Corrupt Crown Prosecutors Court Officials and Judges
On this page we will name and shame all these dishonest judges and officials and state what they have done.
Corrupt Court Officials and Judges, One Very Deserving Judge that needs mentioning, sitting in a bent court - District Judge Rhodes sitting at Watford County Court, Station Road, Watford, Hertfordshire WD17 1EZ.
We will explain the case and how this shyster dishonestly dealt with it.
MR & MRS Coulter were ripped off by Natwest Bank PLC. As a result of the bank ripping off the Coulter's and them trying to complain about it to Natwest Senior Managers, Natwest terminated their Premier Customers Account. Not only did the Natwest Managers refuse to engage in any dialog with Mr Coulter, the dullards were stupid enough to terminate his account with a £20,000 overdraft.
Had they engaged in a dialog over the losses they inflicted on the Coulter's that were a similar amount then they would not have terminated doing business with the Coulter's when the account was still negative. Having ripped the Coulter's off for some £20,000 from a supposed investment account, it seemed poetic justice that they closed MR Coulter's Account with him owing them £20,000.
When the bunch of idiots realised what they had done to a Premier Account Customer that was constantly transferring large amounts of money from Japan into that account, they then started a legal action against Mr Coulter for a supposed default of payment. However, due to their actions in terminating business with Mr Coulter, it turned out that Mr Coulter continued to withhold the £20,000 against the money they had ripped the coulters off for.
This was always a dispute and not a default.
Mr Coulter had a firm of Bent Solicitors - Shoosmiths - The Lakes Northampton NN4 7SH, threatening him that if he did not pay the £20,000 they would register a default against Mr Coulter and damage his credit rating. This would be recorded with all credit reference agencies. Mr Coulter explained the correct position that this is a dispute and not a default. Mr Coulter warned Shoosmiths that if they register a default against him it would be done illegally as a man is innocent until proved otherwise, and that there is no default until a court has ruled that there has been one.
Under Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4) Shoosmiths and their clients must engage in dialog or round table meetings to resolve the dispute without the need for court action. If they fail to do this then Mr Coulter would be entitled to costs in the action even if he lost the case. Due to the arrogance and refusal of both Shoosmiths and Natwest to engage in any constructive dialog to resolve this dispute without the need for court action, District Judge Rhodes and other District Judges at Watford Court continued to make court orders giving Shoosmiths and their client Natwest time to resolve their differences.
Shoosmiths failed to comply with the orders that ordered them to write to the court and tell the court what progress had been made to resolve matters without the need for court action. These arrogant bastards failed to comply with those orders. It was left to Mr Coulter to go to the court and view the court file to see if Shoosmiths had written to the court as they were ordered to. Mr Coulter then repeatedly wrote to the court manager stating that Shoosmiths were in violation of the orders and asking why District Judge Rhodes and others were issuing more orders for them to do the same thing. This left this case sitting before the court for some 9 years as a result of the misconduct of the court management system allowing these bastards to ignore court orders. This firmly placed Shoosmiths Solicitors in breech of civil procedure rule 44.5(3).
Mr Coulter on the other hand was fully compliant with the orders not only spending time and money on postage and driving to and from the court to view the court file. Eventually Mr Coulter spent more time and money obtaining the home addresses of the Natwest Directors incumbent at the time. It now appeared that although Natwest started the action against Mr Coulter, The Royal Bank of Scotland who did not own Natwest at the time the dispute started were now calling the shots and breifing Shoosmiths when they were not even the people who stared the action in the first place.
Below we publish the original letter that Mr Coulter sent to the Natwest / RBS Directors in compliance with the civil procedure rules. This was done in an attempt to make them have dialog in compliance with the court orders being issued from Watford County Court. Mr Coulter, a professional engineer and logistician can only describe trying to have dialog with Shoosmiths or Natwest the same as trying to have oral sex with a shark.
After all the letters of complaints to the courts Natwest and Shoosmiths decided that they did not wat to play this game anymore, possibly due to the fact that what the Natwest Staff did to Mrs Coulter can only be described as criminal. These bastards discntinued their claim against Mr Coulter on the 12th February 2010, upon doing so Mr Coulter was entitled to his costs under Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4) & 44.5(3).
