This is a copy of my reply to Lyons who claimed in his letter to me that there was no individual or organization within the Commons to investigate bent Members of Parliament. This is my reply to Lyons. Lyons has failed to reply to the contents of this letter and the documents of proof he was sent also.
This is a copy of faxed letters to HHJ Rubery dated 9th June 2009. This letter was faxed to his office at Stoke on Trent courts and Stafford courts. Again Rubery has refused to reply to my claims. If you look on the home pages of this site you will see a copy of Rubery's court order dated the 8th October 2004 which he ordered the Bradford and Bingley to produce evidence of proof of two credits they told DJ Isley had been credited to my account the day before my hearing before her.
It was pointed out to Rubery in a faxed letter to Stafford courts on the 21st of January 2005 that the Bradford and Bingley were ignoring Ruberys court order and they were refusing to release the documents Rubery had demanded they provide. On the 21st of January 2005 the court manager for Stafford court faxed me to say my letter of that date had been placed on Ruberys desk.
On the 28th January 2005 in Ruberys court room when asked where the documents of proof were concerning the two credits to my account that the Bradford and Bingleys barrister H. Jackson had claimed had been already credited to my account on the 4th May of 2000 the day before the hearing on the 5th May 2000. After a discussion with Wright Hassall's solicitor Richard Lane, they then told Rubery that as the credits were invisible ones the Bradford and Bingley had been unable to comply with his court order. These credits are so invisible no-one can find them at all. It was pointed out by myself to Rubery on the 28th Jan 2005 and again in June of 2005 that the Bradford and Bingley were in contempt of court to which Rubery replied he wasn't interested.
Strangely in 2008 when the information commissioner wrote to the Bradford and Bingley asking for copies of the two credits, the Bradford and Bingley sent him the false spreadsheets they used in court in 2000, on pointing this out to the ICO commissioner he told me to sod off.
Still, like the FSA, Financial Ombudsman, ICO etc, they are authorities set up by Bliar and Brown and are bought off by these two.
Millions losing their homes through this corrupt government.
Letter to Mr. Sants CEO of the Financial Services Authority dated 11th August 2008
This letter was sent to Sants on the 11th August 08. Mr Sants has been faxed documents showing HHJ Rubery allowed the Bradford and Bingley to be in contempt of his court order which they ignored. As President Brown has stated recently, he will do anything to keep banks going under :) so will judges.
IT MUST BE NICE TO OWN THE GOVERNMENT, POLICE, JUDGES ETC.
You will see in this letter to Sants we name members of the board of the Bradford and Bingley and which independent authorities they sit on. The 1986 Building Societies rule and regulations states that no serving member of a bank/building society may be involved with or sit on the board of the Financial Ombudsman. The Financial Ombudsman stated in a letter that Bliar had no objection to this going on.
In 2004 and 2005 a file with a copy of documents was sent to the FSA c/o its CEO Tiner, in 2007 I was told the FSA had lost them? On sending more documents I was informed by letter from the FSA that my file had been handed to an investigator with the FSA re. the Bradford and Bingley to deal with.
In a further letter the FSA stated sod off when I requested I be kept informed of their investigation. I was told it infringed the rights of the Bradford and Bingley to do so.
So millions lose their homes yet these clowns are allowed to get away with criminal acts that cost families their homes, marriages etc.
You will see I have named members of the board of the Bradford and Bingley and which independent authorities they sit or sat on.
Bliar and Brown give us rubbish on how they deal with crime of banks etc and yet they put these people on boards that are supposed to be independent from the government.
SANTS AND TINER WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED BY THE BRADFORD AND BINGLEY BUT FAILED TO INFORM BROWN OR DARLING WHEN THIS BANK WAS BEING NATIONALISED EVEN THOUGH SANTS WAS INVOLVED WITH NATIONALISING THIS BANK ALL THE WAY. WHY DID HE NOT SPEAK UP?
We see pocket of bankers being filled to overflowing but hey, when you own the authorities why should they worry? Your kids will pay for it.
Your children and grandchildren will be paying for the rest of their lives for the rottenness and corruption of this government. It's going to get much worse yet.
The items below and on the other pages of this website are the very government authority people who are supposed to protect you and your families yet you can see they lie and cover up with impunity knowing their backsides are covered by the likes of Bliar and co, the Tories are exactly the same.
Evidence will be printed to show that Bliar, Brown, Tony Wright MP and many others have acknowledged these criminal acts and just ignored them, then Bliar and Wright MP have the nerve to say they are as clean a a babys bottom.
You can do somehing about it but you have to fight for your childrens futures otherwise they won't have one.
