `branded` “Vexatious” (but [oddly] where the Judge states that if our case is true (significant evidence supports), then the police committed criminal acts). The Judge also ignores the police still refusing to supply unedited documents what they sent to social services. We suspect clear human rights breaches are further included; and where either the complete letter is withheld or half of it is edited out.
    P.S.
    Pardon my drafting/wording/spelling; I renovated homes (we owned a large Victorian residence at the outset of this case), and I was not a paralegal secretary; and my wife could only do numerical calculations for our business.
    Help.
    We live in S.E. Asia in the cheapest (wooden) house we could afford, as my wife is too upset to allow our children to be raised in the UK anymore because of ALL the public authorities involved. We are attempting to do the case via paperwork, telephone conferencing and video-conferencing if permitted using whatever is available.
    Pro-Bono say they can only prove an hour or so assistance; but the case is 800+ pages long (40+ hours reading); and costs $250 to post to the UK.

    Any useful suggestions?
    We already tried `Liberty`; but as soon as anyone hears that the case was an alleged allegation of husband on wife assault, the lawyers all run a mile; as the though the `presumption of guilt` is endemic (or they all have personal issues?).

  32. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    I attended two FTT hearings in London on Mon 24th Mar 14 and if I needed further evidence the FTT are sleeping in the same bad as the ICO and other ROGUE PA’s I certainly found it at the the FTT hearing.My first FTT hearing was the 6th RETRIAL on my 6yearold case EA/2010/0152 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council.

    The ICO didn’t even turn up for the hearing and it made not one bit of difference to the FTT Judge NJ Warren who is the FTT STRIKEOUT SPECIALIST.
    A final decision was not made.

    The 2nd hearing was my FTT hearing against the ICOand Stockport Council NEITHER of which turned up at the hearing.

    I asked for a strikeout on BOTH Cases due to the NO SHOW and contempt of Court.

    Whats the betting Dransfield loses BOTH cases???

  33. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    I have just learnt that the Devon County Council have issued over 240 GAGGING ORDERS on Employees leaving the Company in the last 12 months
    What does that tell you about the Honesty and Integrity of this local authority??

    Transparency, accountability and security TAS( my 3 favourite words) have long flown the coup at the DCC.

    TAS MUST be seen to be working and if it is NOT seen to be working, then in all probability it AINT working

  34. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    any news related to the parliament debate on section 14 vexatious decisions ,please let me know, as I currently hold ALL records for vexatious exemptions

  35. victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

    I have a letter from a Judge saying that I am a vexatious litigant (after he said we could have our appeal “next week” [in one of his e-mails]); and I am in the middle of applying to appeal to the Surpreme court of the Queens Bench.
    Why?
    Basically ;
    the UK is saying that you can be humiliated in front of your family, in public in an airport, in front of recording CCTV (the police destroyed before the CPs or a Judge could see any of it), you can be injured (required a hospital operaton), dragged away from your family, unlawfully/arbitrarily arrested, witnesses spporting you can be forced away, you can be jailed, have your holiday ruined, be accused of a bunch of fictional drivel for which no material evidence can ever exist, be caused large ammounts of additional expenses, be seperated form your family later, be harrassed and harangued by police and social services over the course of a year, be caused so much problems, forced to travel all across the country up to a dozen times for hearings and applicaitons for trial, be threatened with 5-years jail, lose business, and eventually be caused toclose your business and dispose of your fmaily home and the police and social services never have to answer any question in any court in any of the over 7-years even though you provide extensive evidnece of a fit-up and the fact that there was no evidence in reality against you.

    And thats called `Justice` and human rights, and I/we are branded `vexatious litigants`? It just seems that the UK is full of Human Rights luuddites in the Judiciary. They constantly practice social discrimination and intellectual discrimination.
    Keep working to level the playing field. never give up, no matter how they try and trip you up.

    • Dear Super Commentator,

      THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED for this!

      I’m just going through my own direct experiences – thanks to a very rogue landlord – and can underwrite everything you’re saying!

      Let’s see how things unfold, as we each try to stand our ground as best as we can!

      KEEP THE FAITH!!!

      • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

        Sabine, I don`t know how you keep it together dealing with all this site and everything else. Your determination and professionalism is admirable; considering there is no likely pension in it. Kudos.
        P.S.
        Social Services reports…
        The reason social services go so deep and ask/find out all they can about their targets family background is to check if you are socially and/or intellectually `weaker` than their often malevolent organization; (they even wanted to know what my wife`s parents did for a living in S.E. Asia, [even while `grooming` our children in front of us during the "twisted" `voluntary` child assessments] [N.B. where the S/S even lied about that legal stance and said the `Core assessments` were `court enforced`, before I recorded the S/S manager in further fabrications/falsehoods]), anyway…; THE REASON the S/S want to know what `social services victims` relatives do, even thousands of miles away from the UK, by asking;- “What do your mother and father do for a living (etc)” ….is so that the S/S can get a better idea as to whether your family are rich and well-connected or not, and/or to discover if they could likely easily afford good lawyers for you if the S/S were to take your children away, as the S/S check if you would have pulling power with the media or something as the S/S target your children to be removed;- if (for instance) it is more likely they will take young children from people who are a child of divorced parents, and/or are of limited financial or limited educational means.

