British Judges do law, but not Justice; Ministers do self-serving interests, but not government

By Andre John-Salakov
We recently posted an Article on this site in which we asked: Is the UK Government doing enough for citizens?" There was no feedback until Friday of last week, when an elderly lady from Scotland, sent an email to Mike Allen, in Edinburgh. I reproduce the email below:

I get a bout of migraine listening to Gordon Brown,
I feel I want to puke looking at Jack Straw,
I feel like wanting to kill
looking at baby face Milliband,
As for the daughter in charge of the Home Office,
I wish she would stay at home to look for a husband
As for the Black woman called Baroness Scotland
She'd better not step foot in Scotland, she's useless
The bushy eyebrow man is the one, my Darling love
But why give money away to Royal Bank of Scotland?
RBS's same as the Rabbits of Barnstable Square
They don't need feeding no more
Let's have a government of people for the people

I make no comment relative to the above save to say that I, together with millions of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland share the same level of frustration and exasperation at this government. There is, of course, an explanation. Mr. Gordon Brown is not in Number 10 Downing Street, on the back of the people's mandate. He is there because Mr. Anthony Blair could not take any more of his closest associates' tantrums.

Points of note

As a mark of my sincere appreciation for the work done by Helena and others in this Organisation, I shouldn't add my own thoughts to her 8-part Series on the Case of the Poisoned Tree. She did a brilliant job.

It is true, of course, that we have laws in the UK. In fact, the whole country is drowning in statutes and statutory instruments. But we have no justice. British Judges do law, but they do not do justice.

Let me give you a few examples. In the first quarter of this year, I submitted an Application to the Judicial Office of the House of Lords. That Application was in relation to my Request for a Letter of reference to the European Court of Human Rights. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have been trying to refer matters to the Strasbourg Court since 1994.

I had a row over the telephone with the Court Manager. In the end, on June 3 2008, a Letter of Reference was written on the notepaper of the House of Lords Judicial Office. That Letter was then sent to us, for onward transmission to the Strasbourg Court.

You won't believe what happened next. Have three guesses and you would still be wrong. I will get back to this point later.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Recently RBS received 250 billions in state funding. By last week, we have received 100 emails from individuals in mainland Britain, complaining about the conduct of the Bank in relation to overdraft, loans, mortgages, etc. When Mr. Brown announced the bail out plan, the impression which was given to the whole world was that Banks would support small and medium size businesses. But RBS has not helped any of its customers. So, what has happened to 25 billions?

The irony is, when a customer complains about the conduct of a bank relative to the customer, the next thing is, they would tell you, "WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT IN 30 DAYS' TIME". This is worse than institutional racism. This kind of conduct is piratical. The unfortunate thing is, this kind of conduct operates in some Member States of the EU, too. The Judiciary behaves in this way, too. People who dare to criticise our Judges are categorised as "vexatious".

Charity Commission and Ireland Police

In April 2003, the Charity Commission, which not long ago called me all sorts of names under the sun, sent one of its senior officials to Lloyds TSB, on George Street, in Croydon, Surrey. The senior official of the Commission presented a signed Authority presumed to have come from me. According to that document, I allegedly gave the Charity Commission permission to transfer several thousands of pounds from my Account to a firm of solicitors.

God knows the truth. I knew nothing about that document. I only found out in September 2003. But interestingly, the senior official of the Commission took that forged document to Lloyds TSB on the same day that DS Michael Cryan of the Republic of Ireland Gardai raided the premises of the PLC in Dublin. See how the two Governments collaborate.

The Charity Commission is meant to be a Public Benefit Organisation; yet, officials of that Commission organised forged my signature and transferred money from my account without my knowledge. They got away with the dishonesty. To this day, I have not one penny of the money the Commission stole from my account. Lloyds Bank in the meantime, refused to disclose the address of the firm of solicitors to which the money was transferred

Judges only do law

Judges do Law in the UK but they don't do justice. In 1996, I caused a Survey of 175 County Courts Centres in England and Wales to be to be carried out. The findings dented a big hole in the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary relative to the treatment of Black lawyers in the country.

