Mr. J. Swales
                                            This page was amended on 2 Dec. 2001

Hull based Solicitor: Mr. Swales, was instructed to represent Judge Simpson and also to act (unlawfully) on behalf of Mrs. West, as agent for the Treasury Solicitor, in my action against them. He also acted for Mrs. West in my separate action against her, after the action against them both, was unlawfully struck out by District Judge Weston.

He, acting upon instructions from Mr. Shepheard, in the name of the Treasury Solicitor, had made the application to have that action struck out, on false grounds, at Hull Combined Court Centre and I find it very difficult to believe that he did not realize that he was acting unlawfully, by representing Mrs. West, albeit upon instructions and he really ought not to have accepted the invitation to represent them.

Of course, Mr. Swales was aware of the implications, if I had happened to be successful: he must have been quite confident that he could get away with acting upon Mr. Shepheard's unlawful instructions, on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor; confident that I would not be allowed to win, because of those implications.

He probably learnt a lot from Mr. Shepheard, because my separate later action against Mrs. West, was also unlawfully struck out, with him at the helm. He also maintained Mrs. West's silence, by serving her purported, Defence, in answer to the separate action against her, without her providing one single particular that answered the the allegations and clearly stated known facts, in the Statement of Claim, on which the Claim relied, once more, contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Swales has possession of Mrs. West's original shorthand books, which he has steadfastly refused to release, for forensic examination, so I believed him, when he informed me that he intended to represent Mrs. West to the best of his ability. I would have preferred him to have informed me, that he intended to represent her to the best of his ability, in a lawful manner.

Mr. Swales made an affidavit on the 21st day of September 1998 in which he swore [quote] : "In my respectful submission there is clearly a triable issue in this action and I request that the Defendant be given unconditional leave to defend the Plaintiff's claim." [unquote]

Despite have made the sworn statement that there is a clearly a triable issue in my separate action against his client: Mrs. West, that did not hinder him from having the case against her unlawfully struck out, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

At that time i did not understand how , if an action is sworn to contain a clearly triable issue, the swearer could then proceed to make application to the court to have the action struck out, on the ground that there is no reasonable cause of action.

I came to understand very clearly on the 12 June 2001 after i'd queried the apparent contradiction.

Paragraph 3. of Mr. Swales's letter informed me that the affidavit related to different proceedings: a lie that i never expected to be uttered by him and at that time i became convinced that he had deliberately obstructed justice, because the affidavit is headed with the case number 1997 H No.0085 the same case number and proceedings that was later struck out on his affirmation that it disclosed no cause of action: case number 1997 H No.0085.

Mr. Swales's affidavit is perfectly true: "there is clearly a triable issue" and that issue is supported by solid evidence at and linked to page:  notebook and his lie: that the affidavit relates to different proceedings, demonstrates that he did indeed obstruct justice by stating that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

I've not yet taken proceedings against Mr. Swales: alleging obstruction of justice, in the hope that he will advise his client Mrs. West to openly admit that she was incited by Judge alan Simpson, to tamper with police evidence out of my trial at Hull Crown Court.
To Mr. Justice Moses