To: Judicial Conduct & Investigations Office From John Kenneth Browne 20 October 2015 05/01/16
I am aware of the time limits. However this is serious and brings the Judiciary into disrepute. Therefore on one side of an A4 I submit a succinct précis of the matter so the investigator can decide to read on. The investigator’s initial response will be sceptical. This is understandable. British Gas referred to as BG.
1)See article attached “British Gas arm ordered to pay £5.6m by Ofgem.” that lists the reasons for this order. The items listed are identical to my complaint and defence against BG’s Claim. BG charged 2-3 times the rate available and for years refused to release me to cheaper supplier. This document was available to all Judges together with 5 bundles of evidence (not enclosed but 6 indexes of same are) 2 defence statements and my skeleton arguments were all ignored by all the Judges. I am admonished demolished, penalised with costs at every hearing by every Judge. My defence is certified by HHJ Godsmark as “without merit”. Clearly this is not the case. Guiding principles are ignored. “Without Merit” judgment is unfounded. Why? As above. Please read on
Are the judges saying that Ofgem is “without merit”? of course not, Then why are they condemning and penalising me for saying precisely the same thing? See article attached
Are the judges saying the “Competition & Markets Authority” is “without merit”? of course not. . Then why are they penalising me for saying precisely the same thing. See article attached
2) Article by Phil Bentley, M/D policy maker at BG, self-explanatory, his arrogance & intransigence is responsible for this matter since 2006. My witness summons is willingly set aside by DDJ Roberts 07/01/14 + costs upon BG application. Represented by BG’s agent regardless of Bentley been an ex-employee. My objections and skeleton argument ignored, my conduct money £170 was not returned. Champerty! illegally enacted by Officers of the Court, condoned by Judges. I suspect my success at CAC against Brother Judge DJ Reeson is the motive, I must not be allowed to win anything.
3) See order of CAC re DJ Reeson, brother to all Judges in Nottingham County Court, a DDJ in 1989 and a DJ in 1993. The hearings at CAC were 1995 and 2003. DJ Reeson was in control of the case throughout. He was backed by 4 DJ’s and 3 HHJ’s at 3 hearings between 1995 & 2003.Pure Nepotism
This matter started in 2006 when I contacted BG re: their high prices and notice of terminate. BG ignored them all. During this time I sent approx. 90 letters of complaint and termination and even suggested Legal action and offering a solution. All ignored. These are contained in my bundles now at CAC.
In March 2013 BG issued a claim with a short listing. I was taken unawares. My request for extra time was refused. Applied to the court for same, before the hearing BG relented, allowed extra time and offered 50% of the cost. I accepted to facilitate matters. They should have paid the lot of course.
4) In August 2013 DJ Millard issued a direction order. I complied, BG did not. I made “an unless” application before DJ Hale who favoured BG immediately. No order for costs was made. My Skeleton argument and 5 bundles ignored. His order was silent on my application. Later HHJ granted an appeal on costs only.
5) Appeals on all made to HHJ Godsmark were refused, plus a blank refusal to transfer to London. These hearings were 31/07/14 and 06/08/14. In effect I am admonished and penalised again.
6) The substantive hearing, In effect the so called trial, before DDJ Kitto/Recorder Poidevin 16/02/15 whose agenda was day one for BG evidence and day two for my defence. Day two never took place. However I am admonished and penalised again. My human rights are side-lined to favour BG. Begs the question WHY?
7 Finally the hearing before DJ Macmillan in which the order of Recorder Poidevin, now at the CAC, is implemented in the guise of HHJ Godsmark’ order dated 06/08/14. Can this be right? Suspect chicanery.
I suggest that any logical person, no matter what criteria used, would see that this is no coincident that all the Judges in the Nottingham Court condemn me at every opportunity. WHY? I cannot be 100% wrong and BG 100% right. However 100% of the Judges’ discretion and the benefit of any doubt go to BG. Why? Could it possibly be the DJ Reeson matter? As a litigant in person I do deserve an explanation? Please see “Handbook for Litigant in Person” written by HHJ’s and disregarded by all judges along with Article 6 HRA.