A Circuit Court Judge in Croydon, Judge Goodman was angry. So was his Scottish-born Court Manager, Mr. Malone. They put their heads together. They made a complaint to the Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Mackay of Clashfern (now retired). Lord Mackay reacted angrily. He sent us a letter us a letter Research Findings

The next thing that happened was that famous Meeting held in Lord MacKay's Office on Wednesday March 12 1997. Just to remind you, details are here Secret Meeting of March 12

English Law of Bad Character

In the UK Judges do law, but they don't do justice. In 2003, I applied for a renewal of my UK passport. But someone in the Treasury Solicitor Department (I have an idea of who was who and who did what) informed the Home Office in Liverpool of the outcome of the unlawful raid of the Public Law Centre in 1997. But of course that Treasury Solicitor did not tell the truth. In the event, a junior clerk in the Home Office in Liverpool, sent me a letter, saying, "ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALISATION IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS OF GOOD CHARACTER. "GOOD CHARACTER" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981, BUT THE APPLICANT IS EXPECTED TO HAVE SHOWN DUE REGARD TO THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY"

The above statement by the Home Office raises many issues. I acquired British citizenship under the 1948 British Nationality Act. Naturalisation is not the only root to citizenship. Registration is also a root to citizenship. I was a minor in 1960 when I registered as a citizen of the UK. The English Legal system has always allowed three roots to citizenship.

The same devil and angel from the Treasury Solicitor Department who gave bad advice to the Home Office in Liverpool, MADE IT ALSO VERY CLEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT THAT I HAVE CARRIED UK PASSPORT SINCE 1959. His confirmation was in black and white

Secondly, some 40,000 people are sent to jail, for one thing or the other in the UK every year. 98% of those 40,000 are white people. In light of this point, I did ask the Home Office to let me know if the 98% is also denied renewal of their passports because of their "bad character". I never received a reply

Lastly, that statement also mentions the showing of DUE REGARD TO THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. I did ask the Home Office TO TELL ME THE LAST TIME WE SHOW DUE REGARD TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROFECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE SHOWED DUE REGARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OR THE LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. I never received a response.

Administration of Injustice

The foregoing matters did reach the Administrative Court. But as I have been saying, in the UK Judges do law, but they do not do justice. MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN, who was meant to rule on the conduct of the Home Office, joked about it in Court. Since 2003, this matter remains unresolved. Yes, it is true: In the UK Judges do law, but they don't do justice

There are many International Conventions, starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, including, but not limited to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). Since our Judges don't do Justice, one would be daft to expect them to do Conventions.

House of Commons

Here is another interesting point of note. In 2007, I completed my work on "THE RIGHTS OF HABITATION, COMPLEMENTARY TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS". This Document was to be presented by me in person to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Since I did not and still do not have a passport, The Document was presented by post.

We forwarded copies to Legal Deposit Centres around the world, including the US Congress. And we also forwarded copies to Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Peter Balkenende, among many other Leaders

To my total consternation, the House of Commons returned the copy sent to them, with a note, saying "WE DON'T WANT IT"! What parliamentary democratic institution behaved like that? The House of Commons is often referred to as the Mother of Parliaments. Yet it behaved in that manner.

UK Government Ministers

How about government ministers? What do they do? I know what they do and they too, know what they do. In the UK, Ministers don't do government but self-serving interests. In the UK, our Ministers don't do government but use our diplomatic missions as tools for self-serving interests; in the event that they lose at any future election.

When citizens write to a government minister he or she should have the basic decency to reply. Recently, I received a letter from the Home Office, in reply to a letter which we sent to the Home Secretary. Her Secretary could not spell the word "Foreign" She typed it as Foregin. There was another letter from Her Majesty's Courts Service, written by someone wirh an unpronounceable name: She could not spell the word "Centre" . She spelt it Center. She was patronising to the point of exasperation. And then we received a letter from the Identity & Passport Service. In this one, a twenty something year old woman lectured me on Nationality laws . When we telephoned the IPS in Durham, to speak to that person, we discovered that she does not exist.

Paradoxically, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Home Office, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible for a lot of harm being done to British at home and British abroad. One is at a loss to understand why MPs and MEPs do not speak out on issues which affect the images of Britain at home and abroad.

