Telephone 01902-417045

28, ST ANNE’S COURT, ROSEHILL GARDENS, WILLENHALL. WV13 2LY

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 1.

My Lord & My Lady/

1. This is an Oral Hearing of my application for Judicial Review of decisions made by the Walsall & Aldridge Magistrates’s Courts on various dates in 2004.

2. The Decisions taken by the Walsall & Aldridge Magistrates which are now brought to this Court are:-

(i) A decision to deny me trial by a jury of my peers, with a decision to refuse an acceptance of a petition addressed by me to HM The Queen on this same subject;

(ii) A Decision to Refuse my application for a Witness Order,

requiring Mr John Prescott to produce to the trial court a full copy of his Oath as a Privy Counsellor and to undergo the normal process of witness examination in relation to the terms & requirements that our law imposes on him in relation to the ongoing duty that he must undertake towards HM The Queen. –

(iii) A Decision to find me Guilty of a Criminal Offence, having first deprived me of all ability to defend myself before a jury of my peers and having deprived me of all ability to show and to prove a lawful defence to allegations made against me, by Servants of the Crown.

My Lord/

In an attempt to provide the Court with some clear reference to the issues, I have prepared a bundle of documents for your use & you will find that my first application for Judicial Review appears at pages 20 - 27 of this bundle.

There is what I must call an extension to this first application which is displayed on your bundle at pages 41 – 49.

Your Lordship will see the Written Response to my combined application at pages 52- 55 of the bundle - And the Renewal of Application for Judicial Review is shown at pages 56 = 58 of the bundle.

My Lord & My Lady/

Before proceeding further, I feel obliged to apologise for the fact that I am not represented at this hearing by a Professional Barrister, who would be more polished in the format of presentation to the Court -

But having gained some experience of Professional Barristers, during the past 3 or 4 years, I have to tell the Court that Professional Barristers in the Main are becoming less than useless to ordinary people such as myself – when it comes to saying unpopular things to HM Courts and Judges – on issues that are of supreme importance to the future of our country!

The Power of Government Patronage is now weighing far too heavily on both the Legal Profession and with the Courts themselves – and Ordinary People such as myself are now being expected to shut their mouths and do as they are told by their own Government and by the Servants of the Law.

It is for this reason alone that I have elected to represent myself, and to exercise my personal right to be heard by the Crown. Whether or not my words are acceptable to the Court remains to be seen – but the Court can be sure that the words are my own words and not words that have been chosen for the purpose of advancing a career!

I count it very important for the Court to hear precisely what it is that I have to say, without any watering-down for fear of offending the Courtand without any possible prejudice to the livelihoods and careers of professional people now attempting to make their way in life by a career in the law!

I could wish that all such people had a love of England that was greater than their ambitions for themselves, but we all have to deal with people as they are and not as we could wish them to be!

In addition to all other considerations, I am an Englishman who is close to the end of life and I am quite determined that I must say what needs to be said to the Court, in defence of the liberties for which my people have died in their millions.

During recent years, I have had the privilege of visiting countries that have lived under the Jackboots of Germany and under the Secret Police of the former-Communist bloc – I have gained solid evidence of Dictatorships from people who are now friends of mine.

I find that I am now speaking to this Court on behalf of people who have lived under the Oppressions of Dictatorships abroad, as well as on the behalf of people who have lived all of lives here in the UK and who now have every reason to believe that Dictatorship has reared its Ugly Head in this beloved Country.

For myself, I Believe that My Country is in Serious Trouble and Great Danger and I am here to ask this Court to assert &/or re-assert the liberties of the British People, in the face of increasingly onerous Government attempts at Diktat which can end only in the final extinguishing of the Eternal Lamp that is the England that God Gave To Me and to My Generation!

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 3.

My Lord & My Lady/

The background to my involvement with this case is simply related, and worthy of your attention, I hope:-

2. During the course of my lifetime I have seen a serious deterioration in all areas of respect for the Monarchy, and I have watched an ever increasing assumption of unlawful powers by successive Governments, which have dominated the parliaments that have the duty of representing ONLY the interests of the People.

3. It is now being openly-stated by HM Courts and Judges that Parliament is Sovereign, although there is absolutely no legal justification for anysuch Opinion: An Opinion moreover, that is absolutely denied by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights

4. I hold to the firm opinion that assertions of Parliamentary Sovereignty strike – and are intended to strike - directly at the Constitution of the United Kingdom, which provides only for the Division of Powers.

