Public Servant Conspiracy – Private meeting between Council & Court

Master Ceylon made this Freedom of Information request to Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Judicial Conduct Investigations Office of their handling of this request.

Dear Office for Judicial Complaints,

Public Servant Conspiracy – Private meeting between Council & Court

Both Maidstone Borough Council and Maidstone Magistrates Court have repeatedly been asked by former Maidstone Borough Councillor Sheena Williams to provide full disclosure of all information relating to the council issuing summons and unsealed not court stamped liability orders and both have refused to do so, along with Maidstone County Court who are accepting these liability orders as evidence to issue a Interim Charging Order on her home. The Final Charging Order hearing on the 6 November 2012 attended by public servant observers as well as court security staff who were disrespectful of the public servant observers present, was adjourned without her consent, to allow the council & courts more time to cover their backs and get their story straight, as the evidence supplied prior to the hearing provided by the Ministry of Justice, contradicted both the council and the magistrates courts.

The receptionist/clerk refused to identify herself and had to be repeatedly corrected when she kept referring to Ms Williams instead of Sheena Williams, which she ignored. She initially said that no other person was allowed into the hearing, then re-checked with the judge that only one other person would be allowed in, when this was also rejected the judge said that no one was allowed in as the people present had not been through security. When this mistake was pointed out, the judge then met privately with the council’s agent prior to the hearing (who refused to give her full name or business card to confirm her identity) and for whom the judge later spoke on her behalf in court. It was clear to the public servant observers that an adjournment had been arranged prior to the hearing via the private meeting of the judge and the council’s agent.

The judge made it clear that sometimes the liability orders are stamped by the Magistrates Court and sometimes not, she agreed that the claim number on the County Court Interim Charging Order should not be the same as the Magistrates Court claim number. She even managed to read the illegible signature of someone who had signed one of the liability orders although their judicial position was not clearly defined and no council tax matters were heard at Maidstone Magistrates Court on that day, as confirmed by the Ministry of Justice nor was she concerned that a summons bore the facsimile signature but not printed name of a Area Director Of legal Services and that this is not a judicial position. She also didn’t seem interested in the fact that the magistrate’s court would not confirm whether or not the second liability order that had apparently been signed by a JP was in actual fact a magistrate.

All efforts to obtain full disclosure of the facts and to set aside the liability orders were ignored by both courts and MBC.

Copies of the evidence file held by the county court (but not a sealed county court order) were only sent out by the county court when Sheena repeatedly telephoned both the magistrates and county court, after being initially made aware by a land registry letter that a interim charging order had been issued via a ex-parte hearing.

MBC chief executive sent a letter of conflation prior to the hearing refusing to correspond further and conjoined two separate issues, i.e. Council Tax / Building Services the latter who have refused to provide proof that they have in fact revoked their decision “deposited plans are of no effect” which is proven to be in error after they received documented evidence and acknowledged notification that work had been commenced prior to a expiry date having been reached. May be its is just a coincidence that an application for a interim charging order was filed on 21st August 2012 by MBC agents after she telephoned to complain on 13th August that resulted in a visit from the building inspector on 14th to correct their mistake ?

MBC have thereby effectively stopped Sheena from building her extension to house her 4 granddaughters who Kent County Council kidnapped for forced adoption in 2008, after she only agreed to stand for election in order to raise serious concerns surrounding children and children’s services. This was another reason why MBC were asked to provide details of information shared between Kent Police and the courts after her partner was stopped for delivering the UK Column newspaper to MBC & KCC council offices by Kent Police who said it could have been ‘terrorist related’.

A county court stamped ‘general form of judgment or order’ dated 13 November 2012 sent out by second class post contains no mention of the final hearing date of the 6 November 2012 and does not state any reasons for the adjournment. The adjournment date is 21 February 2013 at 10am Maidstone County Court and is far in excess of 56 days mentioned by the judge at the ‘hearing’. The order has not been signed by the judge nor is her name printed on the bottom of the order.

It is quite clear to all who have witnessed and seen the evidence that a collective of secret societies (Masonic & quasi-masonic) hidden within public services are operating beyond their authority and allowing individuals to be targeted.

