My original site containinng these pages has been shut down by my ISP upon receipt of a complaint from those I expose: THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT. The site was shut down unlawfully for one very simple reason: the Lord Chancellor knows that every word published is "GODS" truth. He has the copy evidence, for which I hold the originals, that support every alleged fact. Also, it is very clear to me that the trial Judge: Alan Simpson, has made his corruption known to the department. My thanks go to the following who support the principle of free speech, because they have mirrored these pages despite the Office held by Lord Irvine of Lairg-:
William H. Geiger lll -http://www.openpgp.net/hulbert.index.html
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.markgold.freeserve.co.uk/censorship/hulbert.mirror/index.html
Lee - http://members.xoom.com/larks/mirror
Two other United States sympathizers are is the process of mirroring these pages, names and URLs will be updated.
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN UK
OPEN LETTER TO LORD IRVINE - THE LORD CHANCELLOR - SENT TO HIS OFFICE AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 1998, BY J. F. HULBERT OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL.
My Lord, I call upon you to ask for resignation of the following members' of the judiciary who, having acted corruptly, and therefore outside of their judicial capacity, are no longer fit to sit in judgement of others.
1. CIRCUIT JUDGE ALAN SIMPSON, who acted corruptly, and therefore outside of his judicial function, by conspiring with a shorthand writer, and did falsify evidence, purportedly given by witnesses, out of a criminal trial, at Hull Combined Court Centre, for the protection of the said Police witnesses, after I was unanimously acquitted, on the 13th December 1991, at which trial I acted in person.
2. DISTRICT JUDGE D. J. R. WESTON who, on the 13th February 96, unlawfully disposed of, by striking out, my civil action, against Judge Simpson, and the shorthand writer, on the manifestly false ground, that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, in the absolute knowledge, that the Statement of Claim, plainly alleged the well proven causes, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and falsifying evidence, out of a criminal trial. He did in the guise of acting within his judicial capacity, wilfully enter into the conspiracy, for the protection of a colleague.
3. MRS. JUSTICE SMITH
who, on the 22nd May 1996, upon appeal, from District Judge
Weston's order, striking out the action, on the patently false
a) that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause of action;
b) that as a remedy to anyone damaged, he would be entitled to sue;
c) that judicial immunity did not apply;
d) that the allegation is worse than fraud;
e) that if there was any basis for the case, it must be litigated;
f) that it must never be asserted that any of us (judiciary) have indulged in any kind of protection of a colleague, however eminent they may be:
My Lord, despite Mrs. Justice Smith's fine words, and principles, spoken on the 22nd May. and despite her holding that the Statement of Claim plainly alleged a cause of action. she adjourned the hearing when, after a period of nearly six months, on the 12th November, she demonstrated that she had abandoned her principles, by dismissing the appeal against the District Judge's unlawful order. and in so doing she wrongly exercised her discretion, by allowing the unlawful order, striking out the action, on a false ground, to remain, as if valid, on the Court record.
Mrs. Justice Smith failed to dispense justice without fear, or favour, and she also entered into the conspiracy to protect a colleague.
4. LORD JUSTICES SAVILLE, AND MORRILL who, on the 5th March 1997, refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, from the orders of the District, and High Court Judges'. in the sure knowledge that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged, and well proven, cause of action, and therefore in the certain knowledge that Mrs. Justice Smith, having held that fact to be true in the High Court, should have allowed the appeal, and also knowing that the unlawful order remained, as if valid, on the Court record. Lord Justices' Saville, and Morrill refused me leave to appeal for no other reason than to protect a colleague, and therefore they both wilfully entered into the conspiracy.
The conspiracy to pervert he course of justice widened, before you took Office, to include those of your own Department, and also includes Mr. Shepheard, a legal officer, formally in the employ of the Treasury Solicitor. I make the following specific allegations of unlawful acts against them, that demonstrate their strong desire, and determination, to maintain the silence of Mrs. West, to obstruct justice for the protection of Judge Simpson, that resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice, and further judicial corruption, referred to in 1,2,3, and 4, of this letter:-
a) That upon instructions from your Department, the Office of the Treasury Solicitor acknowledged service of the Writ, on behalf of Judge Simpson, and (significantly) at the same time, acknowledged on behalf of Mrs, West, without instructions from her to do so. despite the fact that she had acknowledged its service on her own behalf, eight days earlier. stating her intention of acting in person, and putting herself on lawful Court record as so doing;
b) that Mrs. West did not give consent to, or instruct the Treasury Solicitor to unlawfully acknowledge service on her behalf, nor at all, nor could she lawfully do so;
c) that Mrs. West, being a private citizen, was, (significantly) unlawfully afforded the privilege of legal representation, by a Government Department, out of public funds.
