Access to Justice via a competent Court

Justice and Consumers has replied saying you have to contact another public body.

Dear Justice and Consumers,

1. Further to the Minister of Justice (MoJ)/ HMCTS QB, Issue & Enquiries; Room E07; Royal Courts of Justice; Strand; London; WC2A 2LL, failure to acknowledge or respond to my 30 April 2017 FOI request in the public and justice interest, via WhatDoTheyKnow. Com, for information on whether they had made a decision on the matter of my November 2017 :

(a) Mandatory reconsideration (MR) against the HMCTS ruling on this HQ16X03667, dated 14 November 2016;

(b) Including request to provide further and better particular of information of the evidence in Chief relied upon, for transparency and in order to understand what case I have to meet.

2. Consequently, where a person believes that a ruling made by a public body which affects them has been assessed incorrectly then they may request a reconsideration and subject to the outcome followed by an appeal if appropriate.
So where the problems still persists, in the interest of justice and the public, under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting any documents which contain the following information—

(1) Clarifying the HMCTS position in respect to point 1(a) above and
(2) Further and better particular information information in respect to 1(b) above :

2. 1. Background or Adminicle evidence which is necessary to established credibility or the Public servants abuse of their superior power and position of authority—

Clarification of the HMCTS position in respect to point 1(a) above, including on the HMCTS Code of Practice and or Code of Conduct. Where a member of the public have discovered that the Crown administrator of justice had abused their superior position of authority and professional worldly experience of how the law and endemic systemic failure culture works. Where the HMCTS choose to ignored the cordial rules of their function, and unduly influence or introduced uncertainty, creates costly satellite litigation and undermine the Civil Justice Process, by :

(1). Breached under the Theft and Counterfeit Act of Parliament arising out of their use of false instrument of account and defective Court Orders issued, including without due reference to the cause, reason and the chief facts upon which the HMCTS were called to adjudicate.

(a) Engaging in own intuitive summery judgement, and unlawfully or unreasonably ruling to Struct out just and meritorious case, on 14 November 2016. And thereafter, in conscious wholly official procedural error, failed to cooperate or grant necessary reconsideration on own motion or on request, where its obvious the HMCTS were not empowered to make the ruling made on the claim. Especially when they were sure that the affected participating public member like myself claim were bound to succeed, but for their own motion wholly official procedural error.

(b) Recklessly committing the Common Law Offense of misconduct in public office where they failed to act in accordance with their Statutory or Mandatory duties necessary to achieved the overriding objective as were called for in this HQ16X03667.

(c) Their indicative behaviour being deemed tantamount to Torment and Torture by public servant, from the experiences or view of one or more affected public member participant like myself. Notwithstanding, in law, fundamentally the HMCTS serious abuse of processes automatically void or nullifies resulting rulings.

(i). And whenever the law catches up with the relevant person or organization, subject to any Fraudulent/ Limitation Act whether or not the relevant person or organization is aware of it or acknowledge it, they or guilty of the offence or entitled to the benefit of the bargain.

(d) Delaying or remained silent on or withhold or failed to account or informed about material factors or issues the like of — 1(a and b) above necessary to justly disposed or resolves an dispute.

2.2. Further and better particular information of any "Recorded Notes" — descending into an "Transcript" — descending into "Statement of reason" from the HMCTS ruling dated 14 November 2016 of this case number HQ16X03667. Necessary for transparency. If any exist.

(1) Where the HMCTS had demonstrably failed to acknowledged or account relevant CPR scheme applicable sectors under Part 3, where the right to enter judgment had not arisen at the time when judgment was entered.

