DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
The original of the following letter was sent to my MP. The Rt. Honourable
John Prescott, on my behalf, by Royal Mail Customer Services, by registered
mail, because a number of previous recorded and registered letters, containing
documentary evidence, including my
petitions and manuscript, were presumed to have been lost during transit through the postal system. No recipients' signatures had been obtained. It is significant that I now have documentary evidence that reveals that all of the correspondence was delivered without signatures having been obtained. It is also significant that all of the correspondence, said to have gone missing, contained the same subject matter and all were sent to Government Departments, that include the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The matter was taken up by the Post Office Users National Council on July 7, 1998 and as I understand it, the matter is still under investigation.
Registered item Ref; WR 0175 4078 4GB
The Rt. Hon. John Prescott,
16th January 1998
Dear MR. Prescott,
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
I am very sorry indeed about being compelled to bring the above matters
to your attention, by imposing on you at your home address, but I am not
convinced that you have been made aware of the latest developments, regarding
my formal complaints against a Circuit Judge
and of my endeavours to bring them to the personal attention of the Lord Chancellor.
The matter of the Judge's corruption is being kept from the Lord Chancellor's
attention, by the Court Services, who is itself a party to the miscarriage
of justice and although I have recently been informed that a file with
my complaints and a manuscript containing evidence, which was forwarded
(note - said to have been forwarded ) to the Lord
Chancellor, by your Office, has now been put before him, I feel certain that he has not been made aware of it and the Court Services refuse to provide me with a copy of a emorandum, that they say, they have received from the Lord Chancellor, that would have put my mind at rest. I do not believe the writer.
I am conscious of your workload however, the matter of the miscarriage
and conspiracy, is of such gravity, that I believe that it should at least,
be brought to your personal attention, because the Court Services have
somehow intercepted a petition bundle containing copy evidence, that clearly
demonstrates conspiracy and the miscarriage of justice, which
was sent by myself, to the Home Office, for the attention of the Home Secretary. They have also somehow managed to acquire a second copy petition bundle, that I sent to you, at your Office, at the House of Commons, with the request that it be passed on to the Home Secretary, for his consideration.
The bottom line is that the Lord Chancellor's Department, through the
Court Services, are determined to keep my formal complaints and my petition,
from the personal attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary
and in view of the gravity of such a conspiracy, within the justice system,
I respectfully request your assistance, by your
personal intervention, by checking with the Lord Chancellor personally, to find out if he has been made aware of my complaints of corruption against the Judge and by ensuring, that the petition bundle, that I sent to your Office, is either returned to yourself, to be passed on to the Home Secretary, or redirected to the Home Office, for the Secretary of State's consideration.
You may understand the stress, and anxiety that these matters have caused us as a family, over the last few years.
The trouble is that nobody, within the Court Services of the Lord Chancellor's
Department, despite knowing of the conspiracy and despite, or because of
the implications, has the heart to rock the boat, by being open about the
problem, perhaps because the Department
itself is involved in the conspiracy, to cover for Judge Simpson.
I enclose herewith, a copy letter, that I sent to the Chief Executive of the Court Services, which may be helpful, to the extent that you will find it revealing.
J. F. Hulbert. (constituent)
NOTE - I have sent numerous letters, including recorded delivery
correspondence to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, at the House
of Commons, relating to the interception of the evidence, by Mr. Huebner
and to the evidence sent to the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, to be passed
on the the Lord Chancellor and it is my belief that not only has all of
the evidence been passed on to the Court Services, but that these matters
have not even been brought to the attention of my MP: John Prescott.
Update 20 January 2000
Today I sent a letter to Mr. Prescott at his constituancy office in
Hull, requesting him to use his influence to arrange the setting up of
a committee to investigate the conspiracy that prevails within The Lord
Chancellor's Department for the protection of the Judges' that I have named
in these pages as having acted unlawfuly and also for the investigation
of the shutting down of my web site at the request or complaint made to
my ISP by the Department, which bypassed all legal procedures to have me
remove the pages.