        That is when they appear to whet their lips at the thought of getting your two young children; and they twist the most inane thing into another reason to remove your children (they listed dozens of such `manipulations).
        E.G.
        My wife is from a country where you do not wear shoes in the house. So we do not invite people in if they do not remove their shoes (make alternative arrangements); and politely asked them to respect the house rules; but they wrote in the assessments that we “ORDERED the S/S to take off their shoes” to make us look bad on reports to try get our children off us.

        We led them into our living room which has low-energy lights (Which took a few seconds to brighten up), but the S/S wrote that we “led them into a darkened room” (to make us look bad to try get our children off us).

        One S/S worker hammered on the door repeatedly and when I came downstairs from the third floor, I opened the door, and the Social worker jumped back as she had been trying to look through the letterbox (she later admitted it); and then she complained in the intervening time, in documented records, and claimed in family court that my `opening the door` (while she was attempting to peer through the letterbox` was my “assaulting her”.
        Also; that social worker was shouting illegal things at me in my hallway in front of my wife and small children (frightening them), so my wife confidently said `Go away` (those words [supported by the S/S]); but the S/S wrote that my wife was “Prone to outbursts of sudden and extreme aggression; where the children could be in danger”. The S/S are nuts.
        Luckily, with our evidence the family court barred that particular social worker from coming to our house again.

        But watching the other later creepy S/S woman get close to/groom/touch my child and hold her close and read a little kids book to her, to test her knowledge of shapes and colors (without asking permission), to our 3-yr old daughter, while my wife and I were questioned for hours by the other S/W in our private residence, while that other one was telling our 3-yr old about her step-mother coming from the same S.E. Asian country as my wife etcetera…it really turned my stomach.
        Telling my daughter that her (the social worker) step-mother was rich and implied my daughter might be able to meet her was an effort to coax our child away…to someone of a similar background culture…made my wife and I determined to make sure they would not get at our children again. My wife made arrangements for us to leave the country; and she left after reading the dozens of manipulative and false and exaggerated and twisted comments throughout the reports,
        Fortunately, our daughter is intelligent, as well as happy.
        Bi-lingual by age 3.
        Not happy with the S/S (with and withou5t police) hammering on the door day and night though.
        We have concrete evidence, the S/S have bullshi*e and fabrications.

        • I know…

          It’s sooo bad…

          Stranger than fiction…

          I can only hope for jubilee / amnesty & compensation – after exposure, exposure, exposure – of the REALLY BAD PEOPLE: the judges are on top of the list for me.

          Their hypocrisy and abuse of power!

  36. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2014 NO 882
    FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
    THE FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING REFORM) ACT 2013
    (DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION) REGULATIONS 2014

    COMING INTO FORCE 28TH APRIL 2014.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2014 NO 900 (C.39)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND
    THE LOCAL AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2014 (Commencement No 1) Order

  37. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    I recently received two more VEXATIOUS decisions handed down to me from a hearing in London on the 24th Mar 14 from the infamous STRIKE OUT Judge Warren at the FTT.
    Both cases the ICO failed to show up and in one of the case the PA also failed to turn up.

    I am also due to attended a UT Hearing in June ref my Olympic Stadiums and the ICO and the London Olympic Authority have also been excused.
    Kangaroo Courts or Hotbedding,call it what you will???

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Judges get annoyed that the public actually expect Human Rights and Justice; and when they cant get rid of the public by the usual middle finger, they try and brand you.
      Its no wonder the country is going downhill fast.
      Expect a nation of brain-dead serfs within fifty years. IF they don`t get resistance.

    • ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

      The UT have informed me that neither the ICO or the Olympic Delivery Authority need attend the UT oral hearing in June. This is becoming common practice now for me at the FTT or UT hearing, which indicates to me anyway, they are sleeping in the same bed as the ICO.

      What is the point of me travelling down to London if the other parties have been given permission to be AWOL.

      • The only reason would be to join forces with other ‘vexatious’ litigants, Alan!

        I’m also wondering whether, following the commitment of the EU Petitions Committee to investigate Forced Adoptions, other EU Petitions might be in order!

        The election for MEPs is in May!