When on 14 November the HMCTS had took step or gave direction, via email, on a preliminary issue for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective.
And where the court had gave said directions on an preliminary issue to a vulnerable unrepresented party to make representation, applicable rule condition had required the HMCTS take into account whether or not the party right or period to comply with the issued direction had expired before making any other order were made. Where it were :

(a) subject to conditions; and
(b) consequence for failure to comply...:

2.2.1. In respect to the HMCTS long-term and persistent or reoccurring defaults, and it's nature in respect of the various serious: — reoccurring or long-term or persistent, or uncontrollably wholly official procedural errors suffered or likely to suffered in the future by participating vulnerable unrepresented public member like myself. Which include :

(1). Where the Crown 14 November 2016 determination ruling notice (issued via the Royal Mail Postal Service) had demonstrably recklessly defaulted to comply with one or more set applicable scheme rules undertaken; requiring the HMCTS to undertake or omit from taken some specific action— granting one or more vulnerable unrepresented participating public members the benefits from the bargains where the relevant public members have sufficiently satisfied applicable criteria under the CPR UK GOVERNMENT governing scheme which deemed them entitled to the benefit of the bargain.

(2). Where the devised CPR and or the Human Rights Act policies required justice must follower the truth and account any cover up or a attempted cover up. And where it was not in material content implemented with scrupulous attention by the HMCTS, contrary to the law and with proper regard to the interests of access to Justice and a competent HMCTS. And as such is deemed entirely incompatible with article 47 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is a breached of their duty and our Convention rights—

(3) Where THE UK GOVERNMENT guidance on public authorities implementing THE UK GOVERNMENT current law and Legal Aid reformed or revised policy the likes of the CPR or FOIA SET GOVERNING RULES while acting in an official capacity, must not violate their duty of trust and care or any public member protected guaranteed rights by doing an unlawful act recklessly or in wholly official procedural error and gain an ill gain benefits to claim a lawful rights to deny any or a public member of their protected guaranteed lawful rights, but for an initial unlawful act on the HMCTS decision maker's part :

(a) Where It is a point of law that the act of withholding, omitting or failing to account material information submitted for consideration or being silent in respect to required response necessary to help with determine an official matter whilst acting in an official capacity is or is likely to be deemed as fraudulent, malicious and/ or misconduct in public office; And

(b) That the act of failure to comply with or appropriately implement domestic and or international material governing law, rules or policy to material official matter or issues submitted for an official consideration; or the act of recklessly blaming someone for the HMCTS or someone else's default is or is likely to be deemed as Torment and Torture by public body : —

(i) Where Court had in obvious error Struck out one or more public member like myself just case where the relevant governing rules had required the Court to honour the vulnerable person Convention right, as being more reliable than that of the HMCTS own initiative. Especially where the participating vulnerable unrepresented public member had provided unchallenged certified evidence as expressed above and below. And the HMCTS were not empowered or required to make the ruling made on 14 November 2016;

(ii) Where the HMCTS had recklessly demonstrably abused Part 1 and misapplied Part 3 of the CPR scheme and or disregarded article 47 of the Human Rights Act and other applicable rules which set the condition for the HMCTS to view the unchallenged material evidence provided by vulnerable unrepresented participating (public member like myself) as certified evidence. And which had required the HMCTS to award me, the subject public member, the benefit of the bargain, set by the UK GOVERNMENT and or International law, governing CPR scheme and or International law governing Human Rights Act;

(iii) Where the HMCTS demonstrably defaulted to appropriately Implement the UK GOVERNMENT set governing CPR scheme and material International Human Rights Act law, in respect of failing to positively account one or more public member, like myself, submitted unchallenged certified material evidence; Nor apply the relevant governing rules which had required the HMCTS to act under either in accordance with the CPR scheme section— Part (1and 3). "Conditions for treating a applicant as having certified evidence until a challenge or determination by a competent Court in respect of the applicant's submitted evidence has been made; or in accordance with CPR section Part (1 and 3). Where the submitted evidence had unarguably established reasonable grounds for bringing and defending the claim. And were deemed not an abuse of the court’s process, nor were it likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. Nor did it failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

3. Where it is a point of law that when a person or organization (member of the public or public officials) indicative behavior satisfied the criteria to a relevant rule or law in respect to a default or compliance. The rule of law effect is automatically applicable whether or not the relevant person or organization is aware of it or acknowledge it.