5. The Constant & Insidious Assertions of the interests of the European Union once again strike – and are intended to strike – directly at the Constitution of the United Kingdom, which provides only for the Division of Powers within the County – and prohibits all such arrangements with the so-called European Union as are now being imposed on the peoples of this Sovereign Nation!

6. In my personal desperation to save my country from the works of highly unworthy and very suspect politicians, I joined with others in preparing a legal action for hearing by the High Court – Only to find that an eminent QC was far too frightened of the Court to represent those points of law that were the subject of his instructions.

7. In consequence of this conduct by a professional man, I withdrew my name from the legal action then in process, because I was not prepared to have my name associated with the abysmally weak legal presentation that was ultimately presented to the Court - and dismissed by the Court, quite literally with a wave of the hand!

8. By this time, I had gained knowledge of the fact that allegations of Treason had been presented to the High Court at the time of the Maastricht Treaty – and that a Nolle Prosequi had been threatened or indeed issued by the then Attorney-General to prevent any Complaint of Treason from reaching HM Courts of Law.

9. When I withdrew my name from the legal action that had been supported in its aims and funding by many thousands of people, it became necessary for me to consider my own position & to decide what I could do myself to defend my country against the activities of those traitors who now infest the House of Commons.

10. I resolved that I must cause an incident of dispute with the bureaucrats who keep themselves so very busy helping treacherous politicians to sell and destroy my country -  and I resolved at that same time that any incident created by me must be entirely peaceful.

My interest in history had led me to some knowledge of Constitutional Matters, and I resolved that this knowledge must be brought into play, to some effect.

11. I determined that one-sided legislation relating to Road Fund Licenses presented ideal ground for my purposes. The Road Conditions of the UK are appalling in spite of the £40 billion that is being collected from motorists every year – and there is an increasing wave of oppression being directed at all motorists by an allegedly-Sovereign Parliament, acting under the unlawful diktat of an increasingly inept; dictatorial and disgraced Government –

12. In short, I decided that my refusal to pay for a Road Fund License would open the door to HM Judges, where the REAL issues of Treason would be heard and considered under circumstances that did not allow the Attorney–General to defend his friends, by any issue of a Nolle Prosequi.

My Lord and My Lady/

I have now arrived at the Courtroom that was always the destination intended by my conduct – and the issues of Treason are now being entered into the process of HM Courts of Law, whether or not the Attorney-General and his cabinet colleagues are happy with the situation!

I recognize that there is a great responsibility being imposed on this Court, because the Court itself is now brought to the bar of Public

It is my general submission to the Court that the British People have an Inalienable Right to know that their Judges are prepared to defend them and to defend their native laws; their customs & their liberties against all comers – and in the face of all and any argument that may be promoted by those politicians who have found it convenient to forget that their ONLY duty is to the Crown and People of this United Kingdom.

The Court of Public Opinion belongs to the People, I ask this Court to consider carefully all of the Constitutional Evidence that I will bring before you. – because this Evidence Will Not Be Dismissed by the many millions of Ordinary People who live in this very dear land – And who are the Ultimate Controllers of the Future, whether in Peace or in Blood!

My Lord and My Lady/

The facts relating to the legal process that is now before the Court are as follows:-

1. During the latter part of 2004, I appeared before the Walsall Magistrates’ Court, in response to a summons issued.

2. At this hearing, I entered a plea of Not Guilty, by virtue of Necessity; I gave notice of my requirement for trial by a jury of my peers and I asked the Court to accept possession of a formal petition that I had prepared for the personal attention of HM Queen Elizabeth.

I must emphasise that the lower court was not invited to provide any response to my petition, & was asked only to note that a petition to the Queen was in process and to ensure that this petition reached the person of Our Sovereign Lady, for attention at her convenience.

3. The lower court refused to accept possession of my petition to Her Majesty and refused to provide me with any reason for this refusal.

A copy of my petition to Her Majesty is shown at Page 96 of the bundle.

4. At this same hearing, I made application for a witness summons to be issued, for all purposes of my defence.

5.This hearing was was adjourned to a future date for the consideration of a District Judge.