My questions as a matter of urgency are as follows:

1. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan have the judicial right to hold a private meeting with MBC agent Ms Shipley from JE Baring & Co Solicitors prior to a court hearing-taking place.

2. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan have the judicial right to speak on behalf of Ms Shipley at the hearing.

3. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan have the judicial right to decide that it is lawful to except both sealed court stamped magistrates court liability orders and non court stamped sealed magistrates court liability orders as evidence.

4. Confirm whether or not Russell Lite as suggested by District Judge Susan Sullivan is in fact a JP/Magistrate or state what other judicial position he held at the time of signing as no printed name or title is listed on the liability order of 12 July 2011 or state the name of any other person with judicial standing who signed.

5. Confirm whether of not Carole Finlay is in fact a JP/Magistrate whose signature but not printed name appears on liability order of 10 July 2012 or state what other judicial position she held at the time of signing.

6. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Edwina Millward have the judicial right to accept unsealed non-court stamped magistrate’s court liability orders as evidence to issue an interim charging order.

7. Under what lawful authority the county court receptionist/clerk (who did not attend the hearing) have the right to refuse to identify her position or give her name.

8. Under what lawful authority Malcolm Dodds acting as Director of legal services has the judicial right to have his facsimile signature printed onto summons.

9. Under what lawful authority both District Judge Edwina Millward and District Judge Susan Sullivan have the judicial right to accept a claim from MBC that bears the exact same claim number listed for both Maidstone Magistrates Court and Maidstone County Court.

10. Under what lawful authority District Judge Susan Sullivan who adjourned the hearing without consent can issue a order without stating the date of the hearing it relates to and without giving any reason for the adjournment.

11. Under what lawful authority District Judge Susan Sullivan and District Judge Edwina Millward can issue orders without a judge’s signature and printed name and title appearing on the bottom of the order.

12. Under what authority can a judge authorise court orders to be sent out by second-class post.

13. Under what authority can a judge ignore a motion to quash in favour of a pre-arranged private decision made between the council and the judge.

14. Under what authority can a judge ignore evidence provided from the Ministry of Justice and adjourn a final charging order hearing in favour of the council.

15. Under what rule of law can a final charging order hearing be adjourned and not made final.

16. Under what lawful authority a judge can decide that documented attempts to settle a claim prior to a hearing are not considered lawful documents.

17. Provide the law that confirms that individual and not corporate rights are protected in what amounts to a private ‘bar guild’ pre-meeting and not a court of law.

18. Provide the law that confirms that a fair hearing can take place without equality of arms and full disclosure of the facts and procedures being provided by the courts and the council who are refusing to send documentation relating to a claim.

19. Confirm that a hearing can take place without the court insignia being in the court, which amounts to a private bar guild hearing.

20. Confirm that a judge who has stated that they are operating under their oath of office to Queen Elizabeth the Second can sit in judgment without the insignia being present in court.

All of the above questions via FOIA require all recorded information and the precise section of the law upon which the public servants rely in carrying out their judicial duty encompassing all judicial proceeding and rules that they are required to follow by law.

Yours faithfully,

Master Ceylon

Mac Pere left an annotation ()

I have the same questions with regards to MeterPlus(energy companies) issuing "summons" for you to attend court in order to obtain a warrant to enter your home.When arriving at court, your name isn't on the roll and you are not called and the warrant is granted in your abscence yet no one appears before the court.

R Austin left an annotation ()

Reading reports from the MoJ and other official sources it can be seen that the MoJ now realises the utter loss of respect the judiciary now carries with we, the people, and is slowly coming to terms with the fact that the havoc political pressure has put on our ancient system of law and justice since the 60's will inevitable result in the collapse of the current process-driven judicial model, managed by shady and secretive private corporate entities. Where is the independence of the judiciary that we are supposed to take for granted?
Hiding the problem and hiding from the problem won't make it go away. The OJC is advised not to under-estimate we, the people, and to therefore respond to this request impartially, completely and truthfully. It is upon your actions that you will ultimately be judged in the court of public opinion.