Whenever the law catches up with the relevant person or organization, subject to any Fraudulent/ Limitation Act. That person or organization is guilty of an offence or entitled to the benefit of the bargain.

3.1. Fundamentally, the offence is not whether or not the defaults had caused damaged or injury, but that it occured (similar to the Traffic Offence of entering the Yellow Box Junction and stopping in it for half of a minute or more).

4. SEE COPY OF THE CROWN EMAIL from 14 November 2016, at 14:31, QB Issue & Enquiries wrote:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. You have raised concerns that some of the Masters have conflict of interest in relation to HQ16X03667. Please at this stage you can put an application via N244 before Senior Master Fontaine who is the administrative head of the Masters. The application (N244) will cost £100 without hearing and £255 with hearing depending on your preference.

Regards

F Asagba

Issue & Enquiries; Room E07
Royal Courts of Justice; Strand
London; WC2A 2LL

Yours faithfully,
Denu Griffiths

Justice and Consumers

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your request for access to documents.
Unfortunately you have not indicated your postal address that is required for registering and handling your request in line with the procedural requirements.
Please send us your full postal address at your earliest convenience. Pending your reply, we reserve the right to refuse the registration of your request.
You may, of course, use directly the electronic form for entering your request:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...

Kind regards,
JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear Justice and Consumers,

Sorry for any inconvenience caused, my address is— 38 Larbert Road; STREATHAM;
London; SW16 5BJ

Yours faithfully,

Denu Griffiths

Justice and Consumers

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 12/06/2017. We hereby acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents, which was registered on 13/06/2017 under reference number GestDem 2017/3542.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days. The time limit will expire on 04/07/2017. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.

You have lodged your application via the AsktheEU.org website. Please note that this is a private website which has no link with any institution of the European Union.
Therefore the European Commission cannot be held accountable for any technical issues or problems linked to the use of this system.

Yours faithfully,
JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Justice and Consumers

Dear Mr Griffiths

We refer to your e-mail dated 2/6/2017 in which you make a request for access to documents, registered 13/6/2017 under the above mentioned reference number.

Your application is currently being handled. However, we will not be in a position to complete the handling of your application within the time limit of 15 working days, which expires on 4/07/2017.

An extended time limit is needed as your application is complexe.

Therefore, we have to extend the time limit with 15 working days in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The new time limit expires on 26/07/2017.

We apologise for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.

Yours faithfully,

DG JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM

show quoted sections

Dear Justice and Consumers,

Thanks again for your update feedback.

Yours faithfully,

Denu Griffiths

Justice and Consumers

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,

Please find and advance copy of our reply to your request for access to documents GestDem 2017/3542 attached. The documents will be sent by registered mail as well.