  38. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    Sabine, you might be right on this. Hopefully, the Court of Appeal will kick out the ROGUE UT case which is being relied upon,ie The GIA/30337/2011 Dransfield case which was used again unlawfully by the Welsh Assembly only last week.
    Please see
    Welsh Assembly Government
    Case Ref: FS50515394
    Date: 03/04/2014
    Summary: The complainant submitted three requests to the Welsh Government, referring to three separate Welsh Minsters and asked for information about the Powys Fadog project/River Lodge site in Llangollen. The Welsh Government considered that the requests were vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the requests were vexatious and that section 14(1) was correctly engaged. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
    Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld
    View a PDF of decision notice FS50515394
    Greater Manchester Police

  39. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    RE: THE CRIME AND COURTS ACT 2013:
    AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ISSUED TO BRING A SINGLE COUNTY COURT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM COMES INTO FORCE ON 22ND APRIL 2014.
    ______________________________________________________________

    THERE ARE FINANCIAL LIMITS FOR CLAIMS THAT CAN BE MADE IN THE COUNTY COURT
    WHAT IS THE POINT TO REFUSE TO VARY AND REVOKE THE SECTION 42 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS ORDERS WHICH ARE WITHOUT TIME LIMIT, WHEN A PERSON IS MAKING A CLAIM FOR LESS THAN £100,000.00 WHY HE HAS TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 42 (3) OF THE SCA 1981, WHEN A PERSON CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGE UNDER SECTION 38, 23, 76 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984.

    THE RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976, THIS ACT WAS REPEALED UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT 2010-
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR HAS FAILED TO ISSUE A STATUTORY INSTRUMENT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, AS THE WORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS THE EQUALITY ACT 2006 AND 2010.

    SECTION 141 (7) OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007
    An Action for Negligence against Solicitors can be taken in the High Court or County Court, so why the Solicitors and Barristers does mislead the Court by issuing a Strike out Application under the CPR 3 . 4 Rules.

    That is clearly Contempt of Court and offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempt Act 1981.

    There are many Lawyers, Barristers and Court Officers who have failed to obey the Parliament Act the Family Law Act 1986 Part 3.
    and also Section 14A OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT 1982

    I believe that the above is true

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

  40. ALAN M DRANSFIELD says:

    Even the Welsh Assembly are now jumping on the Dransfield Vexatious bandwaggon. These are the first 4 pages of the Welsh Assembly vexatious decisions and I also see the Gwent Police Authority have also relied upon the Dransfield GIA/3037/2011 last week.

    It is NOT Alan M Dransfield, whom, is the vexatious party here,it is the Welsh Assembly,and the ICO and the GPA, whom, appear to me to be working in concert.
    What a love tune they make ??!!

    —————————————————————————————————-
    Reference: FS50515394

    1
    Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
    Decision notice

    Date: 3 April 2014

    Public Authority: Welsh Assembly Government
    Address: Cathays Park
    Cardiff
    CF10 3NQ

    Decision (including any steps ordered)
    1. The complainant submitted three requests to the Welsh Government,
    referring to three separate Welsh Minsters and asked for information
    about the Powys Fadog project/River Lodge site in Llangollen. The Welsh
    Government considered that the requests were vexatious and relied on
    section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the
    requests were vexatious and that section 14(1) was correctly engaged.
    The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
    Background
    2. The request in this case relates to a property known as the River Lodge
    Hotel, which was purchased by the Welsh Government in March 2007.
    The Welsh Government subsequently entered into negotiations with
    Powys Fadog, a local social enterprise with a view to developing the
    property to secure an acceptable community use for the building.
    3. In June 2009 the Assembly Government and Powys Fadog entered into
    an Agreement for Lease for the property. This lease was subject to a
    number of conditions including that Powys Fadog undertake remedial
    and improvement works to bring the property back into a good state of
    repair. A pre-condition to the lease being granted was that Powys Fadog
    was required to demonstrate that it had secured funding to cover the
    cost of remedial works. The requestor in this case is involved with the
    Powys Fadog group. Reference: FS50515394

    2
    4. The Welsh Government has conducted a number of internal
    investigations into the River Lodge project. It has also undertaken an
    options appraisal assessment in order to consider the alternative options
    for future use of the site. The final draft of the options appraisal was
    published in October 2010.
    5. In June 2011 the lease with Powys Fadog expired and the Welsh
    Government sought expressions of interest for the River Lodge from
    other public bodies. In September 2011, the Permanent Secretary wrote
    to the Auditor General for Wales asking for an independent review. As a
    result, the Welsh Government’s acquisition and action to dispose of the
    River Lodge Hotel was the subject of a Wales Audit Office (‘WAO’)
    investigation. A report was issued by the WAO on 14 June 20121
    .
    6. The Welsh Government’s acquisition and action to dispose of the River
    Lodge Hotel has also been investigated by the Public Accounts
    Committee of the National Assembly for Wales (‘PAC’). A report was
    issued by the PAC in June 20132
    .
    Request and response
    7. On 29 July 2013, the complainant submitted three separate but identical
    requests for information in respect of three named Ministers – Carwyn
    Jones AM, Jane Hutt AM and Edwina Hart AM. He requested:
    1. Any correspondence to or from, or on behalf of the relevant
    Minister pertaining to the Powys Fadog project/Riverlodge site in
    Llangollen from March 2010 until present.
    2. Any correspondence to or from the relevant Minister that relates to
    the complainant from March 2010 until present.
    3. Records of any telephone conversations with the relevant Minister
    relating to Riverlodge site/Powys Fadog project, including any
    internal processes, audits, FOI requests, from March 2010 until
    present.