When Mr Coulter had originally filed his defence that this was not a default but infact a dispute he reserved the right to make a counter claim for £30,000 for the money Natwest has ripped the Coulter's off for along with interest and other damages. This was also taking into account that Shoosmiths & Natwest had illegially registered a default against Mr Coulter with credit reference agencies. This had the effect of Mr Coulter being refused Credit Cards and more importantly Trade Accounts that had a detremantal impact on his self employed engineering business.
As a result of this there was a case management directions hearing held by District Judge Rhodes at Watford Court on the 10th May 2010. Mr Coulter made an application in that hearing that this case could be disposed of by District Judge Rhodes making an order for costs against Natwest up to their discontinuance on 12th February 2010. Mr Coulter further wanted District Judge Rhodes to make an order, ordering Natwest to reinstate MR Coulters Credit Status as the discontinuance of the claim meant that there was no default as no court had ruled that there had been. Infact it was never proved in court that there was a debt of over £24,000 as claimed by Natwest.
District Judge Rhodes refushed to do this, and told Mr Coulter that he would have to persue this in his counter claim and pay the court fees for that counter claim. Mr Coulter told Judge Rhodes that since Natwest were no longer persuing him for some £24,000 then he did not need to counter claim for the £30,000 he had originally filed in his defence. Mr Coulter made it clear that all he wanted was £5,580 in costs for which he had submitted a detailed schedule of costs. District Judge Rhodes told Mr Coulter that he may wish to amend his counter claim and that he would have to persue the order he wanted in that counter claim.
The Judge Ordered :
- The Defendant having made a counterclaim for £30,000.00 (which he may wish to amend) he shall pay the fee on the counterclaim (or produce evidence of fee exemption) by 24 May 2010.
- If the fee is paid by the due date (or fee exemption granted) the Defendant shall file at court and serve on the Claimant a fully particularised counterclaim by 7 June 2010.
- The counterclaim is transferrable to the Hitchin County Court.
- The costs of today be in the counterclaim.
Mr Coulter paid some £360 costs and filed his amended statement of claim in complaince with what District Judge Rhodes ordered him to do. However after the case was transfered to Hitchin County Court District Judge Cross on the 9th November 2010 ordererd
- The counterclaimant be struck out as showing no reasonable prospect of success, a claim for costs not being recoverable by action.
- This order was made without a hearing. Any party afected by it may apply within 7 days of recieving it for it to be set aside, varied or stayed.
Mr Coulter then paid a further court fee and made an application to have that court order set aside on the grounds that it went behind District Judge Rhodes order and denied Mr Coulter the opertunity to seek an order against Shoosmiths and Natwest to remove the adverse default illegially registered with credit agencies.
Mr Coulter had a hearing at Hitchin County Court on the 16th March 2011 to set aside the order of District Judge Cross. You can imagine how Mr Coulter felt when he arrived at Hitchin Court only to find that District Judge Cross was going to hear the case to set aside or order made by himself. This would mean that he would have had to heard critisism of himself and that in the intrest of justice and good ethics Mr Coulter made a verbal application to District Judge Cross for him to stand himself down and transfer this application back to District Judge Rhodes at Watford County Court.
The representative of Shoosmiths and Natwest argued that the case should be determined on that day. Mr Coulter argued that it should be determined by an independant judge in order for natural justice to prevail. Mr Coulter made long representations contantly referring to the white book and civil procedure rules. Finally Shoosmiths lost the arguement and Mr Coulter should have had costs awarded to him for that day.
At least District Judge Cross had some integrity dispite his previous court order. He then ordered that :
- Application transferred to Watford County Court for the attention of District Judge Rhodes.
- District Judge Cross hearby recuses.
- Cost in application.
On the 9th August 2011 Mr Coulter attended Watford County Court for a hearing to set aside the order made by District Judge Cross on the 10th November 2010. In the course of that hearing District Judge Rhodes revealed the full extent of what a dishonest bastard he really is. He claimed that he never directed Mr Coulter to persue a claim for his costs, he further lied about the fact that he had no power to order Natwest to reset Mr Coulter Credit Record and that he could not make an order for them to do so.
