LORD JUSTICE RICHARD AIKENS MISCONDUCTS AND ASSISTING TO PERJURY / PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Dismissal 21 (a) (b) following further info Ismail

Court Order (1)

Complaint about Lord Justice Aikens

The judicial oath provides:

“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

1. Aikens LJ has misused his judicial status by way of intimidation, harassment and victimization.

 

“Harassment” occurs when one person perpetrates unwanted conduct (including sexual conduct) related to one or more of another person’s protected characteristics which has the purpose or effect of violating that other person’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that other person.

The judge has failed to ensure that his conduct, in the court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

His conduct relates to the making of his decision on a day where the Court of Appeal was not sitting.  His conduct also relates to the fact that he made his decision IN PRIVATE.  He has created an intimidating atmosphere for the applicants as 3 minor children by imposing on them civil restraint orders in their absence.  The judge has also misused his judicial position by damaging the characters of the children concerned without giving them the opportunity to be heard.  Please note that this complaint does not relate to a case management or case decision, but it relates entirely to the way the judge has treated litigants, which indeed is in contrary to his judicial oath.

2. Harassment, victimisation and bullying of others by means of words and/or behaviour are unacceptable. As the words of the judicial oath make clear, the principles of exercising equality and fairness of treatment have always been fundamental to the role and conduct of the judiciary when carrying out their judicial functions. Conduct giving rise to harassment, victimisation and/or bullying may take place face to face, or by other means of communication such as a telephone call, letter…

Lord Justice Aikens has failed in his duty to act fairly without having the need to victimize us as litigants. The fairness of treatment has not been shown in his conduct when he issued civil restraint orders on the children. He deprived them of an oral hearing and acceded to the decision of Stuart Isaacs QC who is currently subject to have assisted perjury.

Lord Justice Aikens has abused his judicial discretion.   He has abused his judicial discretion to protect himself and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism.  He has directly assisted Deputy Judge Isaacs QC who has been involved in perjury. 

3. Instead of accommodating to the lack of legal knowledge of lay persons who either cannot afford a lawyer, or who don’t trust lawyers who are subject to the control of the courts, Aikens LJ systematically discriminate and victimise against litigants such as ourselves who appear pro se or in propria persona, often dismissing their petitions or motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. That is abuse of judicial discretion.

4. Lord Justice Aikens has successfully attempted in his act to make us afraid by way of Civil Restraint orders made IN PRIVATE. His actions can be considered as acts of bullying. “Bullying” carries its normal meaning. It consists of conduct that is offensive, intimidating, malicious and/or insulting and which has the purpose or effect of undermining, humiliating, and/or frightening another person. It may amount to a misuse or abuse of power.

5. A judge shall, in his or her personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practise regularly in the judge’s court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality. Aikens LJ has favoured public authorities by declaring that their acts of perjury were correct, and by ignoring the evidences provided. The actions of Aikens LJ are biased and are against his judicial oath. He has indeed treated us as Muslims who should be treated unequal and has discriminated us on the basis that we are wrong. Aikens LJ has misused his judicial status by his act of ‘cover up’ his colleagues in Administrative Court. As we have brought several acts of misbehaviour in public office by judiciary members, Aikens LJ and others have threatened us with civil restraint orders which amounts to bully and have no merits whatsoever according to natural justice.

6. A judge’s conduct in court should uphold the status of judicial office, the commitment made in the judicial oath and the confidence of litigants in particular and the public in general. Lord Justice Aikens has failed to be courteous, patient, tolerant and respect the dignity of us. The judge should ensure that no one in court is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds said in the Bangalore principle entitled “equality” to include but not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes”. There should be no bias or prejudice on those grounds, which are described in the principles as “irrelevant grounds”.

