~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTRICT JUDGE R. N. HILL & MR.JUSTICE MOSES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

District Judge Hill

The Treasury Solicitor's Office did eventually send me a 'Bill of Costs'  which, when after having  paid, I made application for the stayed action against Mrs. West to be restored and a date was given for the hearing, it being the 7th of October.

I attended Hull Court on that date, for what I hoped would be the hearing for Summary Judgement to be entered against Mrs. West, or for an order requiring her to serve a real 'Defence', and I was not surprised when Judge Hill elected to hear the Defendants' later application, to strike out my Statement of Claim, in preference to hearing my application for Summary Judgement to be entered against her in default of Defence.

The hearing took approximately twenty minutes and I certainly believe that the Judge must have decided in advance that he was going to strike out the action, come what may and that he did not want me to put a spoke in his wheel, by allowing me to oppose the application, because he refused to hear my submissions that I'd prepared in opposition.

He must have known that my submissions would be unanswerable. It is and was, so obvious, that the Statement of Claim disclosed a well proven cause of action and that fact, he knew, beyond any doubt. He must have known that he was going to strike out the action on a patently false ground and he wanted no argument from me.

He knew, from the reading of my affidavit in opposition to Mrs. West's application to strike out the claim. as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, that I'd submitted to the Court, that there was no answer to my grounds for appeal.

These are the submissions that Judge Hill refused to hear.

1.   The Defendant's application, asking you to declare that the statement of Claim discloses no, or
      no reasonable cause of action, is a monstrous and patently clear abuse of the process of the
      Court.

2.   Everyone knows that perjury and falsifying evidence, which must necessarily be alleged, are well
      proven reasonable causes. Without exception, every sane person does know that and the
      Defendant's Solicitor is also fully aware that no evidence is permissible upon application to
      strike out on that ground and the question as to whether, or not the action can, or cannot be
      sustained is not relevant to that ground, which I submit, suits the Defendant very well.

3.   Neither the Defendant, nor her Solicitors' have ever before said, that the Claim discloses no
      reasonable cause of action, nor can they truthfully say that now. The application is for
      the Claim to be struck out on that ground. They are asking you; asking this Court, to say what
      they dare not say under oath; to hold that the clearly stated and well proven cause is not
      reasonable.

4.   In order that the Court should be absolutely certain, I wrote a letter, dated 20th August, to the
      Defendant's Solicitor, putting this question to him. - "Do Mrs. West and yourself seriously say
      that the allegations are not reasonable causes of action?" - My letter goes on to say - "do not
      allow me to take the adverse inference that will be gleaned from your avoidance of the question,
      because a direct answer is needed so that there can be no ambiguity in the District Judge's
      mind." - The reply from Mr. Swales, dated 24th August, was that he did not propose to
      comment on my letter.

5.   It could well save the Courts time, by bringing to an end the application to strike out the action
      as disclosing no reasonable cause, if the Defendant and her Solicitor are asked here and now to
      state categorically, are allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury,
      reasonable and well proven causes of action, or are they not?
      Are those allegations plainly stated in the Statement of Claim, or not? If it is agreed that the
      Claim does disclose a reasonable cause of action, the Defendant is invited to withdraw that false
      ground of no reasonable cause, so that I may submit my argument in opposition to the
      alternative grounds.

6.   If it is not agreed and because it is so obvious, to every sane and honest person that the claim
      does disclose very serious, well proven causes, it must be equally obvious that this Court is
      being invited to deny the undeniable, because for the Court to hold that these clearly stated
      causes are not reasonable, is to hold that every civil and criminal prosecution that ever was, was
      unreasonable and that would be utterly ridiculous and as I've said, a monstrous abuse of the
      Court.

7.   There is no pretence about it, your Honourable self and the Honourable Court, are being
      overtly used. You are expected to enter into this conspiracy. You are expected, not only
      to condone this abuse of the Courts power, but to abuse it yourself. You are being asked to
      abandon your principles and to disgrace your Office, to abandon the courage of what
      must be your absolute conviction - that the Statement of Claim does disclose reasonable causes
      and you are being asked quite openly: not to be true to yourself and expected to do this, despite
      your independence to dispense justice without fear or favour.

8.   I submit that the reason for this application to strike out the action on what are patently false
      grounds is not what the Defendant would have you believe. It is simply a ploy being used as a
      pretext to protect a corrupt Circuit Judge, but the Rules of the Supreme Court make no
      provision for striking out an action on that ground.