Mr Coulter argued that had he of know that he would say this he would have done the research and found the case authorities where this has been done in the past. Mr Coulter further told District Judge Rhodes that there is substantial case law where court orders have been made to rectify peoples credit ratings as a result of legal proceedings. District Judge Rhodes simply dismissed this instead of checking for himself, or probably even knowing that Mr Coulter was in fact telling him the correct position.
If District Judge Rhodes did not know that he had the power to bring this case to a conclusion by making an order against Natwest to remove the default from Mr Coulters Credit Record with credit agencies, then District Judge Rhodes is not a fit and proper person to be sitting in any court.
To show the disparaty of how this bastard Rhodes rules in favour of large organisations like Natwest and dishonest solicitors like Shoosmiths, we example the order that he made.
Upon hearing the defendant in person and hearing the solicitor for the claimant
And upon the Climant having discontinued its claim against the Defendant for £24204.15 which they alleged to be the debt balance on account 60103316275101 by notice dated 12 February 2010.
And upon the court being of the view that the Defendant can recover his costs of that claim persuant R44.3(4)
IT IS ORDERED THAT
- The Application of the defendant dated 15 November 2011 is dismissed.
- The defendant to pay the Claimant's costs of the application in the sum of £132.00
Dated 9 August 2011
You can see from the order that when the Defendant Mr Coulter insisted on an order for his costs of £5580.00 in pursuant of CPR Rule 44.3(4) Judge Rhodes only states that its the courts view that the defendant can recover these costs. This Bastard Rhodes did not put in the order that Natwest had to pay these costs, however Rhodes did put in the order at point 2, that the Defendant Mr Coulter has to pay the costs of the Claimant's of £132.00.
Neither Shoosmiths or Natwest will pay Mr Coulters costs as there is no court order, ordering them to do so. Furthermore Rhodes will not make such an order against these Shysters. We leave you the public reading this to form your own view on the disparity on how Rhodes treats the tax paying members of the public, who are paying this Bastard's salary only for him to abuse his authority in the form of misconduct in public office.
Plenty more to come, and will be published in due course...
In the meantime, you can see how the UK Courts allowdishonest bastards like Natwest, Shoosmiths and the Royal Bank of Scotland too much leaway in what they do to people. You can see this at -
The reason why County Court Judges like Rhodes have been perpetrating this kind of misconduct, is due to the fact that they have been doing this behind closed doors in the hope that it will never be publicised. They further hope that they will never be arrested for the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in public office.
Some victims were so angry that they stared looking at the law in relation to this type of judicial misconduct. They are of the view that it goes beyond normal misconduct in public office which is itself an imprisonable offence (misfeasance). They in-fact believe that if this type of misfeasance is perpetrated by a sitting judge on one of Her Majesties Courts against one of Her Majesties Subjects it amounts to - TREASON.
See the footage of the video below where members of the public were so enraged they carried out a citizens arrest on a judge at the time he was committing the offence of judicial misconduct.
Latest News - Roger Hall - Senior Dorset CPS Prosecutor
This Low Life Has Carried Out Two Malicious Prosecutions Of Dorset Victims That We Know Of. Hall Has Been Described As A Parasite Ponsing Off The Tax Payers.
ADDRESS : 17 Aldridge Way, Lone Pine Park, Ferndown, BH22 8HA - To See More Click Here
Another Corrupt Judge - As seen in the Dailymail Online - Click Here to view this on the Daily Mail Website
Immigration judge in 'chilli hot' affair with Brazilian cleaner is paid £300,000 to stay home for 30 months.
An immigration judge who had an affair with his illegally-employed Brazilian cleaner has been paid nearly £300,000 by the taxpayer despite not working for two and a half years. Mohammed Ilyas Khan, 63, who described Roselane Driza as 'chilli hot stuff', has received his full salary since standing down in October 2006 during her blackmail trial
Ms Driza, 40, was accused of stealing videos showing Judge Khan having sex with a female judge and another woman to demand £20,000 from the woman judge.