7. Aikens LJ has unlawfully discriminated us and our children. He has discriminated Mr Ismail who is a disabled and therefore breached the Equality Act 2010. Unlawful discrimination may also occur if a disabled person is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his or her disability, which cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s.15). The acts of Aikens LJ to disregard the Community Care Assessment of Mr Ismail which clearly mentioned and elaborated about his disability, the hospital confirmations and reports and other documents are unlawful. His act of imposing civil restraint orders on people who lack capacity such as the children and Mr Ismail is unlawful by way of irrationality and discrimination.

8. The equality duty (s.149) requires public authorities, in the exercise of their public functions, to have due regard to eliminate prohibited discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different groups of people. We believe that the OJC will eliminate these acts of discrimination which exist among certain judges.

9. Judges should always take care that their conduct, official or private, does not undermine their institutional or individual independence, or the public appearance of independence. Lord Justice Aikens has failed to act according to judicial independence which is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee to fair trial. By depriving the children of a fair trial shows that he has not been independent of judicial colleagues and therefore is solely responsible for his decisions.

1. Lord Justice Aikens has failed to respect children’s best interests and if these points are revealed to the public, anybody will conclude that Aikens LJ is incorrect. If a public opinion is asked through a website, the majority of the public will object to his order as he has simply encouraged authorities to make false representations (CPR 81). Literally, Aikens LJ is also the object to committal as he is not immunized from such due to his status as a judge.

1. Aiken LJ sat Privately and ordered that an urgent interim relief was granted. However, no urgent relief was sought by us. The OJC advised that certain part of Stuart Isaacs QC allegations of perjury should be dealt at an appeal, having done such, Lord Justice Aikens has also contributed to the same acts. He has disregarded all the evidences in front of him due to his malicious intention and animosity. These acts are part of an institutional racism for which we are victims of.

2. The judge has relied upon misrepresentation. He has been biased, partial and lacks integrity. He has failed to follow the six principles set for a judge:

(i) Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

(ii) Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

(iii) Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

(v) Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

(vi) Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

This complaint should be considered alongside the complaint of Stuart Isaacs QC.

—————————————————————————

I have gone through your letter dated 4 October 2013 which summarized our complaint against LJ Aikens and dismissed part of the complaint.

Your summary of complaint does not clearly outlined the points raised in the original complaint and I have attached the complaint below in bold.

Firstly, LJ Aikens did not conduct a hearing but he made his paper decision in private (as attached) on a day where the Court of Appeal was not sitting (as attached).

This action of making his decision in private made us feel prejudiced and intimidated as litigants in person and asylum seekers, most importantly, as vulnerable people.  His actions of imposing civil restraint orders in our absence to the children are victimizing and go against his judicial oath as it is clear that he has treated us unfairly.

LJ Aikens has abused his judicial discretion to protect himself and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism.  He has directly assisted Deputy Judge Isaacs QC who has been involved in perjury.

The judge has used the method of intimidation to protect other judges and court staffs.

Please note the typological error in paragraph number 5 of my complaint.  LJ Aikens has treated us unequally as Muslims Asylum Seekers and not only Muslims.  We apologise and will be grateful if you could amend this in your summary of complaint.

LJ Aikens does not respect Human Rights Act 1998 and he has failed to be courteous.  He treated us unfairly as Muslims Asylum Seekers who are vulnerable.

He was covering up his colleagues by refusing oral hearing and by imposing civil restraint orders.  He made those acts privately which therefore concludes that there has been high level of corruption.

We will appreciate if you could amend the summary of your complaint and to read the below complaint carefully.  LJ Aikens actions are a misconduct in public office and perverted the course of justice.

With regards to criminal actions against the Lord Justice and other people involved in this matter, please advise us whether police has to be involved or for us to proceed with a complaint. We understand that the JCIO has advised us to make a police complaint about Mr Isaacs QC.  We are supported by some highly influential Non Government organizations (NGOs) who are prepared to assist us to make the complaint and investigation upon your response and the conclusion of this particular complaint.

We have informed the NGOs to await your conclusion of this complaint.