The above court order was issued by HHJ Rubery on the 8th October 2004, you will note he orders the Bradford and Bingley to include evidence of two transactions. This was evidence of proof of two credits this bank had claimed in court in May 2000 had been credited to my account the day before the hearing in 2000. The spread sheets and figures they used in court in May of 2000 at Stoke on Trent court before DJ Isley have been proved to be false, this bank happily admitted in writing they were false, but hey when you own the judges and police they know they have nothing to worry about.
At the hearing on the 8th October 2004 Rubery was puzzled when i was reading out to him document 124 which was Paul Jordan's, head of legal services for the Bradford and Bingley letter in which Jordan stated very clearly. NO CREDITS ARE IN EXISTENCE ON THE BRADFORD AND BINGLEY FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR THE 4TH MAY 2000 SHOWING TWO CREDITS HAD BEEN MADE ON THAT DAY TO YOUR ACCOUNT. They had told Judge Isley on the 5th May 2000 they had credited my account with two credits and then produced the spread sheets with these two credits on as proof. Rubery suddenly stopped me and asked me which file was i reading from as he couldn't find the document I was reading from. I told Rubery its the same file I serviced on the courts and the Bradford and Bingley. Rubery stated he didn't have this file then granted me leave to appeal. The court manager from Stafford court wrote to me stating her office had failed to provide Rubery with the Indexed File. Load of rubbish! Rubery was going to dismiss my appeal out of hand he didn't know about Jordan's letter because he hadn't read my file. So the court manager has to take the blame.
On the 21st of January 2005 I faxed the Stafford court manager confirming the Bradford and Bingley were refusing to comply with Rubery's court order, the court manager faxed me back the very same day to confirm she had placed my faxed letter of the 21st January 2005 on Rubery's personal desk. NO REPLY FROM RUBERY.
On the 28th January 2005 in court I pointed out to Rubery that the Bradford and Bingley were in contempt of court, not interested was the reply. Rubery asked the barrister Huw Jackson acting for the bank, where are the records from the banks financial records to show these credits. After a discussion with Richard Lane of Wright Hassall of Leamington Spa this pair of clowns stated. "My Lord the credits are invisible ones that will only show up when Jenkins sells his home":)) Which Rubery said was Okay. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST AS CONFIRMED IN WRITING BY PAUL JORDAN HEAD OF THIS BANKS LEGAL SERVICES. I have had experts trying to find these credits and no one can.
Please bear in mind that when I appeared before Lord Justice Ward at the High Courts in London in July of 2002 he stated in his judgment, paragraph 32- "the figures before me do not appear on the societies financial records and this matter needs investigating". Ward was confirming the documents and figures used by this bank in court in May of 2000 were non existant and false. But Rubery again stated he wasn't interested
I asked Ward politely to instigate a police investigation into the criminal acts committed in court by the Bradford and Bingley, first he claimed it wasn't within his remit to do so, then later in his judgment he states it could be done at a judges discretion, now i have to wonder why Ward refused to instigate a police action?
The hearing on the 28th January was a joke from start to finish, when I asked Rubery awkward questions he pointed to Jackson and Lane and stated in the middle of the hearing "I want you two in my chambers after this hearing" which is a malfeasance by a public official, no I wasn't invited to the judges chambers.
Rubery had loads of evidence before him from the banks solicitor Jordan etc, the decission was in and no matter what was said, I know which side my bread is buttered on. Any one wishing for more of this just contact me there are many other such documents concerning Rubery and other Stoke on Trent and Stafford court judges.
Now we show how bent HHJ Rubery actually is, the Bradford and Bingley demanded a restraining order be issued against me to stop my making further court claims against them, Rubery was actually beaming when he agreed to this and made the order he was told to make he didn't even think about it. You can see clearly Rubery states that if i ignore his court order I WILL BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SENT TO JAIL. Yet when it was pointed out to Rubery in his court on the 28th January 2005 that the Bradford and Bingley were in contempt of court for failing to produce the evidence he personally had demanded he said in the first hearing in January of 2005 that he wasn't interested, and at the second hearing in June of 2005 he stated "I'm not going down that road again"
I have been informed that Rubery when stating I would be in contempt of court etc was doing so under ORDER 42 and without stating as such that I was vexatious, further in being ordered by the Bradford and Bingley to stop me from taking the matter further Rubery in essence conspired with the Bradford and Bingley to pervert the course of justice by lawful process (strange law) and threats which in essence has made me (bankrupt in law) which denies me all access to Justice because of Rubery's abuse of the Judicial Office.
It was shown to Rubery by using my yearly mortgage statements that the Bradford and Bingley had issued false mortgage statements two years after I received the original ones for 1999 and 2000. Richard Lane solicitor acting for the Bradford and Bingley admitted in writing over a year after the 2000 court hearing that one credit wasn't actually paid until nearly two years after they had told Isly in court they had paid them the day before the hearing with DJ Isley in May of 2000 and presented her with spreadsheets of figures to prove this.