Paid to do nothing: Judge Khan hasn't worked since Roselane Driza's 2006 trial
It prompted a 19-month investigation into Judge Khan’s conduct, during which time he claimed his full salary of £170,000. For the last 12 months he has been paid his full wage of £111,155 despite having been off sick since the inquiry was concluded. This means he has received more than £280,000 from the taxpayer, even though he has not worked for 30 months and is regarded as unlikely ever to return to his job. The ministry of Justice confirmed that Judge Khan remained on full pay but declined to give any further explanation beyond saying that it was ‘urgently reviewing’ his status. The revelation by the London Evening Standard will raise questions about the government’s management of taxpayers’ money.
Also, it will prompt fresh criticism from those who argue that public employees often enjoy more generous treatment than those in the private sector. The latest controversy surrounding Judge Khan, who presided over cases at the Government’s asylum and immigration tribunal, follows earlier calls for him to be sacked for bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Those demands were prompted by his decision to employ Ms Driza as his cleaner. It emerged during her 2006 trial for blackmail that he sent her texts calling her ‘chilli hot stuff’ and describing her as ‘a lovely shag’. The Office for Judicial Complaints, headed by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, held an inquiry into Judge Khan’s conduct but decided to allow him to keep his job despite criticising his behaviour. In a statement to announce his decision last May,
Lord Phillips said Judge Khan’s health was not good enough for there to be a more in-depth investigation, despite his and the woman judge’s ‘poor judgment’ for employing Ms Driza without properly checking her immigration status. At the time, officials indicated that Judge Khan, who went on sick leave as soon as the investigation was concluded, was unlikely ever to return to work because of his worsening health. Under normal employment practice this might have been expected to lead to the judge eventually being placed on statutory sick pay, rather than his full salary, and considered for early retirement on health grounds.
No such action has been taken so far in Judge Khan’s case, with the result being that he has continued to receive his full pay despite there being no apparent prospect of him resuming his career on the bench. A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: ‘Judge Khan has remained on full salary since sick leave began in May 2008, and we are now looking at this case.’ Judge Khan will also be able to pick up his full pension entitlement, which will be at least £48,000 a year plus a lump sum of more than £100,000. Judge Khan was initially required to stand down after Ms Driza’s trial in September 2006.
During her trial Ms Driza, of South Norwood, who entered Britain as a tourist in 1998 and overstayed her visa, was accused of stealing videos showing Judge Khan having sex with the female judge and another woman and using them to try to blackmail the woman judge, who cannot be named, for £20,000. Ms Driza was jailed for 33 months. Sentencing her, the Recorder of London, Judge Beaumont, told her she was a ‘greedy and determined woman’. But she was freed on appeal. She was cleared in July 2007 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press ahead with a retrial because both Judge Khan, who was initially labelled Judge K, and the woman judge, Judge J, were deemed to be too ill to give evidence.
Judge J, who was on a salary of £117,680, received £205,000 in pay during the 18 months she was off sick before the trial. She retired on grounds of ill health on December 31, 2006, and receives a medical pension. Ms Driza — whose ex-husband is an Albanian gangster convicted of murder — stayed in Britain after her permission to stay expired in 1999.
The sordid details of the blackmail case were played out in a court case which ruined Judge Khan’s reputation. No judge has been sacked since 1983, when a member of the bench was dismissed after smuggling whisky from Guernsey.
Judge accused of child abuse ‘let off by police’ - The Times - November 2, 2007 - David Sanderson
A chief constable is being investigated over his force’s dismissal of child abuse allegations against a judge.
The police watchdog stepped in after claims that the officer allowed his professional relationship with the circuit judge to prejudice the force’s actions. The complainant, the judge’s estranged wife, alleged that he gave a child a sexually transmitted disease, viewed child pornography websites and misused transcripts from child abuse cases that he had presided over. There were also allegations of mortgage fraud and domestic violence.
Documents sent to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and seen by The Times said that the force concluded that there was insufficent evidence to even interview the judge and decided not to analyse his computer. The force refused to accept a further complaint from the accuser that the working relationship between the judge and the officer, who worked on a criminal justice panel together, had biased its approach.
We have been campaigning for some time now that the Criminal Justice Boards that the previous government has set up across the country should be disbanded. This would save the taxpayers money, as they serve no other purpose than for senior police officers CPS Prosecutors and others to be eating and drinking at the taxpayers expense. Furthermore where there are allegations of police misconduct by ACPO officers or Judicial Misconduct it only serves to exasperate an already unhealthy situation. How can you have these officials prosecuted for misconduct in public office (a criminal offence of misfeasance) when they are all eating and drinking together along with the mutual backscratching on these criminal justice panels.
