FAO COURT OF APPEAL Ms WATTS & BANCROFT RIMMER & Ms Khanom PLEASE SEND TO THE MASTER OF APPEALS OR THE JUDGE

Transcription

1 FAO COURT OF APPEAL Ms WATTS & BANCROFT RIMMER & Ms Khanom PLEASE SEND TO THE MASTER OF APPEALS OR THE JUDGE REF 2012/PI/ Dear Ms Khanom ref your recent letter The Judge in this matter, JACKSON, replied below that the jurisdiction has clearly been exhausted. We refer back the matter to yourselves inclusive of the additional paperwork sent in yesterday. Please submit before someone in higher authority with some urgency. Please also stop misrepresenting the title of the case as it is CLARKE v COURT of PROTECTION its Master Denzil Lush & agent HUGH JONES. I am submitting the paperwork back today and would like them sealed. Mike & Ann Clarke ref & 2MA90015 linked below if pdfs attached will not print From: Morton, Alexandra FOR JUDGE JACKSON Sent: Friday, December 14, :42 AM To: Mike Clarke Cc: civilappealsregistry@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Subject: RE: Appeals CASES & 2MA90015 Dear Mr Clarke The judge has considered the letters written by the Civil Appeals Office (26th November) and by you (28th November) and replies as follows: The jurisdiction of the Court of Protection with regard to the costs order of 24 October 2012 is exhausted. The parties were heard before the order was made, having lodged full written submissions on costs. Rule 89 permits an application for reconsideration, but it does not require such an application to be made as a precondition to an appeal in a case such as this, where all the arguments have been considered and there is no basis for reconsideration; indeed for the court to entertain such an application would cause needless cost and expenditure of court time. Further to this, even if reconsideration was appropriate in this case, the decision would not be changed. Regards Alexandra

2 Alexandra Morton Clerk to Mr Justice Peter Jackson Family Division Liaison Judge for the Northern Circuit Tel: From: Mike Clarke Sent: 13 December :09 To: Morton, Alexandra; Ndow-Coker, Jemima; Coral Alice Cc: Gordon Marsden assitant SAM; Subject: Appeals CASES & 2MA90015 FAO TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON Dear Sir I attach pdf documents to print. If any problems occur with printing attachments we refer you to THE links below on our website. After receiving a further letter from the court of appeals deputy master BANCROFT-RIMMER today refusing to accept the appeal application based on rule 89 court of protection rules ie; Where an unattended hearing can be asked for reconsideration.. BUT your sealed refusal to apppeal arrived on the 17th November 2012 I firstly wish to point out that as you know by a previous letter to you on your request for if we would like to attend and that my reply stated that unless a constitutional court of common law was formed in the name of court de jure ie jury court as is always been our stance we saw no point in attending a hearing we do not consent to the authority of on the basis that ; BIAS shown, possibly MASONIC, obviously in previous directions where they also where refused consent DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BREACH OF ARTICLE 6 entitlement to fair and impartial hearing where the bar is judging the bar FULL DISCLOSURE refused by you! & thus.. FAILURE TO HAVE JURISDICTION Such a failure to have jurisdiction enables us to claim VOID orders as we have in both linked cases of; ANN CLARKE & CARER SON EXECUTOR & REPRESENTATIVE 2MA90015 FRAUDULENT HARASSMENT We would appear to be at an impass as you state you cannot provide a common law court, a jury court, and we do not wish to be further abused by the injustice on offer which you seem to imply is

3 only an hearing tribunal CONDUCTED by you in which you seem to be reserving for your personal self in which without our consent you fail to have jurisdiction. In view of all this can you advise if we fill in a cop 9 request for reconsideration can you tell me how we get a balanced fair and impartial hearing or on what basis it can proceed?? MIKE & ANN: CLARKE

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Case no: [2012] EWHC 2947 (COP) JUDGEMENT DATE 24 OCTOBER 2012 ON APPEAL FROM THE HONORABLE MR JUSTICE JACKSON SITTING IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION IN THE MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL COSTS. IN THE MATTER OF MS ANN CLARKE V THE COURT OF PROTECTION THE APPELLANT: MS ANN CLARKE, assisted by her Son & Executor Mr Michael Clarke. THE RESPONDENTS: The Court of Protection. Professional Panel Receiver/Deputy solicitor Mr Hugh Jones as the agent for the Court of Protection under a First General Order of Master Denzil Anton Lush dated 20 th March 2001 and Mr Alan Eccles, the CEO of the Public Guardian. The Skeleton Grounds for Appeal: 1] Mental Capacity Act Part 1 The principles (5) a) The Court of Protection and its own appointed professional agent have failed to act within the most overriding and fundamental principals of the Mental Capacity Act Failure to act in the overriding principle of the best interests of Ms Ann Clarke, instead making her a milch cow, lining the pockets of the Court of Protections own professional agent/deputy and as demonstrated in other Court of Protection cases exhibiting the Court of Protection as a professional place of business as a racket and pizzo for the legal profession. 2] Human Rights Act Article 6. a) Failure to provide the appellant with the most basic fundamental principles to ensure a fair and proper hearing. 1) Failure to ensure the protected party has full and proper disclosure between the parties before the court. 2) Failure to ensure a protected party has legal representation against the agent/deputy for the Court of Protection who refuses to disclose to Ms Ann Clarke detailed accounts for income and expenditure for each and every year associated with his receivership/deputyship. b) Independence and impartiality of the Court of Protection. Both the Court of Protection the Public Guardian refuses full and proper disclosure between the parties before the court of the detailed accounts of income and expenditure. The Court of Protection has the ultimate liability of public authority for the courts own appointed professional panel agent/deputy. This fact ensures that the court fails as an independent and impartial tribunal as it will be ultimately liable for all compensation and damages due to Ms Ann Clarke for the conduct of its own appointed professional panel agent/deputy in any claims for wrong doing or maladministration.

