Chapter Twenty 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LIBELLOUS MR. RICE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the 8th January 2001 Mr. Marshall Rice, without justification, published, on the internet, the false statement: that I had cheated the taxi driver. The defamatory publication was sent to newsgroups  uk.legal, alt.uk.law, alt.politics.british.

Here is a copy of a message that I posted to the newsgroups uk.legal, alt.uk.law and alt.politics.british after Marshall Rice had published the libellous statement that I cheated the taxi driver.

From: Jim Hulbert
([email protected])
 Subject: Gotcha Rice & Simpson
 Newsgroups: uk.legal, alt.uk.law, alt.politics.british
 Date: 2001-01-09 08:26:33 PST

On 8 Jan 2000 Marshall Rice wrote:
"Is this the side of your personality that you revealed to the unfortunate taxi-driver whom you
cheated and to the police officers who you provoked, yet hid behind a facade of innocence and
indignation when faced with a jury?"

Very revealing Marshall. It seems that you've used your influence to make enquiries of either Judge
Simpson, or someone involved in the conspiracy for his protection, because, you see, you've
come up with a the only possible mitigation for tampering and inciting a court reporter to tamper with
the evidence of the police witnesses.

I was found not guilty of deception and assault on police, as you know, so you lie by saying that I
cheated a taxi driver and provoked the police.

Your libellous statement that I cheated a taxi driver after having been found not guilty and your
considered statement that I provoked the police without stating that I assaulted them demonstrates
that you *have* probably made enquiries and been provided with Judge Simpson's reason for
tampering with the evidence.

Be that as it may, Simpson's mitigating circumstances, that I feel sure you've provided us with, do not lessen the gravity of his corrupt act, but it is a further indication that both he and the shorthand
writer have come clean to the LCD and the office of the Treasury Solicitor.

Not very clever are you Mr. Rice. Do you realize that knowing of a corrupt act and remaining silent,
or trying to hinder those that are trying to expose it, amounts to conspiracy to obstruct justice?

I'm afraid it's true. Judge Simpson has admitted to his corrupt act and so has his accomplice: the
unfortunate shorthand writer and that fact can be confirmed by: [email protected] or by the T/Solicitor's agent at: [email protected] case number: 1995 - H - 342
--
J.H
End.

Had Marshall Rice published his statement as an opinion and not as a fact that may have been acceptable, however, he could not possibly have known whether I cheated a taxi driver, but he did
know that I'd been found "not guilty" of that alleged offence of deception by a Jury's unanimous verdict.

He knew that the jury at my trial declined to accept the evidence of the taxi driver and declined to accept the evidence given by police officers.

He knew that the Humberside Police had made an out of court settlement with my wife and myself relating to assaults upon us and my malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.

The official evidence and Court Orders that I have, clearly indicate, that Judge Simpson and Mrs.
West have made their corrupt act known to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the
Treasury Solicitor's Office and it had, as stated earlier, been held in the High Court that, neither one,
had personally denied tampering with evidence, so it seems very plausible indeed that, Judge
Simpson provided a reason for tampering with the evidence and here we have Marshall Rice
publishing what could be the only mitigating circumstance that Judge Simpson could provide.

I knew that Mr. Rice is a lawyer of some kind and I couldn't comprehend how anybody would be
foolish enough to publish such a libel, let alone a lawyer, unless, he had been provided with Judge
Simpson's proffered excuse for doing what he did.

Although I felt sure that, Marshall Rice had been given the information that, Judge Simpson had
admitted to tampering with evidence, I didn't really know how he came by it. I assumed that he had
made enquiries of somebody within the Lord Chancellor's Department, or perhaps, of  Judge
Simpson himself, but the revelation  that he himself is a lawyer and possibly a colleague of Judge
Simpson's, makes the latter assumption more believable.

What I assume, of course, is not hard evidence that, Judge Simpson, or the LCD, had confided in
Mr. Rice, so I really had to have something more, in order to add to the adverse inference and to
that end, I posted a series of messages to uk.legal and if memory serves, a personal e-mail to him,
asking him to either, confirm, or deny, my suspicions, because I'm convinced that a lawyer and
certainly a  Judge, would know better than to publish such a libellous statement that, contradicts
the unanimous verdict of an independent jury. Mr. Rice has, to date, ignored all of  my invitations to
him.

He had, from the outset: from the time that I started to expose the judicial corruption, by way of
publishing in newsgroups, tried to discredit me, with ridicule and abuse, as his many messages
demonstrate and it's not too surprising that he would have made enquiries, looking for ammunition to
use against me and more importantly, my cause that, he had always sought to undermine.

