~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Court Services & Mr. Huebner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Court Services is a branch of the Lord Chancellor's department and is responsible for the running of the Courts and Mr. Huebner, as the Chief Executive of that department, had the responsibility of dealing with my complaints of unfair hearings relating to the unlawful striking
out of my claims against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West.

There has been a fair amount of correspondence between Mr. Huebner and myself, because I believe him to be the orchestrator of the attempted cover up of the conspiracy, for the protection of
Judge Simpson.

The petitions, containing copy documentary evidence that, I sent to the Office of the Home Secretary and to John Prescott's Office, were somehow, intercepted and sent to his department.
Here is a copy of the text of a letter that I sent to him relating to that issue.

MR. HUEBNER: EX CHIEF EXECUTIVE: COURT SERVICES.

The Chief Executive,
The Court Service,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London, SW1E 6QT.

15th December 1997

For the personal attention of Mr. Huebner

Dear Mr. Huebner,

RE: INTERCEPTION OF PETITION BUNDLE & CORRESPONDENCE, SENT FOR THE
ATTENTION OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AT
THE HOME OFFICE.

In my letter to you of the 3rd December, I informed you that it was my intention, at that time, to
write only one more letter to you personally and I still hope that this letter will be the last one.

I refer to that letter of the 3rd December; the Rt. Hon. John Prescott's letter to you of the 15th
October; your reply to him of the 13th November and to your reply, through Graham Collins, of the
19th December, to my letter of the 3rd December.

Your letter, to Mr. Prescott stated categorically, that you were prepared to put my letters (of formal
complaint) and my manuscript, before the Lord Chancellor. My letter to you of the 3rd December
specifically requested you to put my complaints against Judge Simpson and my manuscript, before
him and then, in stark contrast, your reply to me, through Mr. Collins, in his letter of the 9th
December states that, he will ensure that my letter is passed on to the Lord Chancellor's Department and not personally to the Lord Chancellor and the Department is already in possession of the
documents, as Mr. Collins confirmed, by phone.

My complaints, and manuscript, have been kept from the attention of the Lord Chancellor and it
seems, that you are going to continue to keep them from his attention for as long as you can, despite
your agreement. Why is that, please explain?

Paragraph 2, of my letter, of the 3rd December, informed you that my petition, addressed to the
Home Secretary, had been intercepted and passed on to your Department, who is a party to my
allegation of a miscarriage of justice and it is therefore not surprising that my manuscript, letters of
complaint and petition, have been intercepted and are now in your possession and it seems that a
substitute petition has not reached its intended destination, so I ask you once more, to ensure
that my complaints and manuscript, are put before the Lord Chancellor without further delay and to
return my petition to the Home Secretary, because it is a matter for him to decide upon. (note - I am
informed that civil petitions are no longer considered by the Home Secretary) I note from your letter
to the Rt. Hon. John Prescott, your hope that I do not view the absence of a reply from you
personally, as being discourteous and that is now a forlorn hope, because the manner in which you
have refused to answer personally, my concerns expressed in my letter of the 3rd December, sent to you personally, I view as something far more sinister than mere discourtesy. That letter to you, as
you know, drew your attention to items of correspondence that have been intercepted, including my
petition alleging a miscarriage of justice and you have now involved Mr. Collins, by getting him to
answer for you. That is not mere iscourtesy. That is a blatant disregard for the concerns expressed
in my letter.

I am not sure whether you told Mr. Collins, to inform me in writing, that the Home Secretary cannot
intervene in matters that have been before the Court. You now have all of the evidence, which
includes fresh evidence, that demonstrates very clearly, that a miscarriage of justice has been
perpetrated and you know that the Home Secretary may consider fresh evidence, that was not put
before the Court, to consider the question of a miscarriage.

You know that the action was struck out unlawfully;
you know that your Department was involved;
you know that my complaints, against Judge Simpson, and my manuscript, with evidence in support
of the complaints, have been deliberately intercepted, to keep the matters from the attention of the
Lord Chancellor;
you know that at least one of my petition bundles, to the Secretary of State, at the Home Office, has
been intercepted and is now in your possession, as confirmed by the Home Office and again, in a
letter from Mr. Collins;
you know that the Treasury Solicitor should not have been instructed to act for Mrs. West;
you know that I am sincere, and that my allegations are true;
you know that your purported concern,
about the matter of discourtesy, expressed to Mr. Prescott MP. is a sham:

If you disclaim all knowledge of the above, do as I requested in my letter of the 3rd December:
direct my complaints and petitions, to where they properly belong, immediately and do not join
Judge Simpson and Mrs. West, in the conspiracy and please, do not direct others to join it.

I will of course, use this letter any way that I see fit and proper, if you decline to respond with
answers and/or, to do as I request.

I am conscious that this letter could also go missing somewhere within the postal system, but at least
I am going to take the precaution of having supporting evidence that it entered the system and I will
continue to send you copies until you send me a substantive reply to it and grant my requests,
because I have enough on my plate, without having the extra burden of further civil proceedings
against other individuals. There should be no necessity for that.

Sincerely,

J. F. Hulbert.

PS. - The fresh evidence that I refer to is, of course, Mr. Shepheard's corruption and his cover up.
You may care to comment on that demonstrable fact. I think you should. PPS. - You now know that the second paragraph of your reply, through Mr. Collins, is patently untrue, because your letter to
Mr. Prescott did not inform him that if he wished, my file would be passed on to the Lord
Chancellor's Department. Your letter informed him that my manuscript and letter, have not been seen by the Lord Chancellor and that if he wished, you would put them before him. Mr. Collins's
letter  to me is another indication of your determination to keep the matter from the attention of the Lord  Chancellor. Why, please answer?
JFH.

Having received no answer from Mr. Huebner I sent him the following 'Notice of Intent'.

                                                NOTICE OF INTENT

TAKE NOTICE that I now have ample documentary evidence that I see as disclosing a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice against you, outside of your capacity of Chief
Executive of the Court Services.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that in the absence  of early proposals, from yourself, for a resolution to my complaint, made against the Circuit Judge Alan Simpson, of corruption which originated in the district of the Kingston upon Hull District Registry, that may satisfy me, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the High Court.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that I am in the process of preparing two files in order that the matter may be referred to the Commander of the Metropolitan Police and the Director of Public
Prosecutions.

Signed J,F.Hulbert                                                                   Date: 25th February 1998

As with Mr. Shepheard, the legal officer, out of the Treasury Solicitor's Office, I was unable to start proceedings against Mr. Huebner, because, he also, left his post and as with Mr. Shepheard, I was
not provided with an address for service of Writ or Statement of Claim to commence proceedings.

It was probably Mr. Huebner who provided Lord Irvine with the lie that Mrs. Justice Smith had held that my Statement of Claim did not disclose an alleged cause of action, which lie Lord Irvine passed on to John Prescott. The evidence of Lord Irvine's letter and the official transcript of my appeal hearing before Mrs. Justice Smith, proves that Irvine passed on that lie to John Prescott.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Nineteen
~~~~~~~~~~~~