9 The bias shown in favour of the Court of Protections own professional panel agent/deputy are demonstrated in judgements, ignoring fundamental principals for fair and proper hearing as the Court of Protection is liable for the conduct and activities of its agent/deputy. What reasonable person would want to entrust their finances to solicitors who claim that they can then hide detailed accounts behind the privacy of that protected person. The Court of Protection and its agents/deputies are claiming the privacy of the claimed incapacitated person for the purpose of not providing detailed accounts to that person, Ms Ann Clarke. A fool and his money can be easily parted by professionals in secrecy behind the closed doors of the Court of Protection. Ms Clarke has clearly won her case to retain her home yet despite winning her case she finds she has orders against her to pay the costs of those who have lost their case against her when the principle of looser pays should apply. Ms Clarke has evidently waived her own right to privacy and maintains along with her advisors her right to be supplied detailed accounts for her own money. The Court of Protection and its agent/deputy are hiding behind what is her right to privacy to conceal their own conduct. 3] Human Rights Act & the Convention. Article 8 a) For the purpose of further financing the Court of Protections professional panel agent/deputy the appellants have been forced to suffer ongoing professional threats to interfere with Ms Clarkes right to respect for her private life, family life and to live in the peaceful enjoyment of her own home. 4) THE LAW a) The Fraud Act Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information A person is in breach of this section if he (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to loss. 4. Fraud by Abuse of Position (1) A person is in breach of this section if he (a) Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial Interests of another person, (b) Dishonestly abuses that position, and (c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position (i) To make a gain for himself or another person, or (ii) To cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an Omission rather than an act. Ms Ann Clarke C/O Michael Clarke 31 Cherry Tree Road Blackpool FY4 4NS

10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Case no: [2012] EWHC 2947 (COP) JUDGEMENT DATE 24 OCTOBER 2012 ON APPEAL FROM THE HONORABLE MR JUSTICE JACKSON SITTING IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION IN THE MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL COSTS. IN THE MATTER OF MS ANN CLARKE V THE COURT OF PROTECTION THE APPELLANT: MS ANN CLARKE, assisted by her Son & Executor Mr Michael Clarke. THE RESPONDENTS: The Court of Protection. Professional Panel Receiver/Deputy solicitor Mr Hugh Jones as the agent for the Court of Protection under a First General Order of Master Denzil Anton Lush dated 20 th March 2001 and Mr Alan Eccles, the CEO of the Public Guardian. The Skeleton Grounds for Appeal: 1] Mental Capacity Act Part 1 The principles (5) a) The Court of Protection and its own appointed professional agent have failed to act within the most overriding and fundamental principals of the Mental Capacity Act Failure to act in the overriding principle of the best interests of Ms Ann Clarke, instead making her a milch cow, lining the pockets of the Court of Protections own professional agent/deputy and as demonstrated in other Court of Protection cases exhibiting the Court of Protection as a professional place of business as a racket and pizzo for the legal profession. 2] Human Rights Act Article 6. a) Failure to provide the appellant with the most basic fundamental principles to ensure a fair and proper hearing. 1) Failure to ensure the protected party has full and proper disclosure between the parties before the court. 2) Failure to ensure a protected party has legal representation against the agent/deputy for the Court of Protection who refuses to disclose to Ms Ann Clarke detailed accounts for income and expenditure for each and every year associated with his receivership/deputyship. b) Independence and impartiality of the Court of Protection. Both the Court of Protection the Public Guardian refuses full and proper disclosure between the parties before the court of the detailed accounts of income and expenditure. The Court of Protection has the ultimate liability of public authority for the courts own appointed professional panel agent/deputy. This fact ensures that the court fails as an independent and impartial tribunal as it will be ultimately liable for all compensation and damages due to Ms Ann Clarke for the conduct of its own appointed professional panel agent/deputy in any claims for wrong doing or maladministration.

11 The bias shown in favour of the Court of Protections own professional panel agent/deputy are demonstrated in judgements, ignoring fundamental principals for fair and proper hearing as the Court of Protection is liable for the conduct and activities of its agent/deputy. What reasonable person would want to entrust their finances to solicitors who claim that they can then hide detailed accounts behind the privacy of that protected person. The Court of Protection and its agents/deputies are claiming the privacy of the claimed incapacitated person for the purpose of not providing detailed accounts to that person, Ms Ann Clarke. A fool and his money can be easily parted by professionals in secrecy behind the closed doors of the Court of Protection. Ms Clarke has clearly won her case to retain her home yet despite winning her case she finds she has orders against her to pay the costs of those who have lost their case against her when the principle of looser pays should apply. Ms Clarke has evidently waived her own right to privacy and maintains along with her advisors her right to be supplied detailed accounts for her own money. The Court of Protection and its agent/deputy are hiding behind what is her right to privacy to conceal their own conduct. 3] Human Rights Act & the Convention. Article 8 a) For the purpose of further financing the Court of Protections professional panel agent/deputy the appellants have been forced to suffer ongoing professional threats to interfere with Ms Clarkes right to respect for her private life, family life and to live in the peaceful enjoyment of her own home. 4) THE LAW a) The Fraud Act Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information A person is in breach of this section if he (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to loss. 4. Fraud by Abuse of Position (1) A person is in breach of this section if he (a) Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial Interests of another person, (b) Dishonestly abuses that position, and (c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position (i) To make a gain for himself or another person, or (ii) To cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an Omission rather than an act. Ms Ann Clarke C/O Michael Clarke 31 Cherry Tree Road Blackpool FY4 4NS