Take the case of a young Black woman who was found with a rope around her neck at Lisbon Airport. The British Embassy pretended that she was not British, even though they found a British passport on her body/ Murder at Lisbon Airport

And what about the Black man who was found dead in a hotel room in Lagos, Nigeria. The family had to pay to get the body back to London. And even then, the Coroner refused permission to open the coffin.

CCRC

In the UK, we have a body called CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION. This Commission was set up in 1995 under an Act of Parliament. The mission of the Commission is to refer miscarriages of justice cases to the Court of Appeal.

The CCRC is a mirror on the wall, a surplusage, which does not meet the requirements of criminal justice, let alone answer the needs of those who feel aggrieved by the behaviour of government and police.

CCRC do not do criminal justice, but only do criminal data.collection and storage. In September 2007, I made an Application to that Commission, to refer the unlawful raid of the Public Law Centre and the events that followed back in 1997 to the Court of Appeal.

By December of 2007, I had written Submissions on some 250 A4 papers, all single spacing. In March 2008, a Queen's Counsel working for that Commission, by the name of Ms. J A Goulding wrote to me, saying: "The Commission has decided not to make a reference and this statement sets out the Commission's reasons in accordance with section 14(6) of the Act. The decision has been made by a Commissioner and is signed by the Commissioner on behalf of the Commission"

It is sad that the Commission, headed by a New Zealander, has done nothing useful in pursuance of criminal justice since its birth Indeed, recently a prisoner took action in the High Court against this Commission, when the Commission decided not to make a reference in his case. The prisoner's argument was simple: Do the job that you are set up to do: refer my case to the Court of Appeal, said the prisoner

It is about time that the Commission is consigned to the dustbin of history. It is an experiment that has failed the end users. The Commission does not criminal justice; it only does data collection.

EU Court

The Strasbourg Court has a duty to those around the world who respect its Jurisprudence and its Jurisdiction. I say to the Court: DON'T LET US DOWN.

In a matter of days I would be submitting my SEVENTH APPLICATION to the Strasbourg Court. I submitted the first Application in 1994. The Convention is not perfect. There are loopholes, which the British Judiciary exploits time and time again. But this time around, we are determined to put every ounce of jurisprudence in our head into the Application, not just for my benefit but for generations to follow after I have left this world. The Strasbourg Court should demonstrate to the whole world that the Judges of that Court not only do Justice but that they do Law and Convention.

Article after Article says … No one shall be subjected to this or that, etc. But what then when someone has been subjected to torture for some 20 years? What then? What can the Convention do about it?

Concerning the Court Manager who issued the Letter for onward transmission to the Strasbourg Court. Well, he was sacked

DS Neil Smith Admission

I would like to thank the thousands of people who visited our website during the period that Helena published her analysis of The Case of the Poisoned Tree.

To avoid any kind of misunderstanding, I would start by definiting what we mean by the phrase Poisoned Tree. But before I do so, you will be surprised to learn that we found this phrase in a document prepared by Detective Sergeant Neil Smith, the man in charge of the Crown's Case against me, following the unlawful raid of the Public Law Centre in 1997

DS Neil Smith did not handle the fatal Warrant. It was Detective Sergeant John Turpey who obtained that Warrant. It was this DS Turpey who executed the Warrant at a wrong address. However, since the Judges behind the unlawful raid, DS John Turpey did not have a choice but to go ahead.

However, in 2007 we discovered, just by sheer accident, some documents that were prepared by DS Neil Smth. In a Summary which he prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service and for his own Commnder, he wrote: "John Salakov has clearly made a study at some time of the laws relating to Human Rights. H3e made it plain from his statements both oral and written, that he sees much wrong with the English Legal system. He plainly would argue that the invalidity of the Search Warrant would render inadmissible everything that followed. This is the case of the Poisoned Tree, DS confirmed in his Summary.

Definition of Poisoned Tree

There are two ways of defining this phrase. The demotic way is one. The legal style is another. First method first. If a tree has no root, or if its root is rotten, it would not survive. That is one way of looking at a Poisoned Tree.