Mrs. West had always been effectively gagged from spilling the beans, which probably suited her
fine, because she'd, necessarily, have had to admit her own part in the conspiracy, but, as far as I
was aware and If  I'm correct in that  Mr. Rice had communicated with, either the LCD, or Judge
Simpson, then he has a different reason for, apparently, entering the conspiracy of silence: the, falsely in my opinion, hitherto good name of the English Justice System.

My reasoning is that he is a potential witness to Judge Simpson's and Mrs. West's corruption and
possibly a conspirator, to boot.

Mr. Rice has openly declined to make a public apology for his ill advised defamation and has in fact re-asserted it in news discussion group uk.legal and that prompted me to try to start civil proceedings against him, alleging libel with malice. To that end I set about tying to find out his address for service of a claim for damages.

After repeated requests to him, in the discussion group, to divulge his address for service, I searched the internet to find that he wasn't listed in either the Solicitor's, nor the Barrister's register. I made various other enquires to no avail and eventually came upon an address, purported to be his, in one of the newsgroups.

The address is on in the island of Sark: Guernsey and Rice, again in the public forum of uk.legal, confirmed it as being his holiday home.

On the 22 May 2001 I issued proceedings against him in the High Court in Leeds. The Court sent it to Marshall's holiday home, by first class post on the 25 May  and it was deemed served on  27 May 2001 and he had until the 15 June to reply.

I made it known in uk.legal, that i'd commenced proceedings against him and Marshall's response was that he rarely uses his holiday home and that the claim had not been served. whereupon, in order to be doubly sure, i served the claim with particulars of claim, on him electronically, by e-mail attachment, at his registered e-mail address and posted my action to the newsgroup: uk.legal.

Marshall again declined, through the group, to recognize service of proceedings and although I knew that the claim had been properly served by the Court and that it had not been returned as being undeliverable, I decided to wait as long as I could within the time allowed to enter judgement against him in default of acknowledgement and service of a defence.

On the  29 November 2001 I made application to the court for judgement to be entered against him and on the 3rd December the Court ordered that Marshall pay me an amount in damages that the Court would decide and ordered costs to prepare for the hearing. It seemed that Marshall may not have got away scot free.

As things turned out that Leed's Court didn't want to decide the amount of damages that Mr. Rice would have to pay and i'm unable to say what happened in the interim that caused it to change it's mind, however, on the 14 December 2001: a Friday, I  received an Order from Leeds that reads thus -

Before DISTRICT JUDGE GREENWOOD sitting at Leeds District Registry.

 Upon the Court's own motion. The Court has made this order of its own motion without a hearing. If you object to the order you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. This action is transferred to Hull District Registry.

Dated 04 December 2001

The date in the space provided at the head of the order is 13 December 2001 and it is sealed by the court dated 13 December 2001, so I was puzzled as to why the date 04 December 2001 had been typed in immediately below the order of the District Judge. Could it have been part of his order? If it  was, why was it necessary for him to back date it?

It will be remembered that the judgement order against Marshall Rice is dated 03 December 2001 and no order, in the proceedings, that i'm aware of, was made on the 04 December.

Stranger still is the fact that I also received a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' attached to the transfer order and that also is dated and sealed by the court on the 13 December, so how a ;Notice' could be served nine days after the order, according to the date 4th December, added beneath the Judge's order, is a mystery.

On the Monday following receipt of the order and the notice of transfer I phoned Leeds Listing section about the discrepancy to be told, repeatedly that the order had been made on the 4 December, whereupon I, repeatedly, informed the supervisor that I'd not been served with an order of that date and that no order had been made on that date, asking her to provide me with such an order, if one had been made. I was banging my head against a brick wall, because she repeatedly insisted that I had the order. What I had was the order dated and sealed by the court on the 13th and an attached 'notice ' stateing that as a result of an order made on the 4 December the claim had been transferred to Hull District Registry, purporting to support the added date below the Judge's order. So it appears that the supervisor was insisting that the 'notice' was served 9 days after the actual 'order' transferring proceedings, was made. Peculiar!

I was given to understand, by the supervisor, that if I wished to apply to have the order set aside i'd have to make application to the Hull District Registry as the file had already been sent there. I did make application to the Hull Court to have the order set aside on Tuesday the 17 December: 4 days after receiving the order and notice.

I supported my 'Notice of Application' for the order to be set aside by way of Affidavit and served copies upon Marshall Rice. I reproduce a copy of the affidavit here. -

1. This affidavit is sworn in support of my application to have the order made by District Judge Greenwood, on the 13 December 2001, whereby he ordered that this action be transferred from the Leeds District Registry, set aside.

2. I aver that CPR 0, r4, (1) makes no provision for proceedings to be transferred from one District Registry to another, without notice of the transfer being given to all the parties and that I, the claimant, was not given such notice before the order was made, dated, sealed by the court and served.