__________________________________________________

NEWHAM COUNCIL COMPLAINTS

My name is Afham Ismail. I live in Newham for over 6 years. I am a Special Needs Teaching Assistant and my wife is a qualified Teacher in the UK. I am a disabled. I used to live in Westminster and subsequently in Lewisham. We were worki…ng in this borough and then moved to Stratford E15. Since 2010, we were prevented to work and earn a decent living without benefits. We were evicted forcefully in 2012 by over 5 bailiffs and over 10 police officers. There were 2 minor children and a small baby of 3 weeks who were thrown out physically on the street as we found out that a fraudulent judge made a decision for possession.
We also found out several illegal activities such as selling court files to media, fabricating court orders and judges are colleagues of barristers and solicitors or they were themselves working with them. We also discovered that judges worked as ex-counsels of local authorities. There were also false documents submitted to the court by Newham Children Services which amount to perjury. When complained to judges, they tried to cover up and concealed those criminal acts. They then threatened us that we will be put in prison if we proceed. When police was informed with evidence, we were again threatened by them.
These incidents led us to be forcefully evicted in 2012.
In May 2014, police officers attended our present accommodation at 1am to exploit our children and putting hands inside their blankets. Newham Children services also conspired to take children into custody without any reason.
Presently, E15 Focus Mothers assisted us and because of them, our family was saved from being victimised, harassed and unlawfully targeted. I am sincerely grateful to them. Even if those authorities tried to cover up, I will proceed with those complaints to hold them accountable for their actions. I will support those who need help and as activist, I will continue to assist everybody.

With best regards

 

 

 

Newham council is well-known for its controversial practices and not following the national Framework and policies governed by Parliament and legislations.  Migrants who work for that borough implement their own policies and laws which they learnt from where they come form.  They are harmful to human rights and therefore breach the UK’s dignity and sovereignty.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/contempt_of_court_and_newham_cou

Dear Newham Borough Council,

1. Could you provide me your complaints procedure and policies? I
have been informed by Pauline Jones, Complaints and Member
Enquiries Lead that “Court proceedings override the complaints
procedure”. However those court proceedings involved Newham council
council whose social workers have provided fraudulent information
against children to mislead the court. this amounted to a contempt
of court. Newham council has obtained several court orders through
unlawful manners. Please see below email for you to understand the
circumstance which has led to this FOI request:

“Dear Madam,

I refer to your letter dated 24 October 2014 in which you have
copied the contents of your letter dated 3rd December 2012.
Therefore, those contents are unmeritorious and have been disputed
with evidence. First and foremost, the complaints made about Marc
Davis and Michael MacKay do not have any bearing on your extensive
justification with regards to accommodations and irrelevant dates.
We have not complained about accommodation to you and we are not
interested in those discussions which show your incompetency as a
Complaints Lead Member.

Some of your contents are false and the reasons are as follows:

1. You claim that on 3rd October 2012, an accommodation offer to
Egham Road was provided. There was no offer of accommodation and
please provide us with the evidence that there was an offer at that
address and the evidence that we have refused as you claim. We have
also requested to reconsider offers provided. In any circumstance,
those offers do not override S17 Duties. However, we are not
justifying this as you are only speculating irrelevant personal
issues.

2. Could you provide me a copy of that “corporate complaint” you
refer to in your letter as a matter of urgency?

3. Your assumption indicates that Court proceedings override
complaints procedures. Could you please provide the complaint
procedure and governing policies and legislations which
substantiate this? However, we have been informed by JCIO that as
those judges you mentioned in your letter have worked together with
your organisation as part of a group of institutional racism to
cover up the misconducts and harmful activities against families
and children, they are liable for prosecution under Perjury Act
1911 for perverting the course of justice.

You have deliberately used such document (gained unlawfully) to
claim that you ‘do not have jurisdiction to investigate my
complaints’. You are therefore assisting perjury by relying on
those orders.