9.   The Defendant believes that she must remain silent and that is her reason for refusing to contest
      the action by serving a real Defence, in defiance of the Rules.

I0.   She is asking you to dispose of the action, in order not to have to answer the allegations, which
       cannot be answered without exposing the Circuit Judge. She is relying on you to dispose of this
       action for the protection of a fellow Judge and believing that you will do just that and as a
       consequence she will then escape the consequences of her own corruption.

11.   I submit that, if the Claim had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the Defendant's
        Solicitor would not have informed me, by letter on the I4th of July I998, that he refused my
        request to allow Mrs. West's shorthand books to be forensically examined. He most certainly
        realizes the importance of demonstrating that the books haven't been tampered with, to
        support the alternative grounds stated on the Summons, but it is so obvious, even without
        forensic examination that, the books have been tampered with, so obvious that Mrs. West has
        perjured herself and so obvious that, she has no real defence, that she has had to resort to the
        utterly ridiculous ground, no reasonable cause, in an attempt to dispose of the action
        unlawfully.

I2.   Neither the Defendant, nor her Solicitor, can ever successfully challenge or deny the truth of
       these indisputable facts under oath, either by affidavit, or in a Court of Law and it remains to be
       seen whether they will deny their truth while not under oath: here today.

       a) That every single complaint of corruption must necessarily be alleged before the matters are
           brought to trial and alleged corrupt acts, even minor ones, must necessarily be reasonable
           causes of action and that if they were not, nobody against whom an alleged corrupt act is
           made, would be brought to trial.

      b) That on the 22nd May I996, in an earlier case, in which Mrs. West was a Defendant, a High
          Court Judge held that there was plainly a cause of action alleged, the allegation against her
          being fabrication of transcripts of evidence.

     c) That Mrs. West's current Solicitor, through Counsel, did immediately agree with the High
         Court Judge's ruling.

     d) That after that ruling which, as the Judge remarked, was worse than fraud, she adjourned the
         hearing, to allow Mrs. West to produce her original shorthand books and an affidavit,
         to try to demonstrate that the action was scandalous etc. but on the I2th November I996, after
         Mrs. West had produced her books, the Judge could not and did not find the action to be
         scandalous etc. The books demonstrated that they had been tampered with, with pages
         missing; damage to the tops of pages and clear evidence that a wire coil page holder had
         been tampered with, with its end protruding out and above the book.

     e) That when an affidavit is sworn that denies patently clear and supposedly undeniable facts and
         when the defence document does not and cannot answer those facts, then an allegation of
         perjury is a perfectly proper and reasonable cause of action, which it is, in any event, if stated.

     f) That the same High Court Judge held that, as a remedy to anyone damaged, they would be
         entitled to sue and Mrs. West's Counsel agreed with that ruling.

     g) That paragraphs 9, I0 and II, of the Statement of Claim, clearly allege damage?

     h) That the Police would not be investigating these allegations against Mrs. West with a view to
         taking criminal proceedings against her unless they were certain that the allegations are
         reasonable causes.

  I3. My submission is that, the Defendant's ground that the Statement of Claim discloses no
       reasonable cause of action is preposterous and outrageous and if evidence is to be produced to
       demonstrate the alternative grounds ,I would like to demonstrate that I have overwhelming
       evidence to prove the grounds to be an abuse of the Court, also, If the Defendant does not
       wish to pursue the alternative grounds, by producing evidence, I ask that the application be
       dismissed with censure and that my costs of the application be paid by the Defendant on an
       indemnity basis that takes full account of the Courts extreme abuse.

The District Judge having refused to allow me to read off my submissions in opposition to the Defendants' application for the Statement of Claim to be struck, left me in no doubt that, District Judge Hill had entered the conspiracy, for the protection of a fellow Judge, just as District Judge Weston, Mrs. Justice Smith and the two Lord Justices had. So much for justice for all.

As soon as Judge Hill had ordered the action to be struck out and that I pay the Defendant's costs of the application, I rose from my chair, in order to leave the room, whereupon he advised me to drop it, meaning of course, my allegations and my reply to him, was that, it would be dropped over my dead body and I was very surprised when he replied by telling me that I would end up in hospital before that happened. Upon my request to him: to explain his meaning, he told me that I knew what he meant. His refusal to explain his meaning led me to believe that it may well have been a veiled threat, or some kind of warning of possible physical violence towards me, if I pursued the matter.