    1https://www.wao.gov.uk/system/files/publications/The_Welsh_Government%27s_acquisitio
    n_and_action_to_dispose_of_the_former_River_Lodge_Hotel_English_2012.pdf

    2http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/documents/s17853/The%20Welsh%20Governments
    %20acquisition%20and%20action%20to%20dispose%20of%20the%20former%20River%20
    Lodge%20Hotel%20Llangollen.pdf Reference: FS50515394

    3
    4. Records/notes/minutes of any meetings attended by the relevant
    Minister or their representative that have discussed the Powys
    Fadog project/Riverlodge site.
    8. The Welsh Government responded on 27 August 2013 stating that it was
    refusing the three requests on the basis of section 14 of the FOIA as the
    requests were considered to be vexatious.
    9. On 3 September 2013 the complainant requested an internal review of
    the Welsh Government’s handling of the requests.
    10. The Welsh Government provided the outcome of its internal review in
    relation to the three requests on 11 October 2013 and upheld its
    position that section 14 applied to the requests.
    Scope of the case
    11. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 4 October 2013 to
    complain about the way his request for information had been handled.
    12. Some of the information requested was likely to constitute the
    complainant’s own personal data, namely part 2 of the requests for
    information. As such the Commissioner wrote to the Welsh Government
    and asked it to consider part 2 of the three requests as subject access
    requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’).
    13. In light of the above, the scope of the Commissioner’s investigation is to
    determine whether the Welsh Government has appropriately applied
    section 14 of the FOIA to the parts of the requests which do not relate to
    the complainant’s own personal data.
    Reasons for decision
    Section 14 – vexatious requests
    14. Section 14(1) of FOIA states that section 1(1) does not oblige a public
    authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
    vexatious. There is no public interest test. Reference: FS50515394

    4
    15. The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the legislation. In Information
    Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield3
    the Upper Tribunal
    took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word
    vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a
    request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances
    surrounding that request. The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could
    be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper
    use of a formal procedure” (paragraph 27). The decision clearly
    establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are
    central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.
    16. In the Dransfield case, the Upper Tribunal also found it instructive to
    assess the question of whether a request is truly vexatious by
    considering four broad issues: (1) the burden imposed by the request
    (on the public and its staff); (2) the motive of the requester; (3) the
    value or serious purpose of the request; and (4) and harassment or
    distress of and to staff.

    17. The Upper Tribunal did, however, also caution that these considerations
    were not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it stressed the “importance of
    adopting a holistic and broad approach to the determination of whether
    a request is vexatious or not, emphasising the attributes of manifest
    unreasonableness, irresponsibility and, especially where there is a
    previous course of dealings, the lack of proportionality that typically
    characterise vexatious requests” (paragraph 45).

    18. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the request is likely
    to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or
    distress in relation to the serious purpose and value of the request. He
    considers there is in effect a balancing exercise to be undertaken,
    weighing the evidence of the request’s impact on the authority against
    its purpose and value.
    19. The Commissioner has identified a number of “indicators” which may be
    useful in identifying vexatious requests. These are set out in his
    published guidance on vexatious requests4
    . The fact that a request
    contains one or more of these indicators will not necessarily mean that it
    must be vexatious. All the circumstances of a case will need to be
    considered in reaching a judgement as to whether a request is
    vexatious.

    3
    UKUT 440 (AAC) (28 January 2013)
    4

    http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/

    Detailed_specialist_guides/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.ashx Reference: FS50515394

    5
    The Welsh Government’s position
    a) Burden on the authority
    20. The Welsh Government stated that it had received an exceptionally high
    volume and frequency of correspondence regarding the River Lodge
    project over a period of five years or more. It provided

  41. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    SECTION 78 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

    SAVING FOR EXISTING POWERS

    NOTHING IN THIS ACT IS TO BE TAKEN TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION HELD BY IT.

    IT IS NOT OPEN FOR ANY JUDGE TO IGNORE THE JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS;
    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS REPLACED THE HOUSE OF LORDS- AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM ACT 2005, THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.

    SUGAR VERSUS BBC
    THIS CASE WAS ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST-

    THE TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 APPLIES ONLY TO ENGLAND AND WALES

    THE PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR EVENTS AND INCIDENTS WHICH OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THIS DOES INCLUDE IN THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA.

    IT IS MORE THAN 49 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, WHERE THIS DOES AMOUNT TO HARASSMENT AND INDIRECT OR DIRECT DISCRIMINATION.

    THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION HAS RECENTLY ADMITTED THAT IT HAS NO INHERENT JURISDICTION POWER.