The other way is the legal method of looking at a Poisoned Tree. In this second approach, we are looking at a set of circumstances or scenarios(or scenaria, depending on whether you studied Latin) or cause of action. Let me explain by means of an illustration

Let us imagine that, once upon a time, there was a police officer by the name of Detective Sergeant Menace. HE received a message from a judge, saying, I want you to close down KENTURKY CHICKENS ASSOCIATION, 13 NONAME STREET, LONDON SE9999 9QA DS Menace went to the SMALL CRIMINAL COURT down the road from the police station where he worked. He applied for a Search Warrant. The SMALL JUDGE asked him: DS Menace, what do you want to with this Warrant if I give it to you?

DS Menace said, I want to go to the premises of KENTURKY CHICKENS ASSOCIATION OF 13 NONAME STREET, LONDON SE9999 9QA TO SEEK AND SEIZE INVOICES AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO UNCOOKED KENTURKY CHICKENS, PROPERTY OF LONDON CHICKENS ASSOCIATION.

The SMALL JUDGE, (who, by the way was a regular consumer of Kenturky Fried Chicken) said to DS Menace, Very well, here you are. Please follow the usual instructions according to law. DS Menace thanked the SMALL JUDGE. He left the court house.

However, a few days later, DS Menace assembled a few members of his police station and other members of the public, and off they went to NONAME STREET. They drove their police van pass NO. 13, turned left at a T-Junbction. He tricked the owner occupier by deception to gain entry into KENTURKY CHICKENS ASSOCIATION, 525 NONAME STREET, LONDON SE9999 9QA

As soon as he entered, he pressed the owner occupier against the wall, and as he reached for his handcuffs, he told him I am arresting you…., etc. etc.

At that point the owner occupier said, Show me the Warrant which says you can come in here and harass me like this

At first DS Menace was reluctant to show the Warrant. In the end he showed the Warrant to the owner occupier. The owner occupier looked at the Warrant. He said: You've lost your marbles DS Menace. You are a bloody menace, you are. This is not NO. 13 NONAME STREET. This is NO. 525 NONAME STREET. Take these bloody handcuffs off me and get out.

DS Menace lived up to his name. He opened the front door, to make sure that the address on the Warrant was No. 13. Oh dear, he moaned. He held his head in between his palms.

"OK. So what. I am in the wrong house. But I am still arresting you", etc. etc. DS Menace took everything he found on the premises, including carpets, money, saucepans, cooking oil, safe, ladies undies, typewriters, books, nail cutters. He took everything.

The question is, what sort of government would allow one of its agents or institutions to get away with this kind of behaviour? Well, the immediate answer is, UK government. But now, we are going to prove to the UK that that kind of conduct is unacceptable in a democracy.

Definition

Since the above scenario must be of interest to lawyers, judges and police officers in different parts of the world, I will now define Poisoned Tree for the benefit of the aforesaid important people and institutions:

Poisoned Tree means,
Any act carried out on behalf or in the name of the State, either by the Government, or by a Government Department or by any State-sponsored institution or by any natural person or legal entity or association, incorporated or unincorporated in a way as to offend against the provision or provisions of a domestic law, international convention or the rule of law recognised by civilised nations,
Any such act is unlawful without any further proof of provenance and all proceedings or actions that follow, are unlawful.

The relevance of the above Definition to the events that took place at the premises of the Public Law Centre on 16 April 1997, is not in doubt. The raid was unlawful. Everything done to me, including the torture before and after those events, trial, conviction, confiscation of passport, denial of my human rights to earn a living, the refusal to renew my passport, the degrading and inhuman treatment at Gare du Midi in Brussels, the infliction of punishment by the Irish Government on the advice of the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the size of discrimination against my wife, starting with the British High Commission in Malaysia, and a lot more, signpost UK's disrespect for Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and Human Dignity.

The English Legal system and Republic of Ireland Legal system, the News Media in those two countries, and State-sponsored institutions, such as the police, charity commission, criminal cases review commission, and indeed, the courts, do not take the time or make the effort to understand that there is goodness and badness in every human beinge. We cannot all be perfect. That is not possible.