05.05.20 CASE NUMBER 3YQ10123

CASE NUMBER 3YQ10123. To be heard before a JURY in High Court Nottingham

Three substantive bundles already on file at High Court Nottingham!

RSVP PLEASE CONFIRM RSVP

This case must be the most travelled case on recorded

It started in Salford, then to Northampton, then to London, then to Nottingham, then to London before HHJ Hellman, then to HHJ Freeland Lon, then to Saggerson Lon, then to DJ Fine Lon, then to Freeland Lon again who presides over a kangaroo and issues an order in that vain. It then goes to the Civil Appeals Court next door who say deceptively they do not have jurisdiction, and pass the matter to Nottingham who transfers it back to London and London transfers it back to Nottingham 830 miles to date. Where to next I ask myself. Will the Nottingham High Court use bullying tactics chicanery (trickery and fraud) sophistry (illogicality) and transfer it again for the umpteen time, Over almost 7 year already. HHJ Godsmark believes that if he can stall it long enough he will never need to have it heard atall. An impartial Judge would peruse the over whelming evidence presented and Judge accordingly and that would prove the malfeasance of a number of Judges. Will Nottingham transfer the matter again and to whom, anything to avoid a hearing. The chief architect of this travesty of Justice is none other than HHJ Godsmark as he carries on wreaking his personal vengeance against J K Browne .

It makes sound common sense and a logical process for this appeal to be heard before a Jury and an impartial High Court Judge. Any other transfer by any Judge, without the agreement of the claimant, would be absurd incomprehensible and bizarre to say the least and cannot be legally justified and against the law. All the parties are based and domiciled in Nottingham and that includes all the witnesses, also domiciled in Nottingham. It would be double absurd to drag all these people elsewhere, to say nothing of the costs. See the “overriding objective” ensuring parties are on an equal footing, dealing with a case justly, saving expense, ensuring the case is dealt with expeditiously, and forcing compliance with portico It is not due process no matter what criteria used.

To Nottingham High Court Judge designated to hear this appeal that originally was made to the CAC who transferred it to the HIGH COURT at Nottingham where the CAC want this substantial appeal to be heard. I enclose my cheque that reads Payable to HMC&T SERVICE. Dated 05/03/2020 cheque no 145 for £140. As at 04/05/20 the cheque has not been cashed I now suspect that Nottingham intends to ignore the rule of law ignore my rights and ignore the evidence of my 3 bundles that are indisputable. In effect the judges are in complete denial.They deny me access to Justice, deny me the relevant articles of the HRA. They deny me the provisions of the overriding objective.

May I now have a hearing date before a HIGH COURT JUDGE without any further delay as it will soon be 7 seven years stalled? I now claim article 6 six of the HRA, the right to a fair hearing before a JURY and an impartial Judge. HHJ Freeland is not impartial as he presides over a kangaroo court with no regard for the indisputable proven evidence presented and due process.

I, J K Browne confirm that the above is the truth and nothing but the truth

2 Comments on "05.05.20 CASE NUMBER 3YQ10123"

  1. Yay google is my world beater assisted me to find this outstanding website ! .

  2. I am continually looking online for tips that can benefit me. Thx!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*