This first came to our attention when we looked at the Dorset Criminal Justice Board and found that the senior police officers that we want investigated for misconduct by an outside force, and not the IPCC, are all eating a drinking at the taxpayers expense. As a result of our campaign bringing this to the attention of Politicians and Senior Civil Servants, instead of having these bastards investigated they took down the Dorset Criminal Justice Board Website. However our good IT people tracked it down in an archive and kept it as evidence. It shows that they are all having jollies and giving each other awards whilst they are on the piss at the Marriott Hotel in Bournemouth. Whist this shows evidence in Dorset you can extrapolate this unhealthy situation to any region of the UK. To see the evidence - Click Here
The Article Continue ...
The IPCC has now ordered an investigation into the alleged bias. The Times also understands that the case is being investigated by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke, who became involved after the allegations about the judge were reported to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). The accuser expected it to bar the judge from presiding over child abuse cases. When it did not, the ombudsman was brought in.
A letter to Sir John, also seen by The Times, claims that the DCA also failed to “address an allegation against [the judge] of unhealthy misuse of transcripts relating to child sexual abuse cases”. The complainant alleged that the judge had taken the transcripts home for his own sexual gratification and that police were given a video that showed the judge masturbating.
The Dishonest Shyster Brigstocke
This shyster Brigstocke is like all the Commissioners and Ombudsman that we want disbanded to save the taxpayers money. They are only a buffer for complaint, they are paid 6 figured salaries for fudging complaints and covering up criminal allegations of misconduct in public office. Instead of the government letting the public think that Ombudsman and Commissioners are there to investigate wrongdoing, the people who have taken their criminal allegations to be investigated have the evidence that these overpaid bastards are part of an apparatus that is not supposed to work. The whole modus-operandi of these Ombudsman and Commissioners is only to bring small low level public employees to account, and to cover up the misconduct of other senior public officers. We have the ecvidence in another case that this dishonest bastard Brigstocke has covered up Judicial Misconduct and all sorts of hanky-panky in the Weymouth County Court. Furthermore this bastard lives in Dorset and will be rubbing shoulders with the supposed good and the great in this dishonest county.
The Article Continue ...
The case has raised questions about the IPCC’s complaints procedure. When the complainant first contacted the watchdog with her complaints about the police investigation, it told her to submit the complaint in two parts: one about the alleged bias, and one about the perceived failure to follow proper investigatory procedures, such as seizing computers. She did not resubmit the second part, relating to the police investigation, until 28 days after the police force rejected her complaints. The IPCC ruled it to be out of time and therefore could not investigate it.
Its ruling says that the “allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards children, domestic violence and mortgage fraud” did not constitute “special circumstances” allowing it to extend the 28-day period. The force will not be required to reinvestigate the claims against the judge.
The IPCC with all its commissioners for each force, in each region, along with the support staff, cost the taxpayers millions. For the small amount of prosecutions that are levelled against lown ranking officers it is not a value for money service. They couldn't even bring the officer responsible to trial for the negligent shooting of the Brazilian Electrician De Menezes. Neglect of duty is a well established criminal offence Regina vs Dytham. This common-law criminal offence was a House of Lords Case where it was ruled that an officer failing to perform his duty properly was a imprisonable offence.The IPCC is not a watchdog, it is not even a toothless puppy. The Commissioners are just an overpaid buffer for complaint that was never meant to bring Senior Police Officers to account for misconduct or neglect of duty. As a result we have launched our own TV Channel exposing the IPCC and the Police Professional Standards Departments as not fit for purpose. To see the evidence - Click Here.
The Article Continue ...
The chief executive of the police force authority said: “The IPCC has instructed us to record the complaint but in doing so we need to obtain further information.”
Asked about the allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards children, the judge said: “It is not a subject I would wish to comment upon in any circumstances.”
— Mohammed Ilyas Khan, 61, a judge who is under investigation for his involvement in a sex blackmail case, received his third pay rise since being forced to step down as a Crown Court Recorder last year. He remains on full pay, now £110,812.