Dave Renwick left an annotation ()

The MOJ and office for Judicial Complaints will soon learn that ignoring the people is not an option, as the people asking more and more pertinent questions grow in numbers the tide of pressure will grow to such an extent that without a total overview and reformation of the current system then it will surely collapse, for far too long they have ignored the basic rule of law pushing statute and corrupt judicial decisions on we the people – now we are pushing back and we WILL be bringing the law back into OUR courts.

Mac Pere left an annotation ()

It is interesting to note that the MoJ is registered as a corporation. They also have a number of CCJ's against their name.

Master Ceylon left an annotation ()

If anyone is interested in what happens when brave people speak out against the abuses of children and rightly so, who wouldn’t be a conscientious objector to paying for child abuse, please take a look at this.
Former Councillors Targeted by the SS

Mac Pere left an annotation ()

It is a disgusting insight into the workings of these evil people. How they get away with it is beyond me. I feel that a class action lawsuit and the safety in numbers that it brings, is the answer.

Master Ceylon left an annotation ()

Under the FOIA you must respond promptly and by law within 20 working days you have failed to do so.

Dear Office for Judicial Complaints,

You have said you will respond asap and would be back on 12 December 2012 this FOI is urgent and a urgent response is required.

Yours faithfully,

Master Ceylon

Dear Office for Judicial Complaints,

Apologies for the previous messages this is incorrect the correct message is below.
Under the FOIA you must respond promptly and by law within 20 working days you have failed to do so.

Yours faithfully,

Master Ceylon

South East KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Master Ceylon
See attached further response to your request.

Mike Cranwell
Operational Support Officer, SE Regional Support Unit
Please note: I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice
contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Office for Judicial Complaints,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Office for Judicial Complaints's handling of my FOI request 'Public Servant Conspiracy – Private meeting between Council & Court'.

Thank you for your reply of 2nd January you have not answered Q1 Q2 Q3 please review you decision not to provide answers to these questions, please state with reasons why you have not answered.

Q4, we have determined that because of the poor handwriting and because the names are not printed that the actual name could be Russell Lister a separate FOI request has been placed with your department.

Q5, thank you for your response to this question not with standing that your response is irreconcilably inconsistent with your previous responses.

Q1-3 Q 6 and Q 9 – 17 please review your response to these questions I have not asked for comments or intervention or any expression of an opinion. The information sort to answer the questions includes but is not limited to references to the appropriate laws, statutes, or court instruction.

Q7 Please review your response to this question , the member of personnel concerned is in a public, front facing position as such any member of the public is entitled to know the name of the person with whom they are speaking.

Q8 please review your answer to this question , I am asking for information for which the response requires refervnece to the laws,statues, or court proceedings where in it is stated that the actions of Mr Dodds and his facsimile signature are legitimate .

Q18 please review your answer to this question. My question was clear, concise , erudite and succinct . It is therefore determined that your answer is coronary to section 77 of the FOIA .The term equality of arms is a common phrase with which every court in the land should be familiar . What is not sort is opinion or advise.

Q 19 –20 Please review your answer to these two questions, you were asked in simple terms to confirm the legitimacy or otherwise of the two conditions stated. It shall be assumed that in the absence of refutation that on behalf of HMCTS you concede that these courts are currently held have no legitimacy.

I look forward to hearing your review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

Yours faithfully,

Master Ceylon

E Miller left an annotation ()

I have Liability orders signed by Russell Lite or Lister very difficult to read dated 11.7.2011, also Carole Finlay dated 09 07 2012. I shall be very interested to know if these orders with no stamp are indeed unacceptable in the County court under Edwina Millward. It had not occurred to me to challenge them. Its Barings again working for Maidstone B C

E Miller left an annotation ()

further to above annotation : I misread the dates of the liability orders. at the top it says 09 07 2012 BUT lowerdown it says hearing Tues 10 July 2012.Also 12 07 2011 Hearing says at the top 11 07 2011. It just shows you how confusing those badlycopied Liability orders are.SO the dates were the same as those Master Ceylon was asking about.Neither has a printed name nor are they stamped . Anyone could produce them. I am interested to hear they are produced by Maidstone borough council not the court and that Mike Cranwell of HM courts and tribunal servic states in a reply dated11Jan "Iam not stating that liability orders signed by a MagistrateJ P no need to be sealed by a magistrates court stamp...."