Follow Me

HM Courts & Tribunal Service ‘Judge openly commits Fraud’

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: No Tags
Comments: 5 Comments
Published on: April 24, 2014

scales-of-justice25th November 2014, this has been ongoing since April. Over 7 months and the HMCTS/The Judiciary are still dragging their heals over this. At last count there have been 3 formal administrative investigations. The first one several lots of complaints to instigate, they upheld that they has failed to notify me in respect of the Direction, which is in direct Violation of Article 6, 3(b) of the EHRC.

However when I asked;

  • Why they had not directed for this decision to be set aside (despite me requesting that they did so).
  • Why they had failed to investigate the matter of the submission being alter/falsified? (the evidence was altered in favour of the DWP, whilst in the hands of the DWP/HMCTS)
  • Why they has not offered compensation for this very clear violation of Article 6, 3 (a)& (b) of the ECHR.

 

Article 6 ECHR

a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(As many will be aware I was not made aware of the case I was answering to (even though it was supposed to be my appeal) until 5 minutes into the proceedings.)

The original member of staff who found in my favour under the first complaints. Left the Department.

Then another member of staff who was supposed to be investigating the previous points, chose instead to look through the previous response for the words. ‘Gross Maladministration’ , this was the basis of his response, even though nobody had even suggested that the previous member of staff had written ‘Gross Maladministration’.

This was then referred to the senior member of the Department, who was in fact an acting member of the Department, who promptly left shortly after being questioned about how this had been mishandled.

That persons boss then in turn, started playing games of her own. Expecting me to issue all 3 extensive complaints yet again in another format.

On top this, the Judiciary investigation was shut down in an interesting way. Basically they drafted two letters (3 months apart) the first asking for more information, the second shutting down the complaint as there had been no response. They posted one then the other, just 1 day apart.

So we come to now,

  • Judge Jackson had finally agreed to reinvestigate the judicial complaint
  • The HMCTS are now denying the Ms Abraham Williams found in my favour (even though she apologised in writing in respect of what happened)
  • The application for the decision to be set aside is finally being filed, 5 months outside time.
  • The HMCTS are still refusing to investigate the criminal Act of the tampering and alteration of evidence.

    ****************************************************************

Another point of interest, r-force.org is now officially on the Government sector blacklist, I cannot even email my University using the r-force servers because they use the same blacklist.

I guess the Government don’t want any officials knowing what is going on.

******************************************************************

The one fundamental issue that still lives on, despite the games playing by the Government, HMCTS and Judiciary, is that the Welfare Reform Acts, did not repeal the Right of Supersession, Social Security Act (1998), meaning that all of the Migrations to ESA have been unlawful. As the DWP have not been superseding the earlier awards of benefit. (Despite this being a legal requirement since 1998).

Even judge Chataway in his misdirected way of saying things, admits the Secretrary of State has the power to change the law.

However the fact remains that he did not, and he cannot unless he wants to throw the whole Social Security system in to legal turmoil.

So come on Cameron, admit to this £Multi Billion fraud endorsed by your Government that has been illegally removing Disability benefits.

The Original Post.

Many thanks go out to all those peeps, tweeting and also liking this post on Facebook. Keep up the good work!

———————————————-

As many of you will be aware on the 23.04.2014 I attended my appeal tribunal, this was supposed to be a hearing concerning

1. The Data Protection Act 1998, and the associated issues of the Department of Work and Pensions allegedly wrongfully declaring ATOS Healthcare as a Data Processor, when prior rulings by the Information Commissioner would clearly define them as a Data Controller in the Capacity of conducting the WCA.

2. The Right of Supersession (Social Security Act 1998). In which the state has not been showing sufficient or obtaining for the purpose of, evidence to Supersede an existing award of benefit. No supersession has been applied, which is in contravention of Social Security Act 1998, on existing awards, by the department of work and pension. (Those subject to the migration process).

3. That Declarations 4, 5, 6 of the ESA50 questionnaire, are allegedly in contravention of Article 7(1) ‘forced submittal to retrospective laws’ and Article 8 ‘forced termination of right of privacy’ of the European Convention of Human Rights. As well as being enforced with no right of Refusal in sharing of Private Personal information with other Data Controllers in contravention of The Data Protection Act 1998 and that ATOS Healthcare has not been correctly declaring themselves as a Data Controller in respect of the WCA in direct contravention of The Data Protection Act 1998.

4. That the existing award of Benefit Made under the Social Security Act 1998 (Incapacity Benefit Paid as Income Support), be reinstated as per regulation until the outcome of said Upper Tribunal.”

However unbeknown to me it is alleged that a Regional/District Judge directed that the hearing should be about the lesser issue under Regulation 22 of the Transitional legislation. To put it simply that relates to them ‘timing out’ the ESA50 if not returned.

If I had been notified of this Direction, which just happens to be the requirement under law, then I would have opposed the hearing.

On two simple facts really.

Regulation 24/25 clearly states that Regulation 22 is voided if the Decision maker fails to take into account the nature of the claimants disability when requesting that they complete and ESA50.