As stated previously, nowadays, court orders can be gained through
a payment. As the judge was not sitting on that day and has made
the order privately (upon your request or use of resources), there
is reasonable evidence to substantiate that the orders you relied
upon has been gained by misleading the court. There was no trial
and those orders were issued in our absence as you are a corporate
body who works with the courts and we are ordinary civilians. You
have therefore misused your powers.

I believe you understand the seriousness of those matters if they
proceed to the public. The best practice is to accept what you have
done wrong and to reach appropriate remedies rather than proceeding
with these matters. You are therefore urged to proceed with the
Stage 2 complaints procedures. We also understand that you are
currently holding the FOI request until the ‘claimed’ eviction date
as you organised in 2012.

Yours faithfully,

—————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mrs Ismail,

Please note that your enquiry is not being pursued through the
complaints procedure due to the reasons already provided to you in
my previous two emails sent to you today. With reference there is
no independent investigation. To reiterate, the issues raised have
already been addressed in a court of law and the outcome which I
stated to you in my previous response is lawful and binding.
Therefore, please speak with the Local Government Ombudsman as the
Local Authority have no further comment to make.

Regards

Pauline Jones
———————————————————————————————————

“I am afraid that you are completely incorrect. A court of law
over-rides the complaints procedure. As previously advised, please
speak with the Local Government Ombudsman if you remain unhappy.

Regards

Pauline Jones

————————————————————————————————————-
COMPLAINT DETAILS

Details of the complaint: 1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT ABOUT MR MICHAEL
MACKAY (DEPUTY DIRECTOR CHILDREN SERVICES).

2. He was involved in our children’s case since 2012 and assisted
perjury and misrepresentation to the court. He has misconducted
with his public office duties by way of misusing his position and
assisting to cover up.

3. He was working with Mrs Norma irish, Avion Grant, Liz Forde and
Hazlyn hazel. all involved in our children’s case. He communicated
with third parties such as UKBA and other organisations to harm our
children and cause damages to their lives.

4. Mr Mac Kay has prevented other social workers to make an
independent assessment and other entitlements. he has obstructed
other officers’ duties towards the children.

5. As a director, Mr Mackay contributed alongside with the above
named social workers to manipulate assessments and to favour
certain individuals within UKBA and other places who are leading a
hate campaign against our family.

6. Mr Mac Kay indicate din a n email sent to us on 12/9/2014 that
our children’s case is closed but he failed to provide us with the
formal decision and to substantiate his claim.

7. Mr MacKay attached Mrs Sameerah Khan to the email and we
understand that she is from legal department. She denied any
involvement.

8. Mr MacKay is misusing the public purse by paying a large sum of
over £4000 to private solicitors for a repossession claim filed in
Bow County Court with wrong names and information.

9. as he is a director, it is clear that he is advising and
ordering other social workers to act against us in an illegal
manner.

It is also obvious that he will not take reasonable steps to
resolve those issues as he is misusing his position and public
purse (tax payers Money). We were teachers in this country and we
understand this wastage.

Therefore, Mr MacKay’s conduct should be under investigation.

What would you like done: INVESTIGATE MR MACKAY CONDUCT AND ALL THE
COMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNAL ACTIVITIES WHICH HE IS CARRYING OUT
AGAINST OUR FAMILY.

Yours faithfully,

BARRISTER CHRISTOPHER SNELL

faxScopier14102313080

A complaint was made to Bar Standards Board about Mr Snell’s conduct in Bow County Court during a hearing.  He basically mislead the court and provided deceptive and false information to the judge sitting who was District Judge North.

The complaint was as follows:

1. Mr Snell has mislead the court.

He has failed to advise his clients that the claim was wrongly filed with the incorrect claimants name and defendants name.

