Royal Courts of Justice
|Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL, TEL: 44 171 936 6000
Justice Pumfrey, Justice Park and Justice Neuberger , Masters Moncaster and Winegarten - all of them from High Court in London who have been involved in hearing my cases.
Justice Chadwick, Justice
Morritt and Master Winegarten conducted brief court hearings in January 2000
knowing fully well that I am in California and could not attend these two
High Court is located in Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. It is an old architectural building. Inside is a nightmare to find different offices associated with court administration. These offices are so scattered in various parts of court building complex without any logical sequence. It is a hap-hazard method how these offices and different court rooms are located. Sometimes the courtroom numbers do not correspond to the floor numbers in buildings within the complex.
Then there are innumerable forms with different identification numbers (i.e. 1D, 2B). There is booklet that states which form is to be filled for different court hearings. Nobody usually knows, and many times I was handed wrong forms to fill. It puzzled me why there can't be just 3 or 4 different kinds of forms because all forms are basically structured the same way. This would save time and money. This is incredibly irrational when one only has to answer 5 or 6 standard questions. The whole scheme of these form numbers is simply designed to obstruct ordinary citizens in obtaining justice. This is one of many bureaucratic hindrances incompetently set up by the authorities. In conclusion, I could not find any logical or common sense explanation why offices, courtrooms, and forms could not be better organized in simple and logical manner.
Now lawyers/solicitors are another story. Barristers represent solicitors even when if the litigant is in person. It is duplication of work. This is how they make more money out of the pockets of their clients. Furthermore, there is the old tradition of barristers and judges wearing cream colored wigs even in hot weather. I thought cool heads are better in delivering justice than heated ones!!
The barristers arrive with bundles of precedent cases and books - often these papers use Latin and legal jargon language - incomprehensible to even educated people with degrees. Each case is 'individualistic' by its very nature of circumstances. I wonder whether some of these barristers have any common sense and rational reasoning to argue their points instead of memorized knowledge of precedent papers. They quote and argue their case with these outdated papers.
In Old times, the person in power could chop your head off and that was also the precedent of so called Kings, Queens and dictators that ordered this. I wonder whether this is the hap-hazard way in which justice is being delivered in these courts. It is without common sense and rational reasoning, like the irrationality of office and courtrooms locations.
I appeared in front of all the under-lined persons.
Master Moncaster accepted lies of Bloom, (under oath of the Bible - a big show off) and his barrister against me. I have already reported him to Lord Chancellor's office for his bias and discriminatory practices against me. Moncaster in his reply to Lord Chancellor's office produced a waffled statement - recalling his poor memory during the hearing of the case. This only reflected his further bias towards me. Master very reluctantly allowed me to tape record one of my hearings before him.
Master Winegarten did not strike out my claim of unenforceablity of charge, which was registered fraudulently against my property by Natwest bank in 1992. McGarth, the barrister acting on behalf of Natwest bank, produced two precedent papers. However, Winegarten was not impressed by his arguments. In addition, McGarth made untruthful statement about me. I tape-recorded these proceedings with Winegarten's permission. I believe this was the first time recordings were allowed in the English Court system. Winegarten deliberately conducted hearing in January 2000 when I had informed him that I cannot travel to attend his brief hearing. This hearing was based on two twisted and/or untruthful statements of Laurence Lieberman of DLA. Winegarten ordered the release nearly $50,000 of my money in the court to the deceitful and fraudulent Natwest Bank. Obviously, these people have no integrity and common sense.
Justice Chadwick and Justice Morritt - Civil Appeals Court Judges; These judges conducted a brief hearing in my absence on 25 January 2000 in order to dismiss my case against Natwest Bank. They knew that I would not be able to attend as I was in California at that time. Despite my repeated requests, they refused to postpone hearings. I already had a notion that the whole process of this brief hearing was a show, and Justices order was a predetermined plan.
The office of Civil Appeals lost my 8 bundles (several hundred pages) for nearly two months and then they discovered these bundles just before their fixed hearing date. The incompetence of court and those involved in losing bundles is beyond belief. The office of Civil Appeals tried to distract my attention about submitting new bundles and setting new conditions. I wonder whether it was all planned exercise by so called Justices and their several administrative pawns . The Civil Appeals Office refuses to provide a receipt when they receive bundles. I wonder why!
My conclusion is that most of these judges protect relatively conditioned people of their own kind and lack common sense. I wonder whether these people have any experience in real life apart from living in their own limited environment. They need retraining and contact with normal people in life.
Justice Park and Justice Neuberger both separately conducted hearings dressed in traditional court dresses with their wigs. I was amazed at their lack of common sense. These Judges were only there to endorse Moncaster's decision. The hearings were only a show of delivering justice!
Justice Pumfrey: A traditionalist Judge who always bowed in the court room when he came to his seat and then bowed again when the court recessed for the break and at the end of hearing. He did not allow me to tape record court hearings on my own tape recorder. However, he allowed the hearing to be tape-recorded on court's tape recorder after some arguments. I had three hearings (two were ex-prate) before him.
He told me that he had account/relationship with Coutts (a subsidiary of Natwest Bank) and asked me whether I had an objection to hearing my case. I was bit reluctant and thought about it for about 15 seconds. Finally, I agreed that he should continue. It is my nature to trust people unless they let me down. Moreover, I did not have time to consult anyone.
I wrote him a letter on 8 March 1999 and received a reply from his clerk Mr. Bob Glen.
Some other observations:
In a case 6 years ago, the British government conducted an inquiry about Stephen Lawrence, a murder of a black by white youths. The police bungled up the case by their shear incompetence. The commission of inquiry declared that there was 'institutional racism' in English police. The government accepted this report by its own appointed commission.
There is not a single black Judge in the High Court of England. The discrimination
against minorities is wide spread in the courts.
If one really takes a look at the senior positions of Natwest bank - Board of Directors, the Banking Ombudsman and its 'Council', the Law Firms, and the High Court Judges, a definitive conclusion can be reached. All these organizations are white male dominated in top positions with an occasional female amongst them.
If one combines the reality of Old Boy Networks with prejudices against women and especially against minorities, the result is usually Injustice.
|NatWest Bank||Law Firms||Banking Ombudsman||Royal Courts