7. I was provided with no opportunity to present sensible argument to the District Judge and I was sent from the Courtroom like an ill-behaved child!

8. As to the unwarranted insult that was offered to me by District Judge Morris, I can only invite this present Court to establish for itself whether or not I am a person who indulges in frivolity!

9. For the record, I must state that the attitude displayed towards me by District Judge Morris was appalling and I did not renew my application for trial by jury during the time of this hearing, for reasons that will be obvious to the Court.

This was the original application for Judicial Review that is shown in the bundle at Pages 20 - 27

13. As I had anticipated, my application for adjournment was denied and as a result of this refusal a guilty verdict was entered against me and a financial penalty was imposed.

I refer the Court to the contents of the bundle, at pages 39 – 49 .

In the meantime, the Court will wish to know that the refusal of my Application/s for Judicial Review is shown at pages 52 – 55 of the bundle.

Review

and this documentation is shown at pages 56 – 58 of the bundle.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 5.

My Lord/

I ask the Court to accept my belief that Treason against the Crown; Constitution and People of the United Kingdom is now in Active Process and Is Gaining Ground by the day, to the detriment of the British People.

I ask the Court to accept my belief that unless there is a Full and Most Immediate Challenge to the Active Process of Treason that is now being promoted by disloyal politicians, then Civil Disobedience will begin – and will begin a process that will lead inevitably to the complete breakdown of Law & Order in Our Country.

Before moving on to the introduction of evidence on which I will rely, I ask the Court to accept that my lawful defence against the allegations of the DVLA is sufficient for the Full Court to direct that the allegations against me be withdrawn, under the provisions of our laws which serve to provide for a defence of lawful purpose.

The evidence that I am able to introduce during this one-hour hearing is far less than the evidence that will be made available to the Full Court – I am aware of the existence of Case Law that has been made by a Jury finding that Lawful Purpose was a valid defence to a Criminal Prosecution - and at the full hearing of a Judicial Review I will introduce this Case with full argument providing for the fact that the Law must be applied in a con-sistent manner.

I will argue that the options that are available within the context of a Jury trial are options that must be made available to me, via the process of the jury trial that has been denied to me, thus far.

In the meantime, I am very much aware of the fact that the Judiciary Itself is Uneasy about the present lawless conduct of our public affairs – and I feel that I must take it upon myself to ask the Court to make use of this particular case to provide the Judiciary with opportunity to offer at the very least some partial remedy to the lawless conduct of successive parliaments that is leading to the destruction of Our Country.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 6

My Lord and My Lady/

I draw the attention of the Court to the 1225 Magna Carta, and I refer the Court to pages 59-64 of the bundle - and to paragraph 28 of this Charter, which appears on page 62 - wherein it is provided that – ‘No Bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his open Law, nor to an Oath, upon his own bare saying, without faithful Witnesses brought in for the same’

In other words, the Common Law does not permit any process of accusation and trial that originates with Officers of the Crown alone – and yet in spite of this regulation, I have been faced with both accusation and trial that originates ONLY with Officers in the service of the Crown – and a judgment has been entered against me by a Court that has refused to provide me with access to evidence that would serve to defend me!

I draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 29 of the Charter – on the same page 62 - wherein it is provided that –

‘No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or Free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right’

In other words, it is provided in the Common Law that I have an inalienable right to be tried by a Jury of My Peers OR by the Law of the Land, at MY option, and not at the option of the Crown alone and/or any option of the Crown In Parliament!

I have asked for trial by a jury of my peers and this right has been denied to me by the lower court, on the pretext that the particular law under which I am accused does not provide for me to be tried by a jury of my peers –

I must respond to this very ignorant argument by saying that if the law under which I am prosecuted does not permit trial by jury, then the law can be no law at all – because the Great Charter of Henry III confirms a Common-Law Right that is inescapable – further provides that Justice and Right are not be considered to be the same thing - & finally provides that I am not to be denied that which is Right.

I have found it interesting to note that the provisions of this paragraph have survived into the Statute that is being published as Magna Carta, and I have included the Statute at pages 65 – 70 of the bundle – but I have found it more than interesting to find – and it will be known to the Court - that the option of Jury or Law is constantly taken to mean that the option of Jury or Law is at the disposal of the Crown & not at the disposal of the subject at all!