With kind regards,
JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

Estimado / a Sr./ Sra.   Yo victima el fraude  financiero de bancaria.  Es
criminal, es penal, es via a la cárcel.! El banco Sabadell (España)
engaña, roba, estafa, fraude mi dinero de dos hipotecas durante 11 años.
Tengo todos argumentas. Investigado, dictaminado todos delitos
financiera-muy grave, catástrofe, desastre.  El banco Sabadell (España)-
lavado de dinero y activos; la legitimación y el blanqueo de capitales; la
evasión fiscal; el fraude procesal; el fraude documental; el fraude
contable; el fraude masivo; el fraude hipotecario GENERALIZADO- CRIMEN
ORGANIZADO;  el fraude de pensiones y los seguros;  el fraude electrónico;
el fraude de tarjetas de crédito; robo continuado; desfalco; falsificación
de informes; falsificación de documentas contable; valores y manipulación
de información vital; transacción de ilegales;  trafico de divisas; estafa
común ( Notario, el Registro de Propiedad, la Finca, Ayuntamiento );
estafa de aval; estafa tasación de valor;  estafa oferta vinculante;
estafa amortización de capital (hipoteca)- financiera UCI; pagado 20%
entrada de  escritura  compraventa en Notario sin recibo- efectivo,
monedas;  los delitos de Robo Agravado; El banco Sabadell (España)-
delincuente muy grave. Tribunal Supremo de España dice: contrato
compraventa, si el promotor-vendedor-cambio nombre como propietario- mismo
persona- ocultado hipoteca- el banco Sabadell (España)- después cancelada
hipoteca de promotor ni  pagar su cuotas mensuales, ni  pagada todo
dinero. Tribunal Supremo dice:  NULIDAD HIPOTECA Y DEVOLVER TODO DINERO.
Enviado muchas cartas, denuncias para  Estado de España- NO RESPONDE.
Cancelar todas las cuentas la Caixa del Penedes ( filial  el banco
Sabadell) – porque mas cuatro años no uso, y el banco Sabadell (España)
organizado otros las cuentas y cuatro años transferir el dinero negro para
las cuentas propias- las cuentas la Caixa del Penedes  .  Nadie no
controla el banco que sumo al  DESCONTROL TOTAL.  Es criminal, es penal,
es via a la cárcel. El banco Sabadell (España) tiene el negro del mercado,
la lista negra, el negro de las ordenes, el agujero negro, el robo de
identidad.  Todo controla del  OPUS  DEI. Hipoteca basura, el 
BONOS-BASURA, contrato compraventa falso, ilegal. Quien  es responsable de
seguridad ciudadanos?  Quien lucha realmente contra corrupción, mafiosos,
fraudulentas? Quien controla al controlador? Quien vigila al vigilante?
Quien permite engañar, robar, estafar, fraudar de banco Sabadell (España)?
Todos saben  porque tienen su interés, acciones. El problema son los
incentivos- lo que los rescatas implican para las actitudes y el
comportamiento dentro del sector financiera. Si uno es “ grande” en
relación al sistema, tiene mas probabilidades de recibir un generoso
respaldo del gobierno cuando todo el sistema se torna vulnerable. El banco
Sabadell (España) reconstruían – y reconstruyen- su capital operando con
acciones. El declara, reporta para todos instituciones de Estado, Central 
Banco Europea- como pobre y paga  casi nulo. Los rescates- el termino
preferido por los políticos es “ respaldo de liquidez”  o “  protección
sistémica”.  Los inversores conocen el precio de todo, pero no saben el
valor de nada. España- no castiga  a las ladrones. Credito esto les cuesta
nada, pero en el momento la existencia teorica, el   banco Sabadell  puede
comenzar a cobrar intereses sobre el mismo. Acto procesal y acto
jurídico-reconose su origen- causa eficiente- en un echo que le antecede,
en tanto la índole y calidad de esa relación  dependerá  de la índole y
calidad del echo que constituya su causa. En el campo del derecho no
interesan, en general, desarrollados en la conciencia del sujeto, sino su
exteriorización, es decir, los  echos.  Por que seguimos cayendo victimas
de los fraudes financieros? Que gratifiquen a los servidores mas antiguos
de nuestra casa, a los que agradezco su lealtad y pido perdón por las
incomodidades que me deben. Que revisen mis papeles privados  y destruyan
todos los de carácter personalísimo, los que contengan trabajos meramente
literarios y los que sean simples esbozos y proyectos en periodo atrasado
de elaboracion,  asi como cualesquiera obras prohibidas por la iglesia o
