Granted, there is no record of a superior court Judge ever having been successfully sued and that
fact came as no surprise to me after my own experience at the hands of the named Judges' who had unlawfully disposed of my actions against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West. 'Ere, we're not having that, our system is the best in the world and the best legal system in the world it'll stay, even if we have to commit every crime in the book for it to remain so.'
 
I am under no illusion that, those who have read my allegations and have examined the evidence, do not believe that the allegations are true, but it takes a little courage to openly state that obvious fact and I do not condemn them for their reluctance to do so, but I do hold contempt for those in k.legal, who seek to discredit myself rather than face up to the facts and the supporting evidence in that sure knowledge that every single allegation must be nothing other that the truth. 'Facts? - Evidence? -
You're a nutter!'  They are supposedly intelligent people and they see well enough.
 
I shall refer to some of the issues that the vast majority in uk.legal decline to face up to for, possibly personal considerations and at the inevitable prospect of the implications for the justice system should Judge Simpson be successfully sued, or made to answer for his dastardly deed in a criminal court. Justice Smith also found herself in a similar dilemma, before she, reluctantly, I'm sure, disposed of the action against Judge Simpson. Others: a very small minority, seek to undermine my cause, by foul means, relying on the prospect that, if we defend the justice system, the justice system will defend us and the pity of it is that, it's probably true.
 
Here is a sample of the facts supported by indisputable documentary evidence that those who have tried to discredit my cause, with abuse and ridicule, but who profess to dispense free legal advice, repeatedly, refuse to discuss in a reasoonable manner and the reason will, I think, become apparent.

1.    Do you dispute that my claim against judge Simpson and Mrs. West alleging conspiracy to
       pervert the course of justice by tampering with evidence given by police witnesses out of a
       criminal trial was struck out on the 13th February 1996 by a District Judge on the
       ground that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and that the
       order remains,  as if valid, on the court record at URL: thttp://corruption.faithweb.com/orders345.html

2.   Do you agree that Mrs. Justice Smith, on appeal in the high court, on the 22nd May, stated
      that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged a cause of action and that the
      defendants' Counsel, for the  T/Solicitor immediately agreed?  At URL:
 http://corruption.faithweb.com/lie.html [2nd doc.down.]
 
3.   Do you accept that after a period of nearly six months: on the 12th November, she dismissed
      my appeal against the D/Judge's order and has never held that the Claim discloses no
      reasonable cause of action [see judgement posted by yourself Jon Grunewald] and has never
      herself struck out the Claim, even though, as she stated, the appeal was a re-hearing of the
     defendants application before the D/Judge to strike out the Claim?
     http://www.100megsfree.com/sonny
Transcript: Justice Smith - if not accepted please post evidence discrediting it]
 
4   Do you agree that, as the official transcript of the hearing on the 22nd May discloses that, she
     adjourned the hearing in order that the defendants could provide evidence she could say that the
     Claim was vexatious etc, because she as unable to go along with the false ground that it
     disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
http://www.100megsfree.com/sonny [agreed?]
 
5    Do you accept that Mrs. Justice Smith stated in the High Court that the Claim falls to be
      considered by a trial Judge?
http://www.100megsfree.com/sonny
 
6    The evidence of Mrs. West's shorthand book was produced on the 12th November with pages
      missing and damage to the pages and spiral page holder (see  http://corruption.faithweb.com/notebook.html )
 
and
 
Note - [Mrs.Justice Smith did not strike out the action as being vexatious. It was a re-hearing  to
      strike out the Claim, but she didn't, nor could she lawfully strike it out. [Do you agree that her     order merely dismissed my application?]

7    Do you accept that on 5th March 1997 Lord Justice Saville's in his judement in  at the Court of
      Appea,l stated that the defendant's had not personally denied the allegations? [judgement
      posted by you Jon Grunewald: John (johnjo) and myself]
 
8    Do you agree that the rules of the Supreme Court state that all the facts relied on in S/Claim
      must  be expressly denied or they are deemed to have been admitted.
 
9    Do you agree that Mrs. West has ignored two county court orders inviting her to certify her
      transcripts as being an accurate account of the evidence: proceedings, as she is required to do in
      line with the rules governing verification of transcripts?
 