I have digital recordings of the Incapacity Benefit Reassessment team and Decision Makers on behalf of the Secretary of State refusing to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.

That evidence alone invokes reg 24/25 and ends the case in my favour.

Yet Mr BT Chataway, the Presiding judge. chose to ignore the evidence, ignored the fact that the DWP had falsified the dates on the submission and notes (although such allegations actually require further investigation) and made a finding anyway.

I should explain the main element around them using Reg 22 is that it required that Johanna Richardson, JCP Manager ,Reading had sent me an electronic copy of the ESA50 on the 22nd January 2013.

Despite evidence and repeated details that this was false Judge Chataway made this finding.

tribunal

Here we have the evidence, a screen grab of the actual email

As you can see Johanna’s Email was not until the 22nd February 2013 at 14:10hrs.

There is no easy way out of this for the HM Courts & Tribunal Service, it has been confirmed that this was not a typo by Judge Chataway. Throughout the entire hearing he refused to accept (despite the evidence) that Reg 22 decision on 8th February 2013 was actually over two weeks before the DWP made reasonable adjustments under Regulation 24/25.

Then made his finding on the basis of evidence that he knew was fraudulent.

The HM Courts & Tribunal Service had been given to 5pm today to respond to the allegation of fraud by Judge Chataway, they chose not to respond so this is now in the public domain.

For those of you with a more technical knowledge here is the message header which shows you the DWP mail server and what time and date it was sent.

Return-path: <JOHANNA.RICHARDSON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>
Envelope-to: admin@r-force.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:10:17 +0000
Received: from mail204.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.51]:57891)
by hp24.hostpapa.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <JOHANNA.RICHARDSON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>)
id 1U8tKJ-0006hQ-On
for admin@r-force.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:10:17 +0000
X-Env-Sender: JOHANNA.RICHARDSON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-204.messagelabs.com!1361542208!15929663!1
X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.8.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 24729 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2013 14:10:08 -0000
Received: from gateway-201.energis.gsi.gov.uk (HELO mx.hosting-e.gsi.gov.uk) (195.92.40.48)
by server-8.tower-204.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Feb 2013 14:10:08 -0000
X-body-size: 609174
X-attachment-names: dg_195544.pdf
X-attachment-types: document/pdf
X-attachment-sizes: 438638
X-attachment-size: Attach-greater-than-1k
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i=”4.84,717,1355097600″;
d=”pdf’?scan’208,217″;a=”47433495″
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=”—-_=_NextPart_001_01CE1106.4AE65A72″
Disposition-Notification-To: “Richardson Johanna JCP READING JCP” <JOHANNA.RICHARDSON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: ESA50 form and web link
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:09:56 -0000
Message-ID: <2698B1CFB14F6143A15115903A21E57A055AEBBF@DMM06010.link2.gpn.gov.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: ESA50 form and web link
Thread-Index: Ac4RBkpSS4GTNInzQfyjIOZwNlh0rQ==
From: “Richardson Johanna JCP READING JCP” <JOHANNA.RICHARDSON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>
To: <admin@r-force.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2013 14:09:58.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BFF94C0:01CE1106]
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130222-0, 22/02/2013), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antispam: clean, score=50

For the record, my Web/Mail server is outside the Jurisdiction of the UK and EU courts and has been cloned to several undisclosed servers around the world as well as this infrormation being held by several thousand volunteers.

So this will not be removed or destroyed.

In case peeps think I am being over cautious this is what happened last time around when I was so open about Schlumberger SEMA (ATOS), Unum and the proposed tick box assessments (WCA)

Click the Picture to go to the Article.

Attempted Assassination by Paramilitaries.

 

 

 

 

 

5 Comments
  1. For anything they refuse to discuss/dismiss, etc clear and explanatory reasons must be given or they have not acted correctly in point of law…gives anyone a clear run to further appeal…

  2. Kevin Mullins says:

    I am amazed at your tenacity and goes to show that this system is “bent” as we have always believed. Who have the DWP or where have they recruited the people who administer this system from. I have been dealing with them on my wife’s behalf recently and it is obvious there has been a major seed change from assisting claimants to get their legal entitlement to placing every obstacle possible to save on the benefits budget. Your final statement above about your web and mail server goes to show how much a champion of freedom you are once again congratulations Kevin

  3. Di Gregg says:

    Hi, so what can we do about this please?

  4. victedy says:

    Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention, the only thing is, IDS et al will close the loophole on the law and change it to suit himself.
    It is a well known fact that this govt want Britain to become like the USA & in fact they talked to Americans on how to disseminate the welfare state here. See: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jun/16/lawrence-mead-tough-us-welfare-unemployed and the only thing standing in its way is the EU especially the ECHR. In fact Cameron said if he can’t get the UK out of the EU he’s resigning. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-would-quit-as-prime-minister-after-general-election-if-he-could-not-deliver-on-inout-eu-referendum-promise-9299472.html

  5. Jim Drummond says:

    I feel there is grounds for a judicial review to address why the recourse to 24/25 was not forthcoming – the abuses of such processes may in themselves no be illegal however the outcome was clearly reached by fraudulent means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Welcome , today is Wednesday, March 29, 2017