|
|
LETTER THAT I SENT TO AN ASSISTANT TREASURY SOLICITOR
Treasury Solicitor,
Queen Anne's Chambers.
Broadway,
London,
SWIH 9JS.
19 October 1997
Your Ref: L95/6109B/DDB/D4
Dear Madam,
MYSELF-v-JUDGE SIMPSON & MRS. WEST
Further to my letter of the 11th October. I repeat, that because the High Court Judge, ruled that the Statement of Claim, in the above action, plainly discloses a reasonable cause of action, and because the Treasury Solicitor, through Counsel, agreed with that ruling, also because the Law Lords, did not disagree with that ruling, isn't it now time, for the Treasury Solicitor, having agreed with that ruling, (through Counsel) to admit what cannot be denied: that the order made by District Judge Weston, has been proved to be false, and cannot remain on the Court record?
There are several other matters of concern; firstly, the 'Notice of Change of Solicitor', (note - for Mrs. West) which was prepared, and served, by your Mr. Shepheard, and which was dated by him, on the 22 September 1995. It can only lawfully take effect (note - that is if she had been entitled to legal representation, by a Government Department) from the date that it was served, and filed, (note - Mr. Shepheard did not, and could not file the unlawful document with the Court) pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court O, 67, 1, (1) It is appreciated that Mr. Shepheard states, on the 'Notice', that it takes effect from the 29th August, and he may have thought that he had good reason for pre-dating the date from which he wanted it to take effect, but the indisputable fact is, that it could not possibly take effect from the 29th August, for any reason whatsoever, because that is contrary to RSC. O, 67, rule 1 (1): it is unlawful.
RSC. O, 67, rule 1, (2), states, that a notice of change of Solicitor, must be indorsed with a memorandum, stating that it has been duly filed in the appropriate office, and naming that office, but Mr. Shepheard's 'Notice', is not so indorsed.
I find it difficult to believe, that Mr. Shepheard, being a Barrister, did not familiarize himself with RSC. O, 67, but I find it easy to believe, that he deliberately acted unlawfully, in order to take advantage of my ignorance of the law, in a desperate bid to ensure Mrs. West's silence
My next concern, is the matter of costs, and in that respect I have already written to your Mr. Houghton, as you may know, explaining, what I believe your Department should know: that Mrs. West does/should not enjoy the privilege of being represented by a Government Department, in a civil action, and paid for out of the public purse. That also, I believe to be unlawful, and that also indicates how desperate Mr. Shepheard was, to try to ensure that Mrs. West should not be allowed to represent herself, as was her intention, when she lawfully acknowledged service of the Writ.
I would have expected your Department to know, that Government Departments neither pay, nor receive costs, with some exceptions, which do not apply in this case, and I am therefore surprised, that costs were asked for. (note - I may well have been incorrect, in believing that this case is an exception)
I am also surprised, that you yourself madam, sent me two demands, for the Defendants' costs, without them being taxed, as ordered by the Court. I appreciate that your reason, for not wanting the costs to be taxed, was that you wished to save me paying the taxing fee, but even so, your preference is contrary to the Court order.
With respect, and I fully understand why you may be loathe to do so, I ask you to be honourable enough to agree, or disagree, the following points:
a)
that District Judge Weston's reason, for striking out the action was/is
false;
b)
that District Judge Weston's false order, remains, as if valid, on
the Court record;
c)
that Mr. Shepheard prepared, and served, the 'Notice of Change of Solicitor'
contrary to RSC. Order 67, r 1, (3);
d)
that it was contrary to O, 67, r 1, (1), for the 'Notice' to be effective
from the 29th August 1995;
e) that
the period between the date that Mrs. West acknowledged service, on her
own behalf: 21st August 1995, to the date that Mr. Shepheard served the
notice of change: 22nd September, Mrs. West was acting in person, and had
given her residence, as the legitimate address for service;
f) that
the 'Acknowledgement of Service', purportedly on Mrs. West's behalf, by
Mr. Shepheard, on the 29th August 1995, was, and is, ineffective, and unlawful;
(note - as mentioned, acknowledgement was filed in Mr. Shepheard's
absence)
g) that
the defence served, purportedly, on Mrs. West's behalf, dated 5th September,
(with 5th deleted, and 12th substituted) could not have been effective
while she was acting in person, before the 'Notice of Change of Solicitor'
was served;
h) that
in any event, Mrs. West is not entitled to the privilege of being legally
represented by a Government Department;
i) that
Government Departments neither receive, nor pay costs;
j) that
the conduct of the case was taken from Mrs. West to ensure her silence;
k) that Mr.
Shepheard has sworn an affidavit in relation to this case, and has inadvertently,
through the documents that he has served, provided me with ample evidence,
that demonstrates a prima facie case of perjury;
If this matter can be resolved in a sensible manner, that ensures that Judge Simpson can no longer sit in judgement of others, I am willing to listen to reason, because I realize the implications, but only after the points raised in this letter, have been addressed, because my credibility has been at stake since 1993.
I apologize, if this letter seems long winded, however I have tried to express myself to the best of my ability.
I have sent a copy of this letter to the Rt. Hon. John Prescott MP. He has been trying to assist.
Sincerely,
J. F. Hulbert.
NOTE - Significantly,
the one, and only, point, raised in this letter, that the Assistant Treasury
Solicitors was prepared to address, is i) above: that the Office of the
Treasury Solicitor do recover costs. If Mrs. Babar could have contradicted
me on any of the remaining, far more serious, points raised in this letter,
she certainly would have.