... .............................          ..... 

                                              MR. HUEBNER:
                        EX CHIEF EXECUTIVE: COURT SERVICES.


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

15th December 1997

For the personal attention of Mr. Huebner

Dear Mr. Huebner,


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 discourtesy. 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.
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.


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?
District Judge Hill