d) that because Mr. Shepheard's purpose was to protect Judge Simpson, he did not request any material from Mrs. West for the preparation of her purported 'DEFENCE', in the knowledge that any material provided by her, would (inevitably) expose the Judge, nor did she provide material, nor did she approve her purported 'DEFENCE' before it was served;
e) that in an attempt to regularize the filing of the impotent 'Acknowledgement of Service', Mr. Shepheard served an impotent 'Notice of Change of Solicitor' upon myself, and Mrs. West, dated 22nd September 1995, to draw her attention to the fact that conduct of the case had been taken from her, and to dupe me into believing that he was on lawful Court record as acting for her. It was served unsealed, and it remains unsealed by the Court;
f) that the 'Notice of Change', dated 22nd September, purports to take effect from the date that the ineffective 'Acknowledgement of Service' was filed, 24 days earlier: the 29th August, contrary to the rule of the Supreme Court, Order 67, rule 1, (1).
g) that the 'Notice of Change' was served by Mr. Shepheard, contrary to RSC. O, 67, rule 1,(3), it not being indorsed with a memorandum that it had been filed with the Court. I filed it myself, in order to bring the unlawful document to the attention of the Court;
h) that the Treasury Solicitor was not, and never has been, on lawful Court record as acting for Mrs. West;
i) that on the 1st December 1995, Mr. Shepheard perjured himself, by swearing a false affidavit, which is now the subject of a Metropolitan Police investigation.
My Lord, I have persistently endeavoured to provide you with documentary evidence, that supports, and corroborates, all of the allegations, but to no avail, because my understanding is that Mr. Huebner, the Chief Executive of the Court Services, has intercepted them, and has not brought them to your attention. It is evident, from the correspondence between the Court Services of your Department, and myself, that these serious corrupt matters are, if not actually being orchestrated by Mr. Huebner, are being condoned by him.
I refer to a copy letter, the original of which is in the possession of the Deputy Prime Minister, which I must assume was sent to him by yourself personally, because it purports to bear your signature. It is dated the 26th January 1998, and in the second paragraph, you purportedly, informed John Prescott, that upon appeal in Leeds in May 1996, the Honourable Justice Smith held that the Statement of Claim did not disclose an alleged cause of action, and that statement is manifestly untrue, because, as the certified transcript of those proceedings reveal, she held exactly the opposite, as already mentioned, she held that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause. In the absence of any explanation for your undeniably untrue, purported statement, to John Prescott, I must infer that you have been deliberately misinformed. in line with the conspiracy, for Judge Simpson's protection, and that you have inadvertently, passed on the false evidence, to the Deputy Prime Minister.
My Lord, there is a most urgent: serious matter, that, I submit, requires immediate attention, in order to prevent another obstruction of justice, on the 7th October 1998, when an application to strike out my current action, against Mrs. West, (case number 1997-H-0085) will be heard at the Hull Combined Court Centre, the cause being perjury, by swearing a false affidavit. Because of my experience with regard to the action that has been struck out for Judge Simpson's protection, on the obvious false ground, I have no reason to believe that there will not be a repetition, on the 7th October, again as part of the conspiracy, so that Mrs. West's silence is maintained.
Mrs. West's current Solicitor, who acted on her behalf, as agent for the Treasury Solicitor, in the earlier action that was unlawfully struck out, has again abused the process of the Court by making application for this action (against Mrs. West) to be struck out, on what he knows without doubt, to be a false ground,and in the knowledge that perjury is clearly alleged in the claim.
There is no doubt that the Court is being abused, because to ask a District Judge to strike out an action, on a clearly stated, and well proven cause of action, is (as you know, but I make the point) to ask the Court to to deny the undeniable, because to ask the Court hold that the clearly stated causes of perjury, and conspiracy, are not reasonable ones, is to ask it to hold that every criminal, and cicvil prosecution that ever was, was unreasonable, and I respectfully submit that such a ruling would be utterly ridiculous. It is a monstrous abuse of the Court, and there is no pretence about it. A District Judge is again going to be asked to abandon hid principles, and his independence, to dispense justice without fear, or favour, in order to maintain Mrs. West's silence, for the protection of a Judge. The abuse of the Court is continuing within your Department. I respectfully, and urgently ask, that it be stopped.
Respectfully, and sincerely,
J. F. Hulbert.
NOTE - The abuse, and the conspiracy did not stop. On the 7th October 98, my separate action against Mrs. West was struck out as disclosing no cause by DISTRICT JUDGE R. N. HILL, at Hull Combined Court Centre, when he refused point blank, to allow me to read off my submissions, in opposition to the application to strike out the action, and why wouldn't he refuse, when he knew that there could be no lawful answer to the objections, that he knew I would inevitably submit?
My appeal against the
unlawful order, is to be heard by Mr. Justice Moses, in December
of this year. I am not holding my breath.
Story <pleezcumcleanmrswest'zat.karoo.co.uk> or <hulbert?zat.karoo.co.uk>