de perniciosa lectura que pudieran hallarse entre los mios. Queda claro
que la propia entidad oculto  de forma deliberada esa penosa situación en
su salida a bolsa. Los accionistas fueron engañados a gran escala: se
manipulo el precio de las acciones y se falsearon los estados financieros.
La  fabricada tiene dos espoletas, una civil: la paralización de las
ejecuciones hipotecarias y otra penal: el engaño eñ los procedimientos
judiciales de ostentar el papel de acreedor sin exhibir  los poderes que
legitiman para reclamar la deuda con el fin de no levantar la liebre de
que tan solo es el cobrador del frac en lugar del acreedor. A la banca se
le abre la puerta del infierno de la via penal. El banco Sabadell ( y las
cajas ) una vez que concedían una hipoteca la empaquetaban en emisión de
bonos que la Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) registraba
como paso previo a transferiría a un Fondo de Titulizacion y a una
Sociedad Gestora. La finalidad del Fondo de Titulizacion, vinculado al
banco emisor de los bonos, sirve como coodin para ocultar en el balance
contable de la entidad financiera que su capital social no esta acorde par
asumir el riesgo de impago de los  prestamos y créditos hipotecarios que
otorga. La desproporcion  puede llegar a ser 40 o 50 veces y la
incidencias de morosidad actual lo transfieren a la quiebra. Como se
ocultan los miles de millones de euros otorgados en hipotecas?  Se sacan
del balance del banco y se llevan al Fondo de Titulizacion que por no
tener no tiene personalidad jurídica, digamos que es un ente etéreo que
emite un folleto explicativo de las bondades del producto financiero sobre
hipotecas otorgadas. Otro actor  es la  Sociedad Gestora cuya función
consiste en colocar en el Mercado financiero los bonos hipotecarios a los
que incluia una calificación de solvencia prescrita por una las agencias
de rating. La Sociedad Gestora funciona asi: A través del mecanismo del
Mercado llegaban las hipotecas reconvertidas en bonos hipotecarios a las
manos de los inversores ávidos de colocar su dinero en un producto
rentable y seguro. El dinero de los inversores llegaba a la Sociedda
Gestora y esta lo transferia al Fondo de Titulizacion y este lo remitia al
banco emisor que de nuevo iniciaba otro ciclo  al otorgar hipotecas con el
mismo fin:  emitir bonos hipotecarios en una repetición constante. La
adicción de la banca al procedimiento de titulizacion les reportaba mas
beneficios adicionales de los productos vinculados al préstamo
hipotecario: seguros de todo tipo, altas comisiones, domiciliaciones de
nominas y un largo etcétera que mantenía al cliente cautivo. El banco
Sabadell mas importante de este método  de VENDER  los prestamos con
garantía hipotecaria se trata de la triquiñuela  falta de solvencia del
deudor) que endosaban a un tercero en el Mercado financiero mientras ellos
consequian el beneficio de la intermediación. Al titulizar una hipoteca el
banco se convierte en el gestor de cobro y transmite  al Fondo de
Titulizacion la cuota mensual del nominal y los intereses, que llegan al
tenedor del bono. Estamos llegando al magma de la cuestión: Es el banco
que ejecuta la hipoteca el propietario de esa deuda? Tiene la legitimidad 
activa como para quedarse con la garantía? Responder a estas preguntas no
ha sido fácil ya que se tenia que encontrar, en documento legal, que el
riesgo de impago corresponde al bonista, que el banco efectivamente ¿
vendio? Ese préstamo, que existe una emisión que contiene los prestamos
hipotecarios, y explicitamente  un listado  que los identifica y detalla
uno por uno. Efectivamente, existe esta documentación que acredita que
serian los bancos alemanes los que les tocaria la peor parte al disponer
de miles de millones de euros en bonos hipotecarios de los bancos
españoles. Los bancos alemanes no demandaran al Banco de España por falta
de diligencia en el control de las  entidades  financieras españolas y
los  fallidos que se puedan producir iran a cargo de los contribuyentes
españoles. El banco Sabadell (España)  NO SON ACREEDOR LEGETIMO DE LA
DEUDA QUE RECLAMAN. La valvula de seguridad: la justicia. La justicia es
el ultimo recurso.    Es  ley penal, no ley mercantil.   OLEKSIY  
NEMSHYLOV   x6399762n  España. -  Nulidad dos hipotecas y devolver todos
dinero. Tengo todos argumentas. Este dice Tribunal Supremo.