    IN TAYLOR AND ANOTHER VERSUS LAWRENCE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL THE YEAR 2002,
    THERE IS A PARAGRAPH WHICH DOES MENTION THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS CREATED BY STATUTE AND IT HAS NO INHERENT JURISDICTION POWER.

    THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
    CLAIM NUMBER CO/4502/2002
    JUDGMENT GIVEN ON THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2003
    NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER [2003] EWHC 537 (Admin)

    Denis Lowe Appellant
    and
    (1) First Secretary of State
    (2) Tendering District Council

    The Transcript of the Judgment does mention the words in the English Dictionary and Three Authorities
    Attorney General ex relator Sutcliffe and Others Calderdale Borough Council (1982) 46 P & CR

    paragraph 15 Dyer V Dorset County Council (1989) 1 QB 346

    Jepson V Gribble (1876)

    This does provide sufficient evidence and proof that there is Rough and Fraud Justice in the United Kingdom against Litigants in Person.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

  42. victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

    BRANDED by the UK state VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ? whereby the Courts appear to use bullying tactics to prevent Justice?

    Note.
    Little known Human Rights law/legal-requirement that may affect many of you.

    Human Rights law:-

    “Governments should not collect information about you, but if they do, that information needs to be accurate”

    Where;-
    `If` you are labelled an `obnoxious working-class litigant` (QED a victim of offences by public authorities), whereby Judges use as a brand to label you `a `vexatious litigant“, then they are potentially acting illegally by creating and holding such information about you which is “not accurate” (if you don`t make it so [no matter how much they provoke you]); thus you could appeal about that single aspect alone: to the Strasbourg Court. Assuming they appreciate the UK Courts/Judges contempt for the general public (previously labelled:- riff-raff`?)?

    Test case?

    However, essentially, the UK courts will steal up to a ten or twenty year chunk of your life first to try and prevent you getting Justice…it appearing that they discriminate and assume all council estate background victims will all be quitters.

    So many abuses by the Courts.

  43. Ismail Bhamjee says:

    In reply to Victims of the State Hypocrites

    It is not the function of any Attorney General to misapply any Parliament Act.

    The County Courts Act 1984 is a Parliament Act, Section 23, has been in force since the Section had been commenced.

    This Act is no Longer Exempt Information as it is now nearly about 30 Years.

    Schedule 9 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c.22)
    Single County Court in England and Wales Part 3 Further amendments

    Paragraph 52. There are many Acts that has been mentioned-

    The Perjury Act 1911 has been left out.

    The Judges in Strasbourg- European Court of Human Rights have not taken the County Courts Act 1984, The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Section 27 and the repeals made under that Act,
    and now there is the Legal Services Act 2007 Schedule 3 Exempt Person

    The Word Mc-Kenzie Friend has either been replaced with the word “person” under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

    The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales who had made a speech in the House of Commons about Individual Persons being increased in the Family Courts, Whilst he has either left out Section 50 and 55 of the Solicitors Act 1974, where the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal should have been abolished, as it was to save costs on the Citizens, where an Application to have a Solicitor Strike out from the Roll of Solicitor can be made before any Court or Tribunal in the same proceedings.

    The Deputy Master in the Court of Appeal has not taken into consideration of Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 Second Appeals-
    When a complaint had been made to the Lord Chancellor, than they write a Letter to the HM Attorney General Chambers about Vexatious Applications, whilst an Application for Permission to Appeal is an Appeal to have a Judgment of the Lower Court set aside or varied. It is not a New Claim.

    Official Misconduct in Public Office at Common Law is a Criminal Offence, as they list this as a Civil Matter, where Section 42 (3A) of the SCA 1981 is a Criminal Cause or Matter.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      In reply to Ismail Bhamjee
      Ref;- “It is not the function of any Attorney General to misapply any Parliament Act.”
      ……..Regarding the UK and its requirements under the Universal; Declaration of Human Rights….
      QUOTE;-
      Article 30
      “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying… any right to engage in any activity… aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth” There is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that justifies any person or state doing anything that undermines the rights to which we are all entitled.”

      Don`t let them fiddle you.

  44. Anonymous says:

    I have just signed your petition, Alan.
    I am new here and I only understand half of what is said. I have a section 91 (14) order against me, I have made two different applications to the court in 4 years – both had good merit, but not in the eyes of the bias judge (who had already been asked to recuse himself by my barrister, which is why he had to transfer my case to a different judge for a while, until he got back on the case). I am filing a complaint with the ECHR for many reasons in my case, but also for being barred for no reason, from accessing the courts. Has anyone filed a complaint with the ECHR succesfully????

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for signing my petition and welcome to the blog. You will find some well informed , friendly and helpful people on this site.
      At all costs, I must win my Court of Appeal Case as I think it is the most important FOI casecsince the birth of the FOIA 2000.

  45. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    BARONESS BUTTER SLOSS AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 PART 3 AND M. F. P. A. 1984 PART III
    ______________________________________________________________

    BUTTER SLOSS HAS RESIGNED FROM THE ABUSE INQUIRY-

    WHILST I HAD APPEARED BEFORE HER IN THE COURT OF APPEAL,
    THE JUDGE DIDN’T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 AND M F. P. A. 1984 PART 111.