Such an assertion is plainly nonsense, when the circumstances under which the first Magna Carta was issued are properly examined.

The Court will see for itself that the clear intention of Magna Carta was to restrict the Authority of the Crown – AND TO RAISE THE STATUS OF THE JURY to a level that is Equal to - or perhaps Greater Than - any lawmaking powers of the Crown –

It is simply not logical for any intelligent person to believe that the option of jury or law was left at the disposal of the king, whose tyranny was being resisted by force of arms – and whose ability to ‘cook the books’ would undoubtedly have been increased had any option been left with him!

Only by placing the jury in a position of real strength vis a vis the law, could our forebears achieve a lawful restriction on the tyrannies of the Crown that were then recognized as being entirely lawful –

It is my submission to the Court that Tyrants are not restricted to any particular point of time in the history of mankind, but are potentially rampant in every generation – and are certainly being attempted and implemented by Very Sick; Disreputable and Disgraced Members of Our Parliaments in this present age – In absolute breach of the terms provided by Magna Carta.

At Judicial Review before the Full Court, I will rely upon the case of Pepper-v-Hart as authority for me to introduce to the Court all such professional evidence as will serve to prove the background to the enactments of the Magna Cartas issued in 1215; 1216; 1217 & 1225 – with the intended purposes of such enactments!

At this present time, I am restricted to providing a simple assertion that the Common Law provides that I have the lawful right to Trial by a jury of my peers - and at the time of Judicial Review before the Full Court I will invite the Full Court to Uphold My Right and to require that Parliament moves to amend all and any legislation that attempts to remove from any subject of the Crown their undoubted right to be tried by a jury of their peers.

My Lord and My Lady/

As a final observation, I have to say that if the Common Law Process of Nolle Prosequi can be relied upon by the Attorney-General to dismiss those Complaints of Treason made by concerned members of the British Public – then it must be reasonable for me to rely upon the Common-Law that is provided by the Magna Carta of 1225 – and equally reasonable for me to assert that the provisions of our Common Law may not be dismissed by Her Majesty’s Courts of Law – Whatever may be the ill-educated requirements of any parliament!

Fixed Penalty Notices that do not provide for a trial before HM Courts – And trials, conducted by the Courts in the absence of juries, at the option of the defendants are alien to the Customs of England, and represent unlawful attempts to breach the provisions of Magna Carta – thereby causing an alteration to the Constitution of the Kingdom - to the prejudice of all Subjects of the Crown!

Our Ancestors have provided the framework for the administration of justice and have not allowed for the argument of Administrative Convenience to be imposed in the place of either Justice or Right!

The Coronation Oath of Her Majesty the Queen provides for our Laws and Customs to be protected by her Government – And in confirmation of this statement, I have displayed the Queen’s Oath to her Peoples at page 81 of the bundle.

My Lord & My Lady,

Before closing on the subject of Magna Carta, I would like to draw your attention to the content of the Petition that I prepared for Queen which is placed at Page 96 of the bundle.

I have seen a copy of the full text of this judgment and I am able to advise the Court that Lord Justice Laws included the Magna Carta within the hierarchy of Statutes that he projected as being Constitutional Statutes.

I think it relevant for the Court to know that it is my intention to produce the full text of the Laws Judgment at Judicial Review, and to enter a full argument relating to all that has been done and is now being proposed relevant to the unlawful and increasing removal of the Common Law Right of the subject to Jury Trial.

The Court will appreciate that I am prevented from pursuing this detailed point at this present hearing, by the limitations of time.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 7.

My Lord & My Lady/

I must now refer the Court to the Treason Acts of 1351 & 1848, which will be found at pages 71 – 73 and 77 – 80 of the bundle – and I further refer to the content of 2 letters issued by the Home Office, which are to be found at pages 91- 93 of the bundle.

My Lord, the Treason Acts of 1351 & 1848, with the letters from the Home Office serve to define Treason – and insofar as the Home Office is controll-ed by a member of the Privy Council, I think it reasonable for the Court to believe that the Privy Council itself is fully aware of the provisions of our laws.

The Court will see that the intention of this Bill was to cause amendment to the 1848 Treason Act, thereby providing for HM The Queen to be removed from her throne, albeit by peaceful means!

