John Kenneth Browne
24 Bridgford Road West Bridgford
Nottingham NG2 6AB
P&F 0115 9142564 M: 07776 306668
I now come to the Claim Number G81YJ713 British Gas claimant: J K Browne Defendant:
It is well known that this case stems from the order,
In the High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division
Nottingham District Registry
Case number 3YK08479
Before His Honour Judge Godsmark QC
This order required the claimant to pay the costs of the application to the defendant
And if not agreed it will be subject to a detailed assessment.
This order was adhered to by the defendant but stalled by the claimant.
My justified and detailed costs was £1440 ignored by British Gas
After many letters to British Gas asking for payment
over 5 months on the 26.05.15 I made a claim via Salford for £1440 plus £80 court fee.
Unfortunately Salford just took my money and swept my claim under the carpet
Never to be seen again or so Salford thought!
Now with no choice the defendant made the necessary application to the SCCO.
And paid the £369 court fee 05.06.2017
This proceeded as normal for some time.
However on 27.09.2017 I receive a letter from SCCO advising me that
my claim documents are returned and my case will be heard in
Nottingham District Registry in effect before HHJ Godsmark,
needless to say no hearing took place in effect it was swept under the carpet
This letter also states that my £369 is retained
Now on the 24.01.2020 I receive an order requiring the defendant SCCO the pay the £570.33
To the Claimant J K Browne forthwith!
Presumable this is the return of my £369 claim plus!
Moon Beaver the agent for British Gas was kept informed throughout
But stalled continually and refused to cooperate.
British Gas and their agent refused to place their objections to my costs.
So instead of correctly finding against British Gas due to this defauld
The SCCO continued with delaying tactics.
Now the plot thickens as I now receive a cheque for £369 from the Government Legal department the solicitor for the SCCO payable to J K Browne, presumable this was the return of my £369 Court fee!
It does not give any reference but must be E78YM442.
The £369 was paid on 05.06.2017 for a hearing that never took place.
That means that the refund of my £369 is an admission that the SCCO were culpable and any impartial Judge must find for the defendant forthwith and order accordingly. I was clearly correct from the start. That also means that there is the Court fee of £80 to pay together with interest on £1440 from 26.06.2015 when the claim was made up to 26.12.20 @8% over 6.5 years £748.80 plus court fee £80 plus £1440=£2268.80
Total to pay £2268.80 for the SCCO to pay directly or indirectly by their silicitors.
Please remit without delay to avoid further action and further expence.
Please make the cheque payable to J K Browne at address as above a
and that will be the end of this case satisfied!
Needless to say should any reader of this litany wish to ask questions regarding the above do hesitate to please contact the writter
J K Browne
PS Should you require copies of all the documents quoted above please agree to pay for them as there is a lot of them JKB
Question: Is this a conspiracy or is this a conspiracy??????????
To follow shortly
The donoghue matter and the rotheras matter all part of the judicial political conspiracy to see Mr J K Browne off led by arch conspirator hhj godsmark!
This conspiracy is also found in very high places who act as if they are sacrosanct. Proven Sally Meacher associate CAC. Also among Justice and Lord Justices, and nobody wants to know as they have the power and the glory for ever and ever sacrosanct.
AM I, J K BROWNE A WHISTLE-BLOWER
TO DDJ Nix and his mentor: It is clear that DDJ Nix and his mentor have decided to ignore my factual accusations, maladministrations abuse of discretions and court powers. This is unfortunate as Nix may find himself asked not to give up his day job. Currently my £50 court fee is misappropreated, stolen, theft embezzled with malice intent. Do I really have to make a claim for £50 to the County Court Money Claim Centre for the return of my £50 plus. The lack of a considered reply leaves me wth no alternative. J K Browne
Incidently, I am still awaiting the defence of the indefensible by the solicitor for the Court Manager at County Court at Nottingham. Unless they can find another bent Judge as they did find with DDJ Wrigley. What next I ask myself. J K Browne
Money Claim Centre Salford County Court
Claim number G731YJ219
Claimant J K Browne: Defendant: Court Manager Nottingham County aided and abetted by HHJ Godsmark
Thursday 3rd December 2020
Additionally on 09.12.20
*****I must advise DDJ Nix that I have received a letter from the MOJ stating that they have received a letter dated 22.10.2020 that states they have received my claim form and are proceeding to progress same. They also quote a different CPR that is not surprising as the interpretation depends on the mind set of Judge quoting it, and his reasons and whose side he is on, so the Claim form is properly served, YES *****.
Due to lack of reply or explanation I have to assume that unfortunately DDJ Nix intends to ignore my letter below due to his, Conflict of interest, and carries regardless on with the current malfeasance (conduct by a Judge that cannot be legally justified and conflicts with the law). DDJ Nix ignores all of this together with the HRA, The rule of law, all equal before the law and the overriding objective inter alia.
This is clear malfeasance and DDJ Nix knows it but must obey instructions from his mentor.
I now claim the rule on recusal that is
* the withdrawal of a judge from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality*
I, John Kenneth Browne now file a motion for DDJ Nix and his mentor to recuse themselves from this case number G71YJ219 forthwith.*
*Recusal is Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of withdrawing from participation in an official action such as a legal proceedings due to a conflict of interest of the presiding DDJ Nix*
It is noted that the DDJ Nix makes much out of his time limits and yet totally ignores with malice aforethought his intent to disregard the time limits properly imposed by due process and the court manager, properly instructed in the Notice of issue to protect HHJ Godsmark in the Nottingham Court Court the Grand Master of the brotherhood and then preceeds to pervert the course of Justice for personal reasons. Hypocrisy, Malfeasance!
It must also be noted that all DDJs are fully aware that they are used by their superiors to do the dirty work for the entire judiciary and carry the can back for deceptions and fraud carried out on litigants to protect their betters usually DJs or HHJs who will be his mentors.
Please find enclosed a copy of my original claim form dated 28.09.2020 that is self-explanatory that has received no response as required by due process. As a result of this ineptness I correctly followed this up with the “request for judgement” 23.10.2020 copy enclosed. This entitled me, the claimant J K Browne, to an order requiring the defendant to pay the claim £570.33 forthwith. The claim is properly presented and will receive due process by an impartial Judge.
Today’s date is 05.12.2020, that is 2.5 months from original claim, and no communication or explanation has been received from Salford County Court in this regard. Maladministration!
Clearly there is a conflict of interest at Salford County Court as the defendant is another County Court. However the Nottingham County Court is evidently culpable and proved to be so, and in the UK we are all equal before the law, no exceptions!
However in this case there is an unmistakable unambiguous conflict of interest that exists with any judge who is abusing his/her discretion and abuse of Court Power. In effect discrimination stalling and that explains the unseasonable delay in this case.
The matter must be transferred to a neutral Court, Nottingham High Court, before an impartial judge and Jury. All I want is JUSTICE and all I get is victimisation and bias.
Salford will also be aware that I paid £50 to have this matter adjudicated on, that now is swept under the carpet in the Salford Court for personal reasons. Does this mean I must now make a claim against Salford County Court for the return of my £50?
Please reply by return of post in order that this matter can be resolved without the need for any further legal action. Please cooperate and forward the required order.
J K Browne