    THERE ARE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2014 NO 564
    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ENGLAND
    (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2014
    THIS CAME INTO FORCE ON THE 6TH APRIL 2014.

    THE PERSON WHO HAS A SECTION 91 (14) ORDER, SHOULD CONSIDER THE ABOVE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT, AS THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN STRASBOURG SHOULD TAKE THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2014 NO 564 WHERE THE CASE OF BRYAN VERSUS THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED AND RELIED UPON

    THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 DOES MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES TO SECTION 11 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

    I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      I read this;-
      “BUTTER SLOSS HAS RESIGNED FROM THE ABUSE INQUIRY- ………. etc” and was immediately aware that they know the public are onto them and their tricks now; due to the internet.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Baroness Butler Sloth has resigned from the sex abuse case for one reason only. She knows she has been rumbled and so does DC ,whom tried to pull the wool over the eys of the British Public.
    No doubt, they will roll out another sympathetic Judge to take Controll of the a Kangaroo Court?!

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Does anyone else fell sure that an incredibly complex legal framework will be applied to the case so that nobody at all understands any of it; and that way they can fiddle the result?

      Just like every civil case against the public authorities you can point to over the past forty years..

  47. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    THE FINANCE ACT 2014 SCHEDULE 19 OTHER AMENDMENTS ABOUT VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY. SECTION 91

    PLEASE SEE THE SCHEDULE 19 OF THE FINANCE ACT 2014,
    THIS DOES APPLY TO ANY PERSON WHO IS THE OWNER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, AND DOES INCLUDE ME AS I AM ON THE LIST OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

    I DIDN’T COMMIT AN OFFENCE, AS SECTION 33 HAS NOW BEEN REPEALED.

    THE WHEEL CLAMPERS USED TO MAKE MORE MONEY

    I HOPE THIS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS THE SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT AND THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HAVE BEEN BIAS.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

  48. Derek says:

    I have always been led to believe that ‘perjury’, and ‘perverting the course of justice’, were criminal acts that resulted in a prison sentence. Not anymore as it depends who you are, and who you know. I have witnessed many cases of perjury, and perverting the course of justice by solicitors, barristers and judges. In fact I could write a book on the utter corruption in the UK legal system. It is downright corrupt, and stinks rotten to the core. I think the UK should abandon British law because it has become a joke, and instill Sharia law. Any law is better than no law at all.

  49. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    RE:- Section 13 of the STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835
    Justices not to administer oaths, &c, touching matters whereof they have no jurisdiction by Statute, Proviso.

    It shall not be lawful for any justice of the peace other person to administer or cause or allow to be administered, or to receive or cause or allow to be received any oath, affidavit, or solemn affirmation touching any matter or thing whereof such justice or other person hath no jurisdiction or cognizance by some statute in force at the time being: provided always, that nothing herein before any justice in any matter or thing touching the preservation of the peace, or the prosecution, trial or punishment of offences, or touching any proceedings before either the Houses of Parliament or any committee thereof respectively, nor to any oath, affidavit, or affirmation which may be required by the Law of any Foreign Country to give validity to instruments in writing designed to be used in such foreign countries respectively.

    Section 1 of the Zambia Independence ACT 1964 is an Order in Council-

    The Town and Country Planning Act 1971, this was repealed under the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 Schedules, where the High Court and the Court of Appeal had no Jurisdiction Power to deal with matters under the TCPA 1971.
    For what purpose and reasons they do rely on Repealed Parliament Acts or Statutory Instruments, as this is Harassment or Collective Harassment
    under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 and the Equality Act 2010.

    They do victimise and injure persons who are on Low Income.

    This does apply to persons in Official Capacity who are in the Local Authority and the Local Government Ombudsman Commissioner and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

    The Information Commissioner’s Office needs to be abolished-
    The Crown Prosecution Services and the Financial Conduct Authority should take over the Functions of the Information Commissioner which shall reduce costs and time at the same time.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

    • Alan M Dransfield says:

      The latest Cowboy Outfit to jump on the Dransfield Vexatious Bandwaggon is the Cabinet Office. Check it out at the ICO website.

      Does anyone know of Forensic Englush Language Linguist Expert who could assist me at my forthcoming Court of Appeal retrial in which I will argue the FOIA 2000 has been operating in a legal void since birth in 2000.

  50. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    In reply to Alan M. Dransfield

    1. There are Criminal Procedure Rules- where Criminal Proceedings have to be commenced in the Magistrates Court under the Rule 7.

    2. There is the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 Schedule Offences-

    Paragraph 3 does mention of Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.