The Court will recognize that the Treason Felony Act of 1848 specifically prohibits such publications as this – And the Court will further recognize that 170 members of the House of Commons have elected to break their Oaths of Allegiance to the Crown –

I am not encouraged to abandon my belief that Treason is in process by the fact that this Bill did not proceed to enactment – because the traitors are still sitting in their wretched assembly, at public expense – and the law has not been enforced against them or any of them!

I am encouraged in my belief that Treason against the Crown; Constitution and People of this United Kingdom is very firmly in hand, because the evidence of this Bill demonstrates very clearly that the Courts and Police Services of this Country have been rendered impotent by a lawless House of Commons – and the Division of Powers that is rooted in the Declaration of Rights has been destroyed for all practical purposes, in the full view of HM Judges who are clearly failing to maintain the terms of their own Judicial Oaths in what I must suspect as being a conspiracy of silence.

What Value Now can be placed on Oath that are imposed by law and imposed on the subjects of the Crown in their dealings with HM Courts of Law –

Who Now Can be accused of perjury, when the Governors of Our Country are themselves perjured in their dealings?

Where Now Is the Moral Authority of Our Police Services in their dealings with the Criminal?

What Authority Now Remains for Our Government – Other than the Rule of The Gun? – Because the basis of our law and our trust in each other now lies on the floor, in a terminal condition – because Nobody Can Now Place Their Trust In Any Oath that is Sworn Before Almighty God!

All Concepts of Loyalty; Duty & Service have been abandoned, and there is no need to look further than the House of Commons itself for the cause of the lawlessness that now invades our Streets and Our Homes!

It is not necessary for me to provide further argument to the Court on the subject of treason -

The letters from the Home Office and the 2 Acts against Treason are available for the Court to consider –

It is necessary only for the Court to examine this material evidence and to decide whether or not I have an overwhelming duty to oppose the practices of treason by whatsoever means are available to me - and to enter a defence of my country, at whatsoever cost may be involved – in the face of the apathy that is now being demonstrated by those who hold the legal responsibility to ensure that the ordinary subject of the Crown is protected against such pressures.

My Lord and My Lady/

I feel bound to remind the Court that ‘Hanging Judge Jefferies’ became the Lord Chief Justice of England, and achieved this eminence by lawful process –

It took a Revolution to put this man in the Tower, for his Crimes against Humanity – and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that members of the present Judiciary will suffer a similar fate, if they fail to stand up for the principles that are expected by the British People!

Justice & Right must both prevail, in any observance of Magna Carta and Our Common Law!

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 8.

My Lord and My Lady/

I must now make reference to the Declaration of Rights, which is the Contract made between the People and their Sovereign – You will find the full text of the Declaration of Rights at pages 74 – 76 of the Bundle.

This Cornerstone of the Constitution provides for the Sovereign to exercise the regal power, and this wording can be interpreted only as the exercise of the power to govern the kingdom – in accordance with the ancient prerogatives of the Crown!

This document makes provision for parliaments to be held frequently – ‘ for the redress of all grievances (which can be taken to mean only grievances against the Crown &/or grievances against the law) & for the amending; strengthening and preserving of the laws‘

I must ask the Court to note that THERE IS NO PROVISION OF ANY KIND FOR PARLIAMENT TO ADMINISTER OR REPLACE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CROWN ITSELF – AND THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE THAT ARE REQUIRED OF ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT INDICATE QUITE CLEARLY THAT PARLIAMENT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN LOYALTY TO THE CROWN AND TO THE COMMON LAW OF OUR LAND.

CONTRACTS MADE BY THE CROWN WITH THE PEOPLE AND ENTERED INTO OUR COMMON LAW AT ALL TIMES PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688 HAVE NEVER BEEN – AND ARE NOT NOW AT THE DISPOSAL OF ANY PARLIAMENT – WHICH IS REQUIRED TO DEAL ONLY WITH STATUTE LAW AND ONLY THEN ON CONDITIONS THAT IMPOSE A DUTY TO ADD STRENGTH TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON LAW!

My Lord/

It is a matter of fact that the Declaration of Rights was given effect in February of 1689, and that this document of Agreement is not a Creature of Parliament –

It is my submission to the Court that the provisions made for the Government of Our Kingdoms by Our Sovereign Lady are not subject to any interference by or at the behest of any Parliament – whatever may be the pretensions of those who proclaim that Parliament is Sovereign and may do as it pleases, by the simple process of forcing an enactment and forcing the Queen to provide the Assent –

It will be plain to the Court that this is not as it should be, and that a restoration of the Balance of Powers must be secured very quickly, if this Country is to survive!

