TRIBULATIONS

Re: G.T.  v  Gemstar,  @   Tribunals since 2/7/03

IRREGULARITIES AND ABUSE OF THE LAW: 

The Applicant became a pawn in the legal entanglement of the big arm of the Corporate World and the Judiciary who at every corner of the proceedings ignored/suppressed substantive Legal Submissions so that the proceedings will meet a dead end, to serve fraudulent activities and undisclosed interests. All such practices were in contempt and abuse of the law and denied and abducted Applicant's rights including denial to Applicant, to attend and be present at hearing in violation of Article 6, ECoHR and attempts to enforce fraudulent costs. In a European Court case it was held that "ignorance of a decision is not binding" yet in this case such wrongful acts are being maintained and this also defeats Justice. Such practices gave rise to False Processes (Making this an Illegal process).

EAT False Process and Instruments Culminating in False Order of 3/3/05 @   Legal Submissions.
False Processes created a plethora of False Decisions/Orders from the Tribunals and Barnet County Court (BCC) - such Decisions/Orders are classified as False Instrument  under the law.  In view of the False Instruments, Declarations were requested from the Judges who issued them.

All the main participants in this case were asked to sign a Declaration /   Confirmation for the correct performance of their Duties upon the presentation of False Instruments (ie Court Decisions/Orders) but these were refused. Such failures by the Judiciary to provide such Declarations show intent to deviate and obstruct Justice.
   
Besides False Decisions/ Orders, a plethora of further False Instruments were derived through correspondence, due to Evasiveness / Ignorance / Suppression of main issues presented.  Such obstructions enforced through Undue Unfluence to slave over legal paperwork and abducting one's life, when there was no genuine need of this and in violation of Tribunal's / Court's own procedures, a number of Articles under the ECoHR and Law.

All above point to Judicial Bias by Virtue of Fraud: In the case of Sussex Justices (1924) it was held that it was fundamentally important that Justice should not be done but should Manifestly and Undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Unwillingness to verify adherence to correct legal practices / procedures add further to obstruction of Justice, adding to  Public office misconduct, with no regard to the consequences of such unlawful actions.

Fair Comment:

ET: On the second Directions Hearing at the Employment Tribunal, it was made very obvious that the Chairman was acting for the other party. No consideration given for the Applicant  in contempt of previous procedure and the Law. The very same day enquiries were made and as advised by Tribunal staff the complaint was lodged in writing.   Once again NO consideration was given and the lack of Due Process escalated and carries on todate unleashing a plethora of  injustices in contempt of both the evidence and the law, with intent.

FRU: The Barrister of the Free Representation Unit, despite having no authority to appear at the Tribunal  and No documents such as Witness Statements, Bundle and discussions that would enable him to represent the case and yet he went to the Tribunal without the knowledge of the Applicant and registered himself without the knowledge or authority of the Applicant!?  Despite repeated requests since, he has failed to  account on events and issues raised.  FRU also failed to investigate and respond despite repeated requests to case worker and FRU's Director (Refer to images).  Another institution tried to further entangle wrongdoings by FRU and all these show utter lack of Ethics and  Responsibility at the expense of  the vicitm and Bar Association fundings. Todate none of the parties involved in this instance have accounted / reasoned for their actions and this last , in a series of complaints (21/5/04) remains pending todate !

BCC: BCC False Processes & Instruments highlighted in Application 21/4/05.

EAT: In view of continued False and Parallel Processes, Confirmation was requested from EAT President whether his Department had applied itself correctly to the Judicial Principles of law - in line with their Judicial Oath (The Ethical Realms) and Juris Prudence (The Legal Realms). Responce provided with ref to the requested confirmation: EAT's Letter dt 6/5/05 being a reply to the letter as per image on this page EAT Conf.-22/4/05 reads ..  " The President has asked me to respond on his behalf to your fax transmission dayed 22/ April 2005, received on 25 April. He has no knoeledge of your case, although he notes that he made an interlocutory order at an early stage. He has however read Judge McMullen's judgement given on 3 March 2005 and neither he nor the EAT can add anything to the content of that judgement."    **Contrary to this letter, The EAT President was made directly aware of serious issues arising within the process of this case from 16 November 2004 and repeatedtly thereafter.   This is a further False Instrument embroiled in this case with intent.

ET: In view of continued False and Parallel Processes, Confirmation was requested from ET President whether his Department had applied itself correctly to the Judicial Principles of law-in line with their Judicial Oath (The Ethical Realms) and Juris Prudence (The Legal Realms). No Confirmation or other related responce has been provided todate.

BCC: In view of continued False and Parallel Processes, BCC Manager was requested to obtain Confirmations from Judges whether they had applied themselves correctly to the Judicial Principles of law - in line with their Judicial Oath (The Ethical Realms) and Juris Prudence (The Legal Realms). Responce provided with ref to the requested confirmation: BCC's Letter dt 29/4/05 being a reply to the letter as per image on this page BCC Conf.-21/4/05 reads ..." The District Judge has seen your letter of 21 April 2005. If you are unhappy with any decisions taken by the judiciary at this court, you should take legal advise.   You are not entitled to debate judicial decisions with the Court Manager in correspondence who herself is not entitled to comment on judicial decisions. Further, your assertion that there have been "false accusations upon the Defendant by your Court" is inappropriate, and may in certain circumstances be considered a contempt.  You are urged to take legal advise before writing furher letters to the Court, because the District Judge has stated that if you continue to further letters to the court, because the District Judge has stated that if you continue to write such inappropriate letters they will simply not be met with a reply".     *      *This is an Intimidating and Misrepresentative reply from a Court of Justice.

On June 24th 2005, the EAT is requested for the last time to confirm its process and stance adopted in this case, in view of the many Irregularities and Misdirections under its auspices and in Contempt of the law.

BCC: In the County Court's letter dt 20/6/05 it points to an attempt to order Hearing behind Closed Doors without Reasoning and in contempt of the Law, being a further irregularity  in an illegitimate attempt with intent. A responce to this was provided on 24/6/05 pointing to The Administration of Justice Act 1960.

Judges: Secret Disciplinary Hearings set for Judges are not representative of  Democratic Principles including  Human Rights and Justice for all, without discrimation on any account.

Webmaster@tribulations.freeservers.com