2nd
ORDER
when?
who?
how?
what for?ERROR OR PLOY?
What was it?
Why not an error?
Any Guide?
Was it Incompetence?
Any precedents?
Anything Behind it?
Other factors?
What of The LAW?
FOR A PURPOSE
Was it a mistake?
More of a kind?
Why FOR a purpose?
Sure?
We quote from the Court User's
Guide to Civil Justice Reforms "The judges will receive support from
court staff in carrying out their case management role. Court staff will be responsible
for case monitoring. This involves the use of a computerised diary monitoring system which
they will use to:
|
|
 FAIR COMMENT
IS GUARANTEED BY LAW
The Consent Order as agreed and issued by the Court
is published below. The Second Court Order was introduced
and issued SIX DAYS AFTER the Consent Order had been issued and posted. Somehow, court staff, who accessed the court file and or
computer data, IGNORED THE CONSENT ORDER AND ITS CONTENT, as if they were acting on
instructions from others. In doing so they managed 'to
produce a false on fact instrument', a defective Court Order that lacked
accountability.
The court's clerical staff issued the Consent Order
through reference to the terms of settlement agreement that was signed by the parties at
the conclusion of the Mediation. The Agreement clearly qualified that matters had been
concluded in all three cases.
Naturally the culprits provided proof of their
intentions.
A professional, the solicitor, failed to remit the
agreed liability AS PER CONSENT ORDER. Only the naive, the gullible and persons who accept
that elephants can fly can overlook or ignore such realities. It was obvious that the offenders were seeking to create and generate theatrical
productions at court, through which to generate 'legal costs income' for the offending
solicitor. Nothing unusual; any devious means through which to convert funds and assets,
the legitimate properties of others, to the legal circles, is the main pre-opccupation of
all from within the legal circles and our courts.
MISMANAGEMENT and RECKLESSNESS DAMAGE
REPUTATIONS
A mistake, the second court
order, it could not possibly have been. Diligent perusal of
the Conclusive Consent Order, should have put an end to the 'second order machination' at
the time when the Consent Order was printed and posted in the relevant court CASES /
FILES. All three case numbers were/are clearly
quoted and stated in the Order that was agreed at the conclusion of the Mediation
Negotiations. ONLY reckless record keeping,
conducive to such 'creations', could have been part of the convenient creation, however. Through similar ORGANISED disorganisation the products of
incompetence and recklessness. False documents from within ANY professional environment
abound in the legal system. Such practices and the reliance
on the part of county court staff AND OFFICERS are evinced and covered IN THE ORGANISED HOUSING BENEFIT FRAUDS INDUSTRY exposed by and in
the Landlords Action Group pages at human-rights, more than enough evidence as to the part
the law enforcement agencies play in rampant abuse of 'the facilities of the courts'. Nothing but a false instrument lacking accountability
BECAUSE OF THE AGREED SETTLEMENT at the conclusion of the Mediation Negotiations!
MISTAKES or FALSE INSTRUMENT for a PURPOSE ?
The Consent Order was clearly endorsed with the reference
numbers of ALL THREE CLAIMS (court cases). In the days of COMPUTER TRACKING of the state
of cases at Court, NO PERSON can justify failure to input the information clearly
qualifying that ALL THREE CASES, had been concluded as the Court Order by consent
clarifies. The case to which the second court order relates, HAD BEEN DETERMINED as
concluded at the end of the Mediation, weeks earlier. ANY
attempt to justify the issue of the Order at the time when it was 'created for an
attempted scenario through the convenient failure of the absent partner to attend the
Mediation Negotiations was naive on the part of the authors of the attempted scenario. The Landlords Action Group, its officers and its members
had gained and secured more than enough documented evidence covering 'common practices'
from within the county courts, the court service. The Theft Acts clarify the position as
to false instruments that lack accountability as in the instance at hand. The usual reliance on some amenable 'colleague' another
public servant (police and court services) or legally trained 'abuser of the facilities
and trust citizens place in professionals of such calibre and mentalities' was and remains
out of the question. There exist other instances pertaining to and covering such practices
and contempt for evidence and law from within the confines of the very same county court! The events that followed after the second Order was
challenged evince the arrogance of the offending solicitor who had anticipated and relied
on the usual invisible services through the organised disorganisation practices.
|
