4 Fairfield Avenue, Kirkella. Kingston-upon-Hull, HU10 7UH, England.
The very fact that Mrs. West is, and has been prepared, to put up with everything that I throw at her, is in itself, a fair indication of her guilt, because who, but a guilty person, would allow my persistent accusations of corrupt acts, without retaliation?
It is significant, that she has shown no indication to counter sue,
as any honest person, most certainly would but is content to allow me to
blacken her name and to continue to cast doubt on her integrity and credibility,
but the sad fact, from my point of view is, that try as I might, to induce
her to sue me for libel, or slander, under no circumstances will she do
so, because she and those advising her know that if the matter is aired
in open Court, before a Jury, she will have no answer to my allegations
against her and in that circumstance she would necessarily be obliged to
implicate Circuit Judge Simpson in her own mitigation, because it is very
unlikely that she would be prepared to take
sole responsibility and thereby allow Judge Simpson to get away with it.
Judge Simpson has done Mrs. West no favours by implicating her in the conspiracy, because she knows, as I do, that she acted only upon instructions from him. It was he who had the axe to grind. It was he who tried to protect the Police witnesses from the consequences of their obvious perjury. It was he who instructed her to take down false evidence and to omit some of the evidence that had been given. Mrs. West owes Judge Simpson no favours.
She has had every opportunity to sue me, or to counter claim, but her preference is to remain silent in the knowledge that she has and is being, protectedby the conspirators', who are determined that Judge Simpson will not be exposed, and if that did happen, it would inevitably expose those of the judiciary, who have protected him.
Until I am unlawfully prevented from doing so, I am in the position of being able to say and to publish, what I will, in the knowledge that neither Mrs. West, nor Judge Simpon, dare have my allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice aired in open Court, before a Jury.
Because I had been unable to provoke Mrs. West into taking civil proceedings against me and because she is the key to exposing Judge Simpson's corruption, I issued fresh proceedings against her alone, by serving a Writ, and Statement of Claim on her, on March 17, in an attempt to get her to answer my allegations in her Defence document, but as I had expected, not a single particular, for her denials of the allegations was provided in her purported 'DEFENCE', that answered the allegations and stated known facts on which the Statement of Claim relied. Her purported 'DEFENCE was served upon me in defiance of the rules of the Supreme Court, which state that particulars of denials must be provided in a 'DEFENCE'.
Clearly, Mrs. West's Solicitor served the unlawful document, believing that he would get away with it, relying on the fact that the judiciary were committed to going to any unlawful lengths to maintain her silence, for the protection of a colleague. Her Solicitor was proved right.
Copy of the document which purports to be the Defence of Mrs. Wet.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTRICT REGISTRY
B E T W E E N
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Statement of Claim are denied. The Defendant specifically denies that she has at any time perverted the course of justice, fabricated any transcripts of evidence, or committed perjury.
2. The Defendant does not plead to paragraph 3, of the Statement of Claim.
3. The Defendant denies that the course of justice was perverted, as alleged in paragraph 4, or at all. In relation to the specific allegations against her, the Defendant;
(a) denies those in sub-paragraph ii, iii, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, and x.
(b) admits those in sub-paragraph i, and iv.
4. It is admitted that the Defendant made the affidavit referred to in paragraph 5, but it is denied that it was in any way false. Sub-paragraphs i to iv, are denied.
5. Paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
6. Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
7. Save that it is denied that the Defendant's shorthand books have been tampered with, the Defendant does not plead to paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim.
8. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the Statement of Claim are denied.
9. The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, and/or discloses no reasonable cause of action, and/or is an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. It is denied that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff as alleged, or at all, and it is denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
Served this 10th day of April 1997 by Andrew M. Jackson Solicitors for the Defendant.
NOTE - (not one particular provided contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court.)
This action, against Mrs. West alone, was struck out as disclosing no
cause, by District
Judge Hill , on October 7, 1998.
To Treasury Solicitor