10  Do you agree that one of the officer's evidence, as purported in Mrs. West's allegedly false
      transcript, is disputed by that same police officer's later witness statement? Demonstrated by the
      witness statement and the allegedly false transcript at:  http://corruption.faithweb.com/false.htm

11  Do you agree that L/Chancellor Irvine passed on a lie to John Prescott stateing that Justice
      Smith had held that the S/Claim did not disclose an alleged cause of action? Go to Irvine's
      letter and the official trancript demonstrating the lie at:
       http://corruption.faithweb.com/lie.html
 
12  Do you agree that Mrs. West: a civilian was unlawfully represented by the T/Solicitor instructed
      by the Chancellor's dept out of public funds to counter an alleged corrupt act? [If you disagree
      that it was unlawful please post a precedent.]
 
13  Do you dispute that, Mrs. West has filed an acknowledgement of service stateing her intention
      of acting in person?  http://corruption.faithweb.com/ack.html

14  Do you agree that the T/Solicitor served an unlawful Notice of Change of Solicitor upon myself
      and upon Mrs, West to inform her that the conduct of her case had been taken from her?
 
15  Do you agree that the Notice of Change of Solicitor is not sealed by the Court and that it wasn't
      filed with the court by the T/Solicitor, contrary to the Rules of the Supreme Court and that it
      purports to take affect weeks before it is dated, contrary to the rules?
      URL:  http://corruption.faithweb.com/notice.html

16  Do you agree that Mrs. West's Solicitor made an affidavit swearing in the same proceedings that there is clearly a triable issue and asking for leave to defend the claim against her? Found at:   http://corruption.faithweb.com/hillcause.html 2nd doc. down.
 
17  Do you say that her Solicitor swore the affidavit because there was no cause of action?
      [How about a yes; no answer.]
 
18  Do you Mr. Rice deny that you;ve agreed that it appears that I'm being conspired against by an
      awful lot of high powered people? [you've repeatedly avoided confirming this one Mr. Rice in
      preference to throwing abuse at me. Let's try to address the facts now]
 
19  Do you Jon Grunewald deny that you've twice stated that my evidence can't be discredited?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An early message that I sent to uk.legal, hoping for advice from the experts, as to whether there had ever been a similar set of circumstances in legal history to my own experiences, however, please bear in mind that, I was very naive at the time, believing that corruption within the judiciary just had to be negligable Here is the message.

From: "Jim Hulbert"
Subject: A UNIQUE CASE?

SUBMITTED TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS AS BACKGROUND TO
CASE.

A UNIQUE CASE?

Are any readers' able to let me know whether there ever been a case in England where; as the
indisputable documentary evidence in my possession demonstrates:-

(a) a Court shorthand writer produced fabricated trial transcripts of evidence, purportedy given
      by Police witnesses' out of a criminal trial;

b) where she has consistently declined to certify the said transcripts in line with the rules
    governing verification, despite two Orders of the Court inviting her to do so and where;

(c) a civil High Court action (mine) was commenced against the Court shorthand writer and the
     trial Judge, alleging conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by fabricating evidence,
     purportedly given by witnesses' out of a criminal trial and where;

(d) the Lord Chancellor's Department instructed the Treasury Solicitor to act in a legal capacity
      for the trial Judge and surprisingly and probably unlawfully, to act for the Court shorthand
      writer: a private citizen, to defend the alleged corrupt acts and where;

(e) the shorthand writer had already informed the Court that she intended to act in person;

(f) where a legal Officer out of the Treasury Solicitor's Office ( Huw Shepheard) served a
     'Notice of Change of Solicitor' upon the Plaintiff (myself) and the Court shorthand writer in
     order to take conduct of the case from her ( for obvious reasons)

g} where the evidence of the 'Change of Solicitor' document reveals that it has not been sealed
     by the Court, or filed in Court, by the said legal Officer, contrary to the rules of the Supreme
     Court; (he knowing it to be an unlawful document)

(h) where the said legal Officer (perhaps unwittingly) provided the Plaintiff (myself) with
     unanswerable documentary evidence demonstrating that he had sworn a false affidavit and;

(i) where the false affidavit was used to have the action struck out as disclosing no reasonable
    cause of action despite the cause of action being >clearly disclosed in the Statement of
    Claim and the indorsement on the writ and;

j) where common sense tells us that if conspiracy and fabricating evidence are not reasonable
    causes of action, then there should be no prisons: no Courts; no Judges; no justice system and;

(k) where one of the Police Officers, whose evidence had been tampered with signed a witness
     statement, before a Solicitor, after the false transcript was produced, giving an entirely different
     account of her evidence relating to her notebook to that in the false transcript and;

