This is a very courageous statement by a very courageous victim of legal oppression.
The hearing will be on May 5th, if you can come and be a supporter in London!
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION
REF: C1/2011/0701; C1/2011/0699; C1/2011/0699A
14TH APRIL 2011
IN THE MATTER OF CAUL SILFORD GRANT AND AN APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL
I wish to renew my application for an oral hearing against the order dated 5th and 6th April 2011, made by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sullivan.
- The reasons offered for refusing my application on paper reflects the unhidden fact that the judiciary are judges in their own cause. The bias is overwhelming and is only supported by the silence of an equally corrupt media.
- The receivership order can only be lawful if the original proceedings from which they stem were lawful and as I have had all my rights to access to court denied, I have never had my rightful opportunity to challenge those original proceedings
- My access to court in these proceedings is by way of default and by the fact that I am at liberty to attend court instead of being unlawfully locked up in prison with the assistance of corrupt prison governors.
- Cowards fight behind closed doors and out of sight of the disinfectant of sunlight. The integrity and public confidence of the judiciary is imperilled if it fails to observe the rule of law scrupulously. The judiciary is acting like a judicial mafia and considers itself above the law, but those who seek justice will turn to anarchy if the law or its administrators fail to act in accordance with the law.
- For the judiciary to have and maintain any degree of integrity its only goal must be the pursuit and maintenance of justice, any less is not worth having
- My view of the judiciary did not come about as a result of any misconceived ideology of the law nor did they come about because of any action instigated from my son’s death. My views are founded on the facts of judges violating the rule of law and ignoring intervention from the monarchy, direct or indirect. How can I be accused of contempt of court when the judiciary continues to be in contempt of the law?
- There is no honour in tying the hands of your opponent whilst beating him to a pulp, that is the way of cowards and whilst cowards fear the truth, the truth fears no evil.
- The perilous situation of the judiciary did not come about because I dared to stand up for what is right it has come about because men of wisdom have become men of fools with no moral authority and has adopted the use of physical force and the silence of the media as their only weapon against the truth.
- It is claimed by the judiciary and the other agencies of the state that my understanding of the rule of law and my rights enshrined within the law is misconceived but none of those agencies nor the judiciary can give or offer me a different interpretation of what I understand the law and its intention, to be
- Maybe I am considered as being less than a human being and thus not entitled to the protection of human rights law but even if that is the case, Article 14 of the European convention and the same article of the human rights act prohibits discrimination on any ground. “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
- My understanding of this article is that no one should be treated differently or unfavourably as a result of any of the above and that it would be unlawful to do otherwise. If my understanding is wrong I would like to know how and why it is so. My understanding of article 5 of the human rights act is that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
- Everyone who is deprived of his or her liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take court proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
- My understanding of article 6 of the human rights act is that in the determination of my civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against me. I am entitled to a fair independent and impartial tribunal and although article 6 does guarantee an appeal, the protection offered within it extends to appeal procedures where such procedures exist. In other words the right to a fair independent impartial public hearing applies to any appeal which may follow a previous hearing.
- My understanding of article 7 of the human rights act is that it guarantees no punishment without law and that a lawbreaker cannot be a law enforcer and that a previous broken law which was not or is not rectified cannot be further broken by anyone until or unless the previous breaking of the law is remedied.
- My understanding of section 6 (1) of the human rights act is that it is unlawful for a public authority including the judiciary to act in any way which violates the protection enshrined within the said act.
- My understanding of section 7 (1) of the human rights act is that anyone who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6 (1) may rely on the convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings that legal proceedings include an appeal against the decision of a court or proceedings instigated by a public authority.
- My understanding of section 9 (1) is that proceedings under section 7 (1) (a) in respect of a judicial act may be brought by exercising a right of appeal or raised in such other forum as may be prescribed by rules.
- Since my unlawful conviction and imprisonment this opportunity for access to the appeal court is the first because all other previous applications were prevented and unlawfully denied by the judiciary without allowing me my inalienable right to be heard.
- My understanding of the law is that habeas corpus, which is guaranteed under article 5 (4) of the human rights act is the most fundamental protection of the liberty of person which does not require a permission application to be heard and despite this fundamental rule of law when I filed such an application it was denied without the necessary hearing.
- The violation of the rule of law and of my rights enshrined within the law committed by the judiciary has subjected my family and I, especially my children, to several years of physical and psychological torture, which is a violation of article 3 of the human rights act. My many years of unlawful imprisonment has had a very damaging impact upon my whole family and family life. This is a violation of article 8 of the human rights act.
- The deliberate actions and omissions of the judiciary violating the law and acting as though the judiciary is above the law is an affront to humanity. There is no integrity in cowardice. If it is the intention of this appeal court to continue acting in ignorance of the rule of law, then so be it.
- All of the above protections and procedures guaranteed by the rule of law have been violated by the very same judiciary who sits in judgement of its own actions and failures to act.
- Death let alone imprisonment is not a deterrent for me to stop standing up for truth and justice because truth fears no evil and justice never sleeps.
More on Victims Unite!