(a) the 'Order', transferring the claim and the attached 'Notice' were received by the plaintiff the following day, the 14 December 2001.
(b) The 'Notice of transfer' is, in any event, erroneous and ineffective, in that purports that District Judge Greenwood's order, transferring proceedings resulted from an order made on the 4 December 2001 and i've not been served with an Order made on that date, nor do I believe that one, relating to this action, was made on that date.
(c) The order made by District Judge Greenwood: transferring the proceedings reads thus-
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The action be transferred to the Hull District Registry
Dated 04 December 2001-
but the order is headed with the date 13 December 2001 and is sealed by the court on that date.
(d) That it appears that the statement "Dated 04 December 2001" is part of Judge Greenwood's order, but, in any event, it is manifest that the added date has been added in error and I aver that the District Judge did make the Order on the 13 December 2001 and not, as the Order purports: on the 4 December 2001.

3. I rely on CPR O, 30 ,r3, (2), (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) in stateing that there is no reasonable criteria to support the transfer of proceedings to another District Registry.

4. The transfer Order states no grounds in support, nor does it state upon what CPR Order it relies.

5. CPR O 26 r1, (2) does not apply because the claim is not defended.

6. The order dated 3 December 2001 and sealed by the court on that date: whereby the above named defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount in damages that the court would decide and the costs for preparing for the hearing of assessment of damage, cannot be affected by such order of transfer, pursuant to CPR O. 30, r4, (2).

7. It is further averred that the plaintiff's undefended claim for damages for libel resulted from criminal proceedings that were tried in the Hull Combined Court Centre and the Humberside police were a party to those proceedings and because they are in the same district as the Hull District Registry and in order that justice is seen to be done, the claim should not be decided in the Hull District Registry. That then was my application to Hull District Registry to have the order transferring the claim there set aside.

Ten days after having submitted the application for a staying order: on the 27 December, I received and not as I'd expected, an order made by District Judge Weston, of his own initiative, again without an hearing, that the action be listed for hearing on the 15 January where it may be heard and disposed of on that date.

District Judge Weston was to dispose of my claim against Marshall Rice: charming! D/J Weston, the Judge who'd struck out my claim against a colleague: Judge Alan Simpson and Judge Simpson's accomplice Mrs. West, unlawfully, on the pretext that conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice, by tampering with trial evidence was not a reasonable cause of action.

District Judge Weston who is supposed to act impartially without fear, or favour. Who would ensure that justice is seen to be done. Fat chance! Here is a copy letter that I sent to him on August 3 1998.

Sir,
I am compelled to write this personal letter to you, to inform you that I am fully aware of what I
believe to be your corruption, by entering into a conspiracy, for the protection of a fellow Judge:
Circuit J udge Alan Simpson. Your corruption and your motive, came to light on the 15th December 1996, when after hearing my application for the Defendants' to serve a 'DEFENCE', you adjourned the hearing, on the pretext that an hour wasn't long enough to determine whether the defence document answered the allegations stated in the Statement of Claim, thereby allowing the Defendants', time in which to make application, to have the action struck out, which, (on the
February 13) application you insisted upon hearing in preference to deciding upon my application:
that no real 'DEFENCE' had been served, and which you would have had to have allowed: there not being one particular of a denial provided in the defence document. NOTE - (in defiance of the rules)

It was on the 3th February, that my suspicions were confirmed, when, despite my objection, you
refused to hear my application in advance of the Defendants' (later) application and again, when you were fully aware that the granting of my application, which you could not (lawfully) have refused, would have made the Defendants' application redundant.

I am aware, as you most certainly were, that an application to strike out an action as disclosing no
cause can only be determined upon examination of the Statement of Claim, with no evidence being admissible, and the question as to whether the action can, or can not, be sustained, was not an issue or consideration.

I am aware, as you may not be, that a High Court Judge has since held that the Statement of Claim plainly discloses an alleged cause of action and that the Defendants' Counsel has agreed wish that ruling.

I am convinced that in unlawfully striking out my Statement of Claim, you have joined in the
conspiracy, by abusing the process of the Honourable Court and you have abandoned your
principles. You have abandoned what must have been your absolute conviction, that the Claim did, (and does) disclose reasonable causes and you abandoned your independence to dispense justice without fear, or favour.

You have disgraced the Office that you hold, and you should try to redeem yourself, by holding that your unlawful order striking out the action, should not remain, as if valid, on the Court record,

I am all but certain that you do not have the courage that it takes, to rectify your mistake in joining
those who have been determined to use any means to protect Judge Simpson, but I have to be sure: hence this letter.

I really think there will be a need to issue proceedings, not only against you, for damages, if these
matters cannot be resolved to my satisfaction, in any other way.

Sincerely,

J. F. Hulbert.

Yes, Judge Weston would dispose of the action against Marshall Rice.
 

PROCEEDING
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to index
~~~~~~~~~~