My Lord/

The Liberties of the Subject are placed in absolute jeopardy by the present and unlawful pretensions of lawless parliaments – and I know that this fact is well-known to the Judiciary!

There is much more that should be said about the Declaration of Rights, but the time allowed for this present hearing is very short and I ask the Court to accept that these further things should be entered at the Judicial

Review that is now the subject of my application.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 9.

My Lord & My Lady/

I must now introduce into evidence the Oath of a Privy Counsellor, which is clearly intended to bind in law the conduct of all members of the Cabinet, which is nothing more than a sub-Committee of the Privy Council itself.

The text of the Oath of a Privy Counsellor is shown at page 82 of the bundle.

I believe it necessary to read into the record of this hearing those words of this Oath which are intended to safeguard the dignity; throne and authority of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen –

‘ You will to your uttermost bear Faith & Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-Eminences , and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise – against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.

And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty –

SO HELP YOU GOD’

My Lords/

The text of this Oath is unmistakable in its intent, and equally unmistakable is the fact that the provisions imposed by this Oath are now being broken by the day – As Witness the European Treaties, which have served and are serving to remove from Her Majesty the Authority that is necessary for her to exercise her Government of Our Kingdoms, in accordance with the terms of the Declaration of Rights - and in accordance with the terms of the Oath that Her Majesty herself entered into at the time of her Coronation, in 1953.

My Lords/

The Oath of a Privy Counsellor is an expression of the arrangements made and evidenced by the Declaration of Rights in 1689 – When traitors to a lawful king were making arrangements for their own survival with the son-in-law and daughter of that same lawful king!

At that time, there were 2 Contracting Parties to the Contract made and evidenced by the Declaration of Rights, and neither of these 2 parties was a lawful parliament!

It will be apparent to the Court that Successful Revolutions generate a very obvious capability to make and to change laws, but the Revolutionaries of 1688/89 made only such arrangements as were necessary to protect the Common Law and to provide for a Constitution that worked!

The Revolutionaries of 1688/89 further provided that attempts to change the Constitution from the shape that was provided by their arrangements were nothing less than Treason –

I now allege Treason against Mr John Prescott and his cabinet-colleagues, under the provisions made against Treason by the Successful Revolutionaries of 1688/89, who laid the basis for the Great & Free Nation that is now being destroyed.

It will be clear to the Court that the present form of European Treaties are unlawful, by the very precise wording of the Privy Council Oath – And yet the Oath-takers are not at all concerned by the breaking of their Oaths – and are not at all concerned about the fact that the British People are being given lies and deceit in all of the issues that relate to the European Treaties!

My Lord/

Treason is not a mediaeval legal concept – it is an eternal concept that measures Men & Women Against the issues of Truth; Loyalty; Duty – and I say again that it is the function of this present Court to decide whether or not the issue of these eternal truths is a proper subject for a Judicial Review by the Court –

I believe that the evidence of treason stands proven – and that a Judicial Review of all of the evidence now available will serve to justify my own Defiance of Traitors!

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Page 10.

My Lord and My Lady/

As stated previously, I have included the document of refusal at pages 52 – 55 of the bundle.

With the permission of the Court, I will refer to the terms of refusal in the order given on the refusal itself.

1. It is the Observation of the Deputy Judge that the refusal of the District Judge in the Walsall Magistrates’ Court was based upon the opinion of The District Judge that Mr Prescott could give no relevant evidence.

It was the further opinion of the Deputy-Judge that the papers provided by me disclosed no arguable grounds as to why that decision was wrong in law.

My Lords, in response to this first observation I must freely admit that I am not proficient in the rules of procedure by which this Court is bound – that I do not have a full library relating to the law - and that I could well have failed to provide a good reason in law for the District Judge to uphold the laws against Treason –

At the time of submitting my application for Judicial Review, it was very clear to me that the laws against treason are of greater importance than almost every other law –

Because the Safety of the State itself is at stake, when the laws against Treason are broken!

In addition, I must say that I made it entirely clear to the lower court that the relevance of Mr Prescott was to my defence – and not to any facts that could relate to the allegations of the prosecution.