He then said that I would not be able to issue any more proceedings from that Court, upon which, I merely shrugged my shoulders and taking that to be an idle threat, because I couldn't see how he could prevent me from pursuing my right to issue proceedings if I so wished and in any, event there were other Courts. He evidently read my thoughts, because he added: "or any court in the country."

I left the Court Centre in an angry frame of mind and I did intend to pursue the matter. On December 10, of this year: 1998, my appeal against his unlawful order was heard by Mr. Justice Moses, at Sheffield Crown Court Centre, when that gentleman rapidly dismissed my appeal, thereby wrongfully holding that District Judge Hill was correct in striking out the action, as disclosing no cause.

Mr. Justice Moses

At the hearing of my appeal, against District Judge Hill's order, striking out the action, Mr. Justice
Moses, unlike District Judge Hill, allowed me to read off my submissions, in support of the appeal.

MY NOTICE OF APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTORT REGISTRY

B  E  T W  E  E N

JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT..............................................................................Plaintiff

and

SHEILA MARGARET WEST....................................................................................Defendant

1. TAKE NOTICE that so soon as the above named appellant, or Counsel, on his behalf, can be
heard on appeal, from the orders herein, of the learned District Judge R. N. Hill, made on the 7th
day of October 1998, whereby he ordered that, the above action be struck out as disclosing no
cause and that the above named Plaintiff do pay the above named Defendant's costs assessed at one

thousand and ninety four pounds and 50 pence, the Court will be asked to annul the said District
Judge's order.

2. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his
discretion, by striking out the action, as disclosing no cause, after apparently, accepting the
submission made by the Respondent's Solicitor: that he did not think that allegations of
corruption are causes in civil law, but are causes only in criminal law, and the learned Distinct Judge
ought to have held, that the Solicitor's tentative submission was wrong and he himself (NOTE - by
striking out the action presumably upon consideration of the tentative, submission) was wrong in law.

3. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent's Solicitor wrongly exercised his
discretion, by submitting that he did not think that allegations of corrupt acts, are causes in a civil
action, when, as the certified transcript of a hearing in the High Court, on the 22nd May 1996,
demonstrates, that the High Court Judge, while referring to criminal acts, held that as a remedy to
anyone damaged, he would be entitled to sue, whereupon Counsel, who had been instructed by the
Respondent's Solicitor, immediately agreed with that ruling, and the Respondent's Solicitor ought not

to have made the submission, in the knowledge that when damage is alleged, as stated in the
Statement of Claim, it is clearly a cause for civil litigation.

4. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his
discretion, by refusing the Applicant, (myself) who acted in person, permission, to read off his
submissions, in opposition to the Respondent's application to strike out and he ought not to have
allowed the Respondent that unfair advantage.

5. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent's Solicitor has sworn, by way of
affidavit, that there is clearly a triable issue in this action, and has indicated that the Respondent is
unable to defend the action, by stating, in a letter to the Applicant, (myself) that it is impossible for
the Defendant to provide particulars for her denials, which is contrary to the rules, when allegations
and known facts are denied.

6. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his
discretion, by not hearing the Applicant's application, for summary judgement to be entered against
the Respondent on the ground that she has not provided a single particular in support of her denials
of the known facts, the Applicant's application having been made before the Respondent's
application to strike out the action.

7. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his
discretion, by ordering the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs, assessed at one thousand, and
ninety four pounds and 50 pence, without agreement, (for them to be taxed) by the Applicant and
without such costs being taxed.

8. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if the Applicant's appeal is successful, his application:
made on the 7th April 1997, for summary judgement to be entered against the Respondent, falls to
be considered.

9. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that, the Appellant proposes that, this appeal, be assigned to
the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.

Signed J. F. Hulbert.

TO - Solicitors for the Respondent.
AND TO - The Court.

NOTE - My appeal, as expected, was all in vain, because under no circumstances, was a Circuit
Judge going to be prosecuted for a corrupt act and that being the case, Mrs. West had to be
protected also, in order that her silence is maintained. Am I just unfortunate to have come up against
Judges' who have abandoned their principles: Judges' who are hypocrites?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Fifteen
~~~~~~~~~~~