John Kenneth Browne

24 Bridgford Road West Bridgford

Nottingham NG2 6AB

P & F: 01159142564 M: 07776 306668

E: jkb24@btinternet.com

Friday, 12 January 2018

HM Courts and Tribunal Service

Royal Courts of Justice Group

Civil Appeals Office

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand London WC2A 2LL

FAO Ian Moldon Lord Burnet of Moldom D29YM896

Friday, 12 January 2018

Lord Thomas of Moldon Lord Chief Justice only. Civil Appeals Office

Appellant notices B2/2015/2209 2015/P1/11278 A2/2015/10085, 2016/P1/10984 & B2/2016/2011

Re: British Gas v John Kenneth Browne

Dear Lord Moldon

Access to Justice rebuffed by Law Lords at the behest of HHJ Godsmark

Thank you for your letter of directions directed by Master Maria Bancroft-Rimmer writing on your behalf, dated 03 January 2018 and have read the very brief contents however none of this explains the facts that I issued five Appellants Notices and paid the Court Fees demanded, £1761, to say nothing of the considerable time spent in preparing my cases, and collating the documentary evidence and indexing same and copying in triplicate and posting by recorded delivery only to find they are all ignored. The list of documents sent included 5 bundles of evidence 2 defence documents one professionally produced, Full grounds for appeal, and one unanswered questionnaire to British Gas all of which were flouted by the CAC. I did request that these documents be returned to me, again to no avail. In effect they are not even referred to at any time. This cannot be right, can it

As this was a money claim that took 4 years to complete and involved 22 Judges and 22 orders 12 hearings and the appropriate number of solicitors and Barristers and costs awarded to multi National British Gas £50,000 for over charging me for years, example letter to MD British Gas, of over £50,000 against the Litigant in person. My appeals to the CAC to protect me are ignored in effect they protected the Nottingham Judiciary and the mighty British Gas. This cannot be right, this is pure unadulterated discrimination. In effect “my access to Justice” is denied by The County Court at Nottingham and the CAC. Article 6 the right to a fair trial in the HRA is the bedrock of our legal process but is ignored by the CAC, and ECHRs ignored inter alia. See page of exhibits and comments of Lord Woolf, Judges Oath of Office. We have the right to expect Judges to be honest, wise and above all impartial, unfortunately not in this case, finally the “overriding objective” is disregarded. Not right!

It is clearly not sufficient to explain away the Individual Appellants Notices in 1-2 short paragraphs as they are far more extensive and complicated than that and require a hearing an adjudication and an order and that applies to them all. I will deal with each notice separately to show how erroneous the explanations in your letter. As I go through each individual notices they will be preceded by the above paras. To deal with them one at a time at 2 weekly intervals to avoid complicating the issues this will enable you to scrutinize the evidence and reply in a clear and ethical way. Judges who hold others to account must be accountable themselves. All of my letters and exhibits in this regard will be on the CAC file as the CAC is a Court of record.

My next letter in 2 weeks will deal with Appellant Notice B2/2016/2011that is the most provable case of blatant discrimination of all five. This will be detailed in a separate letter in 2 weeks in order for the Justices to make a considered reply the B2/2015/2209.

This whole matter of 5 Appellant Notices must be dealt with one at a time to ensure that the factual evidence goes not become complicated and diluted leading to confused. Had these 5 Notices been heard individually at the time this situation would not have been necessary.

I firstly go to the Order of Lord Justice Floyd, Copy enclosed that unfortunately was seriously flawed as the Lord Justice had been badly briefed on the case, However had this matter progressed to a hearing I would have presented my case factually and accurately. I did advise the CAC in detail by letter, copy enclosed, of these flaws, by recorded delivery that was ignored and not even acknowledged.

This started when I made an appeal against the order of DJ Hale, 11 December 2013 in which HHJ Godsmark allowed an appeal on costs 23 December 2013 and made comments regarding the conduct of the hearing before DJ Hale., copy enclosed, to be dealt with at the substantive hearing 16-17/02/15 before the wrong Judge dated 24/April 2015. Over one year and 2 months later. This was the substantial hearing of the British Gas’s money claim. The appeal referred to by Lord Justice Floyd was dealt with cavalierly and dismissed in 15 seconds without any consideration of the facts whatsoever.

This hearing was scheduled for 2 days one for British Gas and one for J K Browne. Day one for British Gas to present their case that included placing the Defendant in the witness box for 4 hours in which the barrister was given free rein to undermine the defendant and no chance was given for same to rebut the allegations of the Barrister. At that point Poidevin decided to cancel the day 2 so the only evidence offered was British Gas. No effort to create a level playing field and no chance for the defendant to present his case that included support for the Ofgem, the CMA the select committee of the House of Commons, 5 bundles of evidence 2 defence documents and skeletons arguments all ignored. Proof provided in the transcript. British Gas was also allowed to present a witness that could only confirm that an invoice was raised. What ever happened to the Equality act 2010.