    3. The Civil Procedure Rules Part 35: Experts overriding Duty to the Court-
    Leave of the Court is required-

    The Court of Appeal is not a Court of Trial- First-Instance-
    The Court of Appeal will only look at the Evidence which was before the Lower Court or Upper Tribunal, whilst there are some changes which have been made since the decisions were made before any Court of Law or Tribunal.

    4. The Information Commissioner Office will not provide and disclose the names of the Officers who are employed in the Information Commissioner’s Office as for the Purpose of laying an Information before the Magistrates Court
    since the Metropolitan Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission have breached their Statutory Duty by failing to record a Crime when a Criminal Offence had been reported to them.

    5. Disclosure of Information, there is a Legal Right to make an Application for a Disclosure Order outside the Freedom of Information Act 2000-

    6. Section 78 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does also apply as this is Part of the FIA 2000.
    The Meaning of the Words under Section 84 of the FIA 2000.

    7. There are persons who have been issued with Civil Proceedings Restraint Order under the CPR 3-11
    After the Judgment given in Bhamjee versus David Forsdick and Others-
    Court of Appeal 25th July 2003.

    8. The Judgment given in the Chancery Division on the 22nd July 2005 before than Mr Justice Park in the Chancery Division,
    This has not been published in the Public Domain-
    The Court of Appeal Civil Division does have the Transcript of the Judgment, and the Upper Tribunal does have a copy of the Court Order dated the 22nd July 2005

    I hope this shall assist any person, as The Treasury Solicitors does represent many Government Ministers and Departments, and under Section 1 of the Treasury Solicitors Act 1876, they can sue and can be sued-
    As Section 51 (6) (7) of the SCA 1981 does apply for a Wasted Costs Orders to be made against any Legal Representative-

    Since other Court Officers before any Court or Tribunal are known to the Officers in the Treasury Solicitors, where Litigants in Person shall not get a fair hearing due to lack of funds and a QC Barrister.

    White Collar Crime on Fraud as there are other Officers in the Treasury Solicitors.

    I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

    • Alan M Dransfield says:

      It’s looking good for a Court of Appeal hearing date in my vexatious case C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO as they are asking for a listing in the next3 months.
      In the event I lose my case at the Court of Appeal I MUST appeal to the Supreme Court and ECHR or else the FOIA becomes obsolete ?!

      I am also before the FTT Oct 23rd
      with another FOIA appeal in which the ICO declared 15 of my foia requests as vexatious.
      The ICO have informed the FTT and me they do not plan to attend the hearing?!?

      • Alan M Dransfield says:

        Definite date given for my Court of Apeal case C3/2013/1855 where I have been given permission to appeal Judge Wikeley’s vexatious decision. Hearing date 27th or28th Jan(tbc).
        The Pro Bono unit are trying to find a QC willing to take this on.
        What fun?

  51. victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

    Its my understanding (of 20+? years ago) that the UK fiddled the public out of VAST Sums of money from Vehicle tax disc income when the law was changed: (on the one hand) to disconnect the legal reason for introducing the vehicle tax disc; which was to finance the building of motorways…(where that was disconnected in law)…
    BUT….
    When the UK stopped building more public motorways, and the numbers of cars increased (more tax funding), and privatisation was en-route; after the goverment cut the link to the TAX-Motorway Law… (on the other hand) for years and years the UK Government/s for many years (ten? I think) still continued to take money off the public for a tax that was de-comissioned.

    In other words the UK Government was unlawfully taking (Tax) money by false grounds (Fraud)
    BUT…
    If you (as I) at the time refused to pay for something which was not lawful, or to which you had a political disagreement, they still criminalised you for that (something that they were defrauding you of illegally). This was before you could fight a case to Strasbourg (without being a multi-millionaire)

    Later they (politiicans) all pretended they didn`t know the law about the issue, and then came up with the new excuse of “Pollution tax”. Which is what it seems to be now.

    I could be slightly mistaken.
    But then again, I am an ordinary working-class person with no legal training whatsoever, from a country with well over a million laws and regulations we all seem to have to guess at (which not one person in authority in the UK has ever been able to count as they are so numerous and evolving).

    Go figure out why some people lose all faith in a country which illegally criminalises the innocent while it robs its own poor citizens.

    • Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

      THERE IS A COURTS AND CRIME BILL WHICH WAS SENT TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS- SINCE THE PARLIAMENT AND HOUSE OF LORDS ARE ON HOLIDAY-

      THE MAGISTRATES COURT SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION POWER TO DEAL WITH THE UNLICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 29 AND 33.

      IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER PERSONS WHO HAD PAID THE FINES SHALL BE REFUNDED OR NOT.

      SINCE SECTION 25 OF THE CRIME ACT 2003, THIS DOES INSERT SECTION 18A under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

      (1)-

      (d) The sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

      The meaning of this words in English Language?

      I request for Interpretation of this word in simple language.

      As the Local Authorities are instructing the Bailiffs as with regards to Non-Payment of the Penalty Notice.

      I thank you in advance

      Yours Faithfully

      Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

      • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

        Quote;- “(d) The sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.”