The submissions he relied upon were fraudulent and misleading. He was aware of it as clearly indicated in our skeleton

argument which we sent to them 2 days before the hearing. During the hearing, he said: “The claimants are seeking

repossession.” the judge asked him who were the claimants and whether they are present. he replied: “The claimants are

present and they are RHP Services.” On the claim form, the claimants are Mr Natha and others. Upon notifying him that he

was giving contradictory information and misleading the judge, Mr Snell attempted to cover up accusing us of rent arrears of

£17000 but this was not the case. He failed to prove his point. In any circumstance, he has mislead the judge and the judge

was merely taking instructions from Mr Snell who kept on misguiding him and the case. He used his legal privileges to

mislead the judge who was only a solicitor (lower than him).

1. Mr Snell has discriminated us because of our race, religion and status.

He has discriminated us by his body language and by referring us as “These people …” He did not respect his duty as a

counsel and failed to be polite. He did not introduce himself outside the court as we were unaware that he was representing

the claimants. Mr Snell however stared at us in an impolite, rude and intimidating manner outside the courtroom without

approaching us to introduce himself. He was intimidating us by speaking to all the court staffs and sitting next to them. His

body language and behaviour were discriminative to us.

1. Mr Snell has failed to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.

He has mislead the court and relied upon false representations. Mr Snell has breached his code of conduct by misleading

and influencing the judge’s decision. He acted in a way through his body language (smiles, laughs or signing with his hands)

when we were addressing the court or the judge was listening to us. His body movements, though in silence, compelled the

judge to look at him and divert his attention to him. Mr Snell approach was such that it is difficult to figure out at once that he

was trying to obstruct the course of justice. but if one clearly examine his body language, it is imperative to conclude that Mr

Snell is obstructing fair justice.

1. Mr Snell’s integrity is to be questioned.

He has knowingly and recklessly deceived the court. The judge who is a solicitor was unaware of those proceedings and did

not have any qualification to deal with the hearing. He was merely asking advice from Mr Snell who did advise him but with

deceit. Mr Snell was knowingly and recklessly misleading him and providing him wrong interpretation of the law.

5. Mr Snell failed to submit his skeleton argument or representations of what he will submit in the court.

He provided some untrue and contradictory/false evidences during the hearing which we were not aware of, he spoke some

things which we did not know. he sent a statement of costs 1 hour before hearing takes place by fax. The judge

acknowledged that the statement of costs should have been sent at least 24 hours before the hearing. But as Mr Snell was

provocative and manipulative, the judge forgot this breach of duty and went on to give his order.

Mr Snell does not have any respect to the children. He and the judge purportedly delayed the hearing when they knew that

children were waiting outside the courtroom and hungry.

6. He interrupted Mrs Ismail’s submissions and interfered with it. he distracted the judge’s and Mrs Ismail’s focus on the

matter. He knew that the Judge is his junior and his legal privileges will assist him. He is aware of the institutional racism

campaign against and was confident.

7.. Judge North’s actions will also be complained of. The solicitor whom Mr Snell was acting for has also been complained to

SRA.

It has always been the duty of a barrister, solicitor, legal executive or any other professional representing a client in

proceedings before any court to discharge not only the duties to his client but the duty to the court. That duty is in part

reflected in s.188 of the Legal Services Act 2007 as a duty applicable to anyone exercising rights of audience or conducting

litigation in the court by virtue of an authorisation under the Act as a duty to “act with independence in the interests of justice”.

The content of the duty to the court is spelt out in a number of cases.

In Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 at page 234 Sir Thomas Bingham, MR (as he then was) made clear that although a legal representative of the parties was bound to strive to win a case, he must do so without in any way seeking to evade the rules intended to safeguard the administration of justice.

The reason why that is so important is that misleading the court is regarded by the court and must be regarded by any disciplinary tribunal as one of the most serious offences that an advocate or litigator can commit. It is not simply a breach of a rule of a game, but a fundamental affront to a rule designed to safeguard the fairness and justice of proceedings.