The Floyd order made a big deal of the DJ Hale appeal that was not the main part of the hearing and took only 15 seconds to dismiss it. I issued a witness summons to a policy maker at British Gas to explain the policy of overcharging and lack of customer service and their refusal to allow their customer to go to a cheaper supplier. This material witness absconded to the USA and their application to set aside my witness summons was happily granted with costs again against the defendant by DDJ Roberts who acted aggressively throughout. In effect this was a Kangaroo court. Lord Floyd did suggest a further Application at a charge of £235 in effect I am asked to pay twice for the same notice. The first fee was not returned and misappropriated. So I robbed by the CAC once why not again. I would have expected the CAC to reset the hearing as it was already paid. Overall I have already spent £1761 in fees and never got a hearing of any kind so it was reasonable of me to refuse any further payments as there would be a high probability that any further payment would be misappropriated also. This cannot be right. I find it hard to believe that I am dealing with the Royal Courts of Justice who keep my money and deny me access to Justice.

After all this you now state that the Court did not have jurisdiction, is that a total contradiction? OH what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. I was never advised of this but my money was taken and not returned. The procedure for this would be to inform me of this by letter and return my documents and my cheque in order for me to proceed to the High Court. However none of this happened. This cannot be right, Can you please explain this. I received a number, I received a letter (copy enclosed) stating the matter was in hand. I then received an order from Lord Justice Floyd and now I am informed that the Court had no jurisdiction. This cannot be right no matter what criteria used.

This matter was proceeding correctly until false information was passed to the CAC and then they took this slanderous fake news as gospel truth and proceeded to ignore me completely and look for other reasons for doing so. This cannot be covered by “The independence of the Judiciary” Access to Justice must come first.

This was the motive for this discriminated: In 1995/2003 I had occasion to take District Judge Reeson of the Nottingham brotherhood to the CAC and won my case with costs. This forced the DJ to resign

Six Judges in this matter broke their oath of office to protect Reeson by changing the name of the defendant on their orders. It is understandable that not only was Reeson embarrassed but the entire Judiciary at Nottingham. However I never thought for one minute that the Judiciary would be so petty minded to now seek and reek vengeance on the LIP. I was wrong! There is no other reason for this discrimination over 4 years in the County Court at Nottingham and now in the Civil Appeals Court and costs at £50,000 for a money claim. Access to Justice denied. Is this right? I sought the protections of the CAC to no avail. WHY?

Since that time I have been ostracised and discriminated against by Nottingham Judges and heavily penalised to the tune of £50,000 costs payable to British Gas the multi-national for overcharging me by 2-3 times the going rate and refusing to release me to a cheaper supplier. My numerous requests to transfer this matter to an impartial court in London were refused point blank. They also refused the rule on recusal on the grounds of actual or potential Bias, this is a sound reason for an appeal to the CAC, unfortunately ignored. Please may I have a hearing for each Notice or a detailed and legal explanation!

I now include another case that is not connected 3YQ10123 with this one but it does show clearly how HHJ Godsmark discriminates against me at every opportunity. This case was not listed for this 2014 hearing or any other time for that matter but the HHJ decided to deal with it anyway, when I pointed out the non-listing to the HHJ he said he would check it out and that was the last heard I or anybody else of this case. It produced no adjudication, no order that I could appeal. In effect my “access to Justice” is denied, this is a right and not a privilege. I enclose page 5 of the transcript and the listing for that day that are both self-explanatory. Is this discrimination? This arrogant HHJ is devoid of conscious. Can he get away with it?

I will deal with another Appellants Notice number B2/2016/2011 in my next letter that is the most provable case of blatant discrimination of all the five. This will be detailed in a separate letter in two weeks giving time for a considered reply by the Justices to this letter and this particular notice B2/2015.2209. One at a time will ensure that confusion and time will not dilate the facts of this entire matter.

Of course this entire matter could and should have been resolved had a hearing been set down for each individual notice when all protocols and processes will have been completed in a meaningful and lawful Judgment after the facts? The refusal of the CAC to hear these fee paid notices is a form of discrimination as it is a denial of my right to “access to Justice” I now plea and ask that the Lord/Lady Justices read this letter and the details and exhibits supplied to the CAC in this regard and grant the paid for hearings requested to bring these mattes to an end based, on the evidence presented on file in the CAC.

I do expect the CAC to reply to this letter by return, however should it be ignored as with all the others I will have a record as this will be sent by recorded delivery for future reference.

A copy of this letter and exhibits will be sent to HHJ Godsmark of the County Court at Nottingham, also to the David Gaunt at the MOJ.

I, J K Browne the undersigned confirm that the above is a statement of truth and nothing but the truth

Signed…………………………………………………………Dated Friday, 12 January 2018

John Kenneth Browne

I trust this will be read by the Lord Justices in order that hearings can be set down and all matters resolved and the rule of law and individual rights are upheld. I firmly believe in our legal system. This case started with me defending myself against British Gas only to find myself defending myself against the County Court at Nottingham and the Royal Courts of Justice in the Civil Appeals Court. Is this bizarre? Yes it must be! This cannot be the Courts having personal grievances and issues against the Litigant in Person J K Browne. Of course not, that would be an injustice and totally against their oath of office. However what is the reason for this discrimination if not District Judge Reeson?


Be the first to comment on "godsmark"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.