The shutting down of my original web site contravenes Article 10: European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Expression and the content of my pages disclose unfair hearings contrary to Article 6 b) of the convention.
I have requested a meeting With John Prescott at his surgery on 29 January 2000: in 9 days time and have been assured by his secretary that John endeavours to see everyone if he is not too busy. I shall be there to put my case for these matters to be investigated, as a matter of urgency, in the knowledge that these Judges' who I accuse are still working.
Will John be there? Will he meet with me? We shall see and this page will be updated in 10 days time. Please stay tuned.
UPDATE 30 JANUARY 2000 10:10 pm.
Met with John Prescott yesterday morning. Present were John, myself, my son: Gary and Rita: John's Secretary. Other people were waiting to see him and, as you may imagine, I was conscious that there would not be unlimited time to put my case. In fact I took only documents relevant to the fact that John had himself been deceived: letter signed by Lord Irvine to him (John) stateing that Mrs. Justice Smith had held that my Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and a page from the certified transcript of the hearing that discloses that Mrs. Justice Smith had held that there is plainly a cause alleged and which also discloses that Counsel for Judge Simpson had replied "Yes plainly."
Mr. Prescott returns to London tomorrow: 31 January and has undertaken to confront Lord Irvine with the evidence. I will update this page if and when I have any further progress to report.
UPDATE 6 April 2000 10:06 pm.
Letter from L/Irivine to John Prescott.
Why did Lord Chancellor Irvine furnish John Prescott with this false information?
2nd Letter - 2nd Lie:
[Quote from letter to Deputy PM. from Lord Irvineb dated 31 March 2000] ]
Lord Irvine: The Judge is reciting what Mr. Hulbert alleged: not what
she had found."
but this is what she really said from official certified transcript of the hearing:
Mrs. Justice Smith: "There is plainly a cause of action alleged"
and Counsel's response:
Counsel for Judge Simpson and Mrs. West: "Yes, plainly."
What utter nonsense from Lord Irvine: the transcript clearly discloses
that Mrs. Justice Smith told the Defendants Counsel that there is PLAINLY
a reasonable cause of action alleged and Counsel immediately
agreed, so it is as plain as a pikestaff that she wasn't
reciting what I had alleged. It is a statement of pure fact. Does Lord Irvine really take John Prescott to be that much of a fool?
UPDATE: 29 April 2000
Met with John Prescott this morning and confronted him with the second letter described above and asked him whether he was satisfied with Lord Irvine's explanation: that the Judge was reciting what I had alleged. He somehow avoided giving a direct answer, but he did at a later stage make it very clear that he did not accept that Lord Irvine had lied to him. Strange on the face of the original letter and transcript of the hearing, which proves the lie and which he examined several times.
Stranger still when you examinne some of the remarks that Mr. Prescott
made to me at an ealier time.
Mr. Prescott: "When she first heard it right, she made it clear from
what they'd said, that there is a cause of action."
(be it noted that he didn't at that time say that she was reciting what I
Mr. Prescott: "And because there was a cause of action, namely, was
defamatory and you needed to take action, the judges were not
protected, because there was grounds for action."
Mr. Prescott: "In May 1996, according to the transcript you've shown me that she said that there was a possible cause."
With regard to the other issue: the shutting down of my original website Mr. Prescott assured me that they would find out about the mirror of those pages, put up by a UK citizen courtesy of the ISP Freeserve, however, if they have found out about that issue, he failed to mention it to me.
Mr. Prescott has placed himself squarely behind Lord Irvine and therefore
his department which includes the Courts and Judges' and I am minded to
correct Mr. Marshall Rice, who in the newsgroup uk.legal, called him a
buffoon. If indeed Mr. Prescott is a buffoon, it
seems to me that he is a mis-guided one.
I now know where my MP. stands with regard to my very serious complaints
and therefore it will be a waste of his and my own time to attend his surgeries
My index page asks this question:
LORD IRVINE'S dillema -"Will he jin the conspiracy by refusing to act"?
Has that question now been answered?
To Lord Justice Saville's Judgement