        Basically; (if I understand you right) they appear to be saying that if someone is `fined` for not paying a tax-disc, and get a `traffic contravention debt` (via magistrates); and if you appeal it, then it suddenly becomes transformed into a secret magical world of fantasy debt-fine.

        Maybe its to avoid Crown Court cases; where the law is looked at more closely on many occasions (and is more prone to appeals)?
        They don`t want the public to know the law; as that would give the public some material to work with.

  52. Alan M Dransfield says:

    I suffered another Upper Tribunal defeat at the hands of the Upper Tribunal in London last Thurs 16th Oct14. I was appealing an earlier FTT strike by the infamous strike out specialist from FTT Judge Warren..ref my FOIA request to the House of Lords for a copy of their Lightning Protection Risk Assessment.

    After this latest UT decision the rogue PA’s nationwide NOW have TWO GETOUTOFJAILFREEECARDS. The 1st one is the ridiculous Vexatious Dransfield Decision GIA/3037/2011, which is scheduled for the Court of Appeal next Jan.They now have DONOTHOLD .
    I now plan to make a Judicial Review request.

    I also appear before the FTT again next Fri v the ICO to challenge 15 vexatious decisions given against me on the same day. This hearing will be held in Exeter Magistrate Court next Fri 10, hence, anyone who has any doubts the ICO do NOT operate a BLANKET VEXATIOUS system, please attend.

    The FOIA 2000 is now being geared to assist the passage of fraud by rogue PA’s such as the DCC,ICO and House of Lords , whom can claim either Vexatious Exemption or Do Not Hold.

    It is all well and good for these PA’s to claims, “we do not hold the sought after data” but they SHOULD hold the sought after data, if it they are DUTY BOUND.
    For example in my last weeks UT hearing, the House of Lords maintain they are fully compliant with Lightning Protection Measures which is HOGWASH because they are also on record (in writing) that they do not hold a current Lightning Risk Assessment(LRA). The second statement automatically cancels their first statement.

    The FTT and the UT both agree that “SHOULD HOLD” or duty bound is NOT a matter for them which is also HOGWASH.
    The analogy with the ICO is.

    The ICO are robbing the bank.
    The FTT are driving the getaway car.
    The UT are acting as lookouts.
    Christopher Graham,Richard Bailey Graham Frank Smith and others are covering the tracks.
    PA’s are providing false alibi.

    The ICO are operating in a Legal Void and in essence are in COMPLETE MELTDOWN..

    • victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

      Bonkers UK. The most convoluted set of laws, rules and regualtions on the planet; built like the Tower of Babel.

      Its why we had to leave; for the sake of our health.

  53. Alan M Dransfield says:

    I have another V interesting FTT hearing in Exeter Magistrate Court this Fri 23rd at 10/00am where Dransfield grapples with the ICO who declared 15 of my FOI requests vexatious on the same day.
    The ICO would have the world believe they do NOt operate a BLANKET vexatious campaign.

    I am living proof,the ICO operate a blanket vexatious exemption against me.
    The decision for my FTT has already been made,ie FTT to uphold the ICO vexatious decision.

  54. victimsofthestatehypocrites says:

    I had to take our case to Strasbourg. Targeting the Judges also. What a LOT of paperwork. But they do it to try and drive you nuts I think.

  55. Alan M Dransfield says:

    And the ICO get paid the Kings shilling to protect the FOIA.

    I don’t know the % of cases where the ICO uphold the complainant but bet it is V low.

    Just looking at the ICO refusals, the FTT strike outs and the UT incompetence,it is safe to say the Lights of Transparency,accountability and security has been switched OFF>

  56. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL:
    GUIDANCE FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS IN CIVIL CLAIMS 2014
    AUGUST 2014.

    There is a Guidance issued by the Civil Justice Council which has been published on the Civil Justice Council.
    Please see Paragraph 89 Sanctions
    and 92 Experts should also be aware of other possible sanctions

    a. in more extreme cases, if the court has been misled it may invoke general powers for contempt in the face of the Court, The Court would then have the Power to fine or imprison the wrongdoer

    B. If an expert commits perjury, Criminal Sanctions may follow

    C. If an expert has been negligent there may be a claim on their Professional Indemnity Insurance.

    Civil Justice Council August 2014.

    The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 has not been mentioned in the CPR Part 52 and 54 Rules.

    Bhamjee versus David Forsdick & Others was wrongly decided as there are many Civil Restraint Orders which are issued in the United Kingdom-
    When the High Court had no Jurisdiction Power to deal with matters under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as this was repealed under Schedule 1 of the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

    Since I am not a White European Person, as I was born in Malawi.
    The Late Kamuzu Banda who had spent One year in Gwelo Prison,
    Kenneth Kaunda had also spent one year in Prison-

    The United Kingdom Judges- Lawyers-Barristers have no Jurisdiction for the events and incidents which had occurred in the Republic of Zambia.
    That is Bad Faith

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s