When it was pointed out to Rubery and other High Court judges that in May of 2000 in DJ Isleys court the barrister for the Bradford and Bingley Jackson actually handed Judge Isley and myself a bundle of documents in the court room which I now know is called Surprise Documentation. Isley as the judge in charge of the case should have asked me did I want to accept them or have the hearing adjourned, she did neither. I was informed by Stoke on Trents Court manager that any evidence to be used in a hearing has to be serviced at least seven days before a hearing. Again proving the Bradford and Bingley seemingly buy the court system as well.
Huw Jackson barrister admits all of this in his letter to the Bar Council which will shortly be displayed on here
I have been fairly fortunate and there is no way these people will get away with the criminal acts they have committed. I have waited patiently for a long time to really hit these arrogant people, now it is my time
I do not disbelieve any poor soul who has gone into court and come out confused as to how they have lost their homes or whatever. Two barristers favourite sayings to me were "I have had breakfast with the judge and if you do what we want no costs will occur" This was also made to me in writing by the Bradford and Bingleys solicitor Lane he claimed "if you accept that my client has done nothing wrong all costs against you will be dropped" doesn't this tell you i was dealing with bent judges.
This is a letter from Stafford Court manager dated the 1st of October 2004 this was in reply to two faxes i had sent asking for explanations, once again I was informed it was HHJ Rubery that was involved, and that he had demanded that this case was his and his alone.
I had filled in a Court Appellant document requesting a hearing for an appeal, I already had a letter from the Stoke on Trent Court manager (below) confirming no one needed to inform the Bradford and Bingley if I or the court didn't want to as they had no legal right to attend the hearing.
I believe my hearing was set for the 30th of September 2004 at Stafford courts for a hearing I now know was going to be before HHJ Rubery. At 4-00pm the day before the hearing I received a call from Stafford Courts Admin office to tell me my hearing for the following day had been adjourned, when I asked on whose instructions I was told Judge Rubery had adjourned the hearing on his receiving orders from the Bradford and Bingley to do so because they hadn't had time to include their papers. When I pointed out to the person I was talking to that no one had asked my permission to adjourn the hearing and that the Bradford and Bingley had no legal right to be there anyway, I was told hard luck it's adjourned and then slammed the phone down on me.
You will see in the managers letter in paragraph two that it was Wright Hassall for the Bradford and Bingley who by a faxed letter had demanded the adjournment by Rubery.
In paragraph three you will see the court admit they were in the wrong not to have phoned me first to gain my permission for the adjournment.
In paragraph four you will see the manager confirms the Bradford and Bingley had no right to be at the hearing as it was my hearing alone, she then apologises for the way I had been treated.
Yet HHJ Rubery knew the Bradford and Bingley had no right to demand my hearing be adjourned, I have a faxed letter from the Bradford and Bingleys solicitor Lane stating he requested (demanded an adjournment from his mate Rubery) on the grounds he hadn't had time to enter paperwork for this hearing, the day after the adjournment I received a bundle from the Bradford and Bingley for costs of nearly 4,000 pounds for a hearing they had no right to even be at, Rubery is stamped all over this all the way through. Hopefully shortly we will have adverts in local papers requesting any poor person who has had the misfortune to appear before Rubery and co join us to get justice.
The above court manager in a later letter apologised yet again for failing to put before Rubery my court files for the hearing of the 8th October 2004, was it deliberate or not, Rubery referred to this matter at the court hearing of the 28th January 2005 when I brought the matter up, he dismissed it out of hand.
This is a letter from Stoke on Trents court managers office, again another cover up. When I appeared before so called HHJ Perrett at Telford courts (the hearing was changed from Stafford courts to Telford courts at 4-30pm on the evening before the hearing I assume because the judge allotted the case was honest) before the hearing Jackson the barrister was seen coming out of Perrett's chambers smirking, the first words out of Perrets mouth when we went into his court was he wasn't going to allow this hearing as it wasn't new evidence which it was, he then stated as shown in his judgment that he had no idea why HHJ Rubery had allowed my appeal. So Perrett was calling Rubery an idiot. I told Perrett I was going to the Court of Appeal in London to which he stated I will not give you my permission he then got up and stomped out.
Outside of the courts both Jordan and Lane ran after me they said they would drop all costs if I didn't go to the Appeal Court in London, when I stated I was going to go they stated I wouldn't get a proper hearing because they sort the judges out as we have sorted the judge out today, I have the exact words on documents which I don't keep at home so these are as I recall near enough but not exact. But remember them when you appear before judges that they are sorted out.