(l) where a Police Sergeant, whose evidence has been tampered with has agreed that he changed
    his evidence while under oath and where his change of evidence has been omitted from the
    transcript and;

(m) where each of the Jurors' who sat at the trial were warned not to communicate with me (J.
      Hulbert) as they would be in breach of the oath that they took; (not so, because after they had
      delivered their unanimous verdicts of "not guilty", they had done their duty: fulfilled the oath -
      "to well and truly try according to the evidence" and they had taken no oath not to communicate
      with me and;

(n) where neither the trial Judge, nor the shorthand writer have offered a defence to the allegations
     and where the legal Officer, on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor has written that to answer the
     allegations would tend to expose them to criminal penalties;

(o) where upon appeal (mine) against the action being unlawfully struck out and as the certified
      transcript of the hearing reveals, a High Court Judge ruled:

1. that there is plainly a cause of action alleged and where Counsel for the Defendants' replied -
    "yes plainly" (clearly the action had been unlawfully struck out as not disclosing a cause) and she
    ruled that;

2. judicial immunity does not apply when it is alleged that a Judge commits a corrupt act and;

3, if there is any basis for the case it must be litigated;

4. that the allegation is worse than fraud; (not sure whether she meant that the allegation is worse, or
    the alleged offence)

5. that it must not appear in any sense that a Judge is anxious to dispose of an action against
    another Judge;

(p) where the same High Court Judge suggested to Counsel that the shorthand writer could
     put in evidence: producing her books: demonstrating that they had not been altered, there would
     then be a solid basis upon which a Judge could say -"this whole action is frivolous and vexatious;
 
(q) where six months later the Shorthand writer produced her shorthand books, together with an
       affidavit (false) and which books demonstated that they had been tampered with' (photo copies
       retained)
 
(r) where the said High Court Judge was unable to strike out the action on the ground that it
     was frivolous and vexatious as she had suggested, despite which, she dismissed the appeal,
    (mine) thereby apparently holding that it had been lawfully struck out as disclosing no
    reasonable cause of action and this after having ruled the opposite six months earlier;
 
(s) where two Lord Justices' refused the Plaintiff (me) leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal,
     thereby holding that the ground for striking out the action (no reasonable cause) was justified,
     despite the evidence of the certified transcript ruling that there was clearly a cause of action =
     alleged; despite the Statement of Claim and indorsement on the writ and despite their own
     common sense;
 
 (t) where the Plaintiff in the above action (me) after paying the Treasury Solicitor's limited
      costs, commenced a seperate action against the shorthand writer in the High Court, allegeing
      that she had perverted the course of justice and committed perjury by way of swearing a false
      affidavit;

 (u) where despite the overwhelming documentary evidence and despite an affidavit sworn by
      the shorthand writer's own Solicitor stateing that there is clearly a triable issue, this seperate
      action was also unlawfully struck out as disclosing no cause.
 
As stated there is overwhelming original documentary evidence that supports each and every one
of the above allegations.
 
ADVERSE INFERENCE:

1. The corrupt Circuit Judge: Alan Simpson dictated the false evidence for the protection of
    two Police Officers' who had clearly perjured themselves.
 
2. The shorthand writer: Sheila Margaret West, was unlawfully represented in a legal capacity
    by the Treasury Solicitor, in order to maintain her silence: in her own mitigation, if the case had
    gone to trial, she would inevitable have had to say that she had merely acted upon the trial
    Judge's instructions.
 
3. That despite the High Court Judge's fine words and principles: (Mrs Justice Smith) all of the
    Judges involved in the case did seek to and did protect a colleague.
 
4. That both Judge Simpson and Mrs. West must have made their corruption known to the Lord
    Chancellor's Department and to the Treasury Solicitor, for the Treasury Solicitor to have
    stooped to using unlawful methods to have the action against them unlawfully struck out.
 
5. That because there is no record of a Superior Court Judge everhaving been successfully
    sued, a conspiracy developed to maintain that statistic.
 
6. That if the action against the trial Judge had been successful, it would have opened a can of
    worms, and probable further litigation would have resulted.

I do not doubt that there have always been corrupt Judges', but can any readers' inform me
whether there has been a case where it has been alleged that a trial Judge has instructed a
shorthand writer to take down false notes of evidence for the protection of witnesses' and where
the Lord Chancellor's Department (probably with that knowledge) have used unlawful methods
to protect that Judge? Are there any precedents? Is it unique?
J. Hulbert.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Twenty
~~~~~~~~~~~