In short, My Lords, the evidence of Mr Prescott was and is required to show whether or not I am correct in maintaining my own position that treason against My Queen & Country is now in process and is to be opposed in every way, and all times.

2. It is the second observation of the Deputy-Judge that the lower court is not required to adjourn proceedings, pending any application for Judicial Review.

Here again, I must confess that as with almost every other private person, I do not maintain a library that would serve to advise me of the precise rules of procedure that are adopted by HM Courts for all purposes of regulating their own conduct of affairs.

I am able to say only that the lower court was fully aware of the substance of my defence; declined to provide a witness order that would serve to provide the court with firm evidence for my defence – and having thus deprived me of evidence for my defence, then proceeded to a trial that would have done justice to the tribunals established during the Reign of Terror in France!

The Laws against Treason require me to act in defence of the state, and this injunction is defeated absolutely, if the lower courts, or indeed, this present court fails to uphold me in this duty, to the maximum effect that is possible.

3. It is the third Observation of the Deputy-Judge that remedies other than Judicial Review have been available to me (such as an appeal by way of Case stated, or an appeal against Conviction to the Crown Court).

In response to this third observation, I must advise the Court that I made full attempt to appeal the refusal of the witness to the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, and I must report that the Crown Court Judge decided that the matter of the denied Witness Order was not a matter for him!

In short, an attempt was made to achieve some proper regulation of affairs within the lower Courts –

I refer the Court to page 18 of the bundle and I ask the Court to note that this document was faxed to Mrs Bokhari at the Court’s Office, before she Was persuaded to send me any forms for my first application for judicial review.

In response to my own efforts to present logical arguments and evidence to the lower courts, I found myself described as ‘frivolous’ without good reason and then faced with the decision of a Crown Court Judge that he could not take in any useful part in the process.

In view of these events, which were advised to the officers of this Court at the times of occurrence, I made application to this Court for the Oral Hearing that is now in process.

My Lords/

I have to say that such evidence as I have been able to provide to the Court indicates very clearly that traitors care nothing for Oaths, in the performance of their treason –

Consequently, I think it unreasonable for the Court to uphold the practices of treason, on the grounds that I have failed to fill in the correct forms –

The example of Nero fiddling whilst Rome was going up in smoke comes very easily to my mind – and I have to express the very sincere hope that the Court will direct its attention to the substance of the arguments that I am bringing to the Court, and not to any issues of form-filling!

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – Part 11.

My Lord & Your Ladyship/

I have to thank the Court for the patience that has been shown towards me, during this Hearing.

In justice to all of those people who have taken the trouble to journey to this Courtroom, I must ask the Court to recognize that I am only one of many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned for the future of this very dear land –

and who find themselves largely powerless to resist the processes of misgovernment; malpractice and treason that are now making a thorough mess of their individual lives and hopes for the future.

The Dark Powers of Mischief and Patronage that are now rampant within the conduct of our public affairs are causing increasing numbers of Our People to hide themselves away from the electoral process, and are causing such people to lose all hope and purpose –

The People who have taken the trouble to attend at this Court today are people who have retained some hope that Someone; Somewhere & Some Day will restore their beliefs in their Country and their hopes for the future -

It is for people such as this that I find it worthwhile to do battle with the forces of darkness, to the best of a very limited ability. I have a belief in ordinary people who are prepared to create a better future from the absolute mess of the present – and I hope that the Court will choose to agree with me.

In the immediate moment, I must ask this Court to provide me with permission for a Full Judicial Review of the issues that are the subject of my application – to the purpose of providing me with full opportunity to make my case before A Hearing of the Full Court – and to the further and greater purpose of letting Ordinary People Know that All Is Not Yet Lost –

by way of Our Constitution and Our Traditions of Maintaining Liberty and providing Ourselves with Government that is Responsible to the Constitution; to the Judges who are sitting in Our Courts of Law and to The People themselves.

As I have tried to say the Hour is Late and the Time of Crisis for Our Country and Our People Is Here – & I am very much aware of the awesome responsibility that now lies with this Court –

I pray God that He Will Move Your Hearts and Minds to the Defence of A Land that I know is very important to the world - & that I hold very dear!

Thank you again, your lordship and your ladyship, for the valuable time that you have spent in listening to me.