1 Pares Land Walk
Rochdale OL16 5SX
9 September 2007

The Secretary of State for Justice
Oldham County Court
The New County Court House
New Radcliffe Street
Oldham OL1 1NL


The Secretary of State for Justice
Bolton Crown Court
The Law Courts
Blackhorse Street
Bolton BL1 1SU


Sirs



R. v. Thomas Moore (T 200 70359)

Rochdale Borough Council v. Thomas Moore (7OL 02721)



This letter replaces a letter I sent you dated 3 September 2007. I have corrected a few errors, and apologise for any inconvenience.

I invite you to suggest an effective and realistic form of ADR. I do not know of any, but you are better placed to know if any is available.

The Secretary of State for Justice is harassing me in similar ways, at two different Courts, in respect of distinct claims brought against me.

In both cases:

  1. I do not know the case I am required to answer, and having raised each matter with the Courts, still do not know the case I am required to answer.

  2. My applications (and appeals) are being disregarded.

  3. The very limited documentation I have received, is not properly completed.

  4. Both Courts are denying me my rights under ECHR Articles 66 and 88, by, for example, failing to ensure I have access to proper legal assistance.

In the case before Bolton Crown Court, where there is a clearer route for obtaining Article 6 rights in Criminal hearings, the Secretary of State for Justice at Rochdale Magistrates Court, who now tells me all enquiries must be directed to Bolton Crown Court, entered onto Court records a firm of solicitors, without my consent, and then declined to allow the solicitors I did approach, stating that another firm was on record.

The Claimant and Complainant in each case has made the same complaint, which I understand to be, "complaining about them harassing me is harassment." The Claimant and Complainant have both failed to give me any realistic chance of avoiding yet more rounds of their litigation. The Claimant and the Complainant are both legally qualified.

Not having seen the allegations I am required to answer in either case, it is very difficult to be sure, but having faced the Claimant and the Complainant in Courts for over two years, I am sure that were I ever allowed legal representation that is willing, able and allowed to represent me properly, then those responsible would be liable to me for damages.

By obstructing me and my applications, especially those in respect of legal assistance, the Secretary of State for Justice is assisting the Complainant and the Claimant inflict further injustice on me. The Proceedings in both Courts are a cause of immense distress, at a time when my health is declining and my ability to respond diminished.

I do not know how to secure my rights under Article 6 in either Court, and neither Court has told me, as they must, since otherwise Article 6 rights are useless.

The problem with simply applying for funding from Bolton Crown Court, is the Secretary of State for Justice at Rochdale Magistrates Court, without my consent or knowledge, placed a hostile firm of solicitors on its records, and the Secretary of State for Justice at both Rochdale Magistrates Court and Bolton Crown Court has failed, despite my asking, to tell what I should do when solicitors misbehave.

To the best of my knowledge, it is not possible for me to obtain proper legal representation in any British Court, for any reason, at all. I have tried to draw this to the attention of both Courts, and obtain their assistance, but the Secretary of State for Justice has failed to process my applications.

May I please remind the Secretary of State for Justice that I am no longer able to attend Court on demand, and it is impossible for me to defend both proceedings at the same time? The Secretary of State for Justice should be aware that my abilities are limited and, although there is some periodic variation, my abilities are declining.

Should I not hear from the Secretary of State for Justice as asked, within seven days, I propose to file a Claim in the High Court for damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, costs, Orders restraining the Secretary of State for Justice from harassing me and Orders that the Secretary of State for Justice do respect my European Convention rights in Articles 6 and 8.

In the event that I am still not given the legal assistance I desperately need, as Article 6 requires, and if my High Court claim is not processed properly and my interests not protected until it and any appeal arising is determined, I intend to file further litigation without notice.

My applications to Courts are routinely disregarded. Another Court mistreating me would be no more than further examples of the same problem. Rather than write to the Secretary of State for Justice at another Court, pointing out that the cumulative effect of actions taken, or not taken, in respect of my Claim, are to block and/or allow the block on my access to proper legal assistance to continue, I want, and need, to make some progress.

I need to bring to both Courts attention the following, which I can hardly do so by application, since my applications are invariably disregarded. I appear to be declining into a chronic physical health condition I first noted in early 1990. I had quite a bad fever and other problems towards the end of July this year and now enter periods of partial remission, lasting no longer than 7 days, and no more common than once per month.

Although the Courts will doubtless require me to attend, and penalise me for not doing so, I unlikely to be able to attend. Having penalised me for others blocking my access to legal services, the Courts are likely to penalise me because my access to health care, both public and private, is also blocked.

This is not a new phenomena. My complaints about being denied treatment for my Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea have been the subject of litigation filed by Affinity Homes Group, the party responsible for blocking my access to services. As always, this litigation was without notice, and Affinity Homes Group made applications that prevented me removing the Internet web pages Affinity Homes Group claimed were causing it harassment.

The distress the Secretary of State for Justice is causing is that I am subject to a horrid campaign of harassment, including by staff working for the Secretary of State for Justice, with which I am increasingly less able to deal, and I am subject to litigation brought by those responsible for this harassment.

Since I have no access to legal services, I cannot prove that the truth is the precise opposite of what the Complainant and the Claimant claim: they are harassing me.



Summary of Harassment



  1. Case not stated, aggravated by failure to deal with applications and correspondence.
    1. Rochdale Magistrates Court (which says all further correspondence should be directed to Bolton Crown Court) has not explained the Charge with which it was dealing.
    2. Bolton Crown Court has not served its indictment R. v. Thomas Moore, T 200 70359.2
    3. Oldham County Court has not served Particulars of Claim in Claim number 7OL02721, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v. Thomas Moore.2

  2. Applications and Appeals Disregarded.
    1. To Rochdale Magistrates Court
      1. Appeal of 13 October 2006.
      2. Appeal of 21 May 2007.
      3. Appeal of 24 May 2007.
      4. Applications of 3 June 2007 (typing errors corrected on 4 June 2007).
    2. To Bolton Crown Court.
      1. Three applications of 10 July 2007. 1     2     4  
      2. Notice of witness requirements of 9 July 2007 . 3
      3. Two applications of 13 August 2007 . 5   6
    3. To Oldham County Court.
      1. Appellant’s Notice (including Applications)
        of 18 August 2007        .
      2. Defence form on 27 August 2007 .
      3. Application of 31 August 2007 .


  3. Documents not completed.
    1. By Rochdale Magistrates Court, Directions for Case Committed to the Crown Court are not signed.
    2. By Bolton Crown Court, letters dated 9 August 2007 and 22 August 2007 are not signed and do not bear the author’s name.
    3. By Oldham County Court, Injunction dated 15 August 2007 is not signed, says no evidence was submitted in support of the Injunctions and wrongly states I was given notice as I certainly was not.

  4. Obstruction of Applications for help securing legal assistance.
    1. Rochdale Magistrates Court imposed Healy Connor Mulcahy, during or before March 2007, and refused solicitors attempting to represent me.
    2. Bolton Crown Court is disregarding applications, which seek to deal with the matter and obtain assistance needed, of 10 July 2007 and 13 August 2007.
    3. Oldham County Court is disregarding my Applications of 18 August 2007, which ask for legal assistance.


In the case of documents that are not complete, this can hardly be error, and I am forced to observe that they have no validity.

Worse, and worryingly, I have received unsigned documents from others. Your practice of sending me incomplete and unsigned documents is part of a campaign of sending me such documents, that