~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SOME UNDERTAKING & SOME SKULDUGGERY
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Richardson, in the  name of the Treasury Solicitor made this concession  before Mrs. Justice Smith: quote -
"There is plainly a - assuming that could be demonstrated - a mistake; something is wrong somewhere." He, later at the same hearing, gave this undertaking to Mrs. Justice Smith and to myself: quote -
"My Lady, it may be then that he can have it demonstrated to him that there is no corruption, there has been no skulduggery or anything of that kind." He went on to say - "I would seek an adjournment so that that evidence can be obtained." I agreed to that and to the adjournment, because I knew that such an undertaking could not be honoured and that I'd then have a sight of the shorthand books.

Mr. Richardson may not have known,  as I did, at that time, that the evidence he'd undertaken to produce would demonstrate quite the reverse, but he must have known six months later, when the hearing was re-convened, again before Mrs. Justice Smith sitting at Sheffield.

I've  referred to the books that had clearly been tampered with and the false affidavit, sworn by Mrs. West,  in chapter nine, although not to paragraph 14 referring to her notebooks, to which Mrs. West swears: quote -
"I am quite prepared through my solicitors to make these available for examination by a suitably qualified expert witness properly instructed on behalf of Mr. Hulbert."

Mr. Richardson had agreed with Justice Smith at the hearing on the 12 May, before he's asked for the adjournment to produce evidence that; if the  shorthand note corresponded with the transcript there would be an overwhelming inference  against me.

There most certainly was an overwhelming inference , but not against me, at the continuation of the hearing six months later, when Mr. Richardson produced the books and the allegedly false affidavit, neither of which could prove their own probity and it was/is significant that he failed to have the shorthand notes transcribed for comparison with the transcript, which, if they had corresponded, would have demonstrated an overwhelming inference against me.
Clearly, during the course of the six month interval between hearings, Mr. Richardson discovered that, the shorthand notes would not correspond with the transcript.

Mr. Richardson, in the name of the Treasury Solicitor had produced the tampered with notebooks, a false affidavit, both without probity on those documents and to cap it all, he'd failed to have the notes transcribed for comparison  purposes as had been suggested.

Yes, Mr. Richardson must have known, as must have Justice Smith, that comparison of the two documents would settle the issue, one way, or another and the inference that must be drawn is that comparison did prove my allegation, as did the tampered with notebooks and that they both disposed of my action against Judge Simpson and his accomplice in the knowledge that  they had joined the conspiracy for Judge Simpson's protection.

I did make arrangements with a qualified document Forensic Examiner and Expert Witness to examine Mrs. West's notebooks, but despite the attempted bluff in paragraph 14 of her affidavit: that she had no objection to such examination and despite repeated requests for their release for that to happen, all of my requests have fallen on deaf ears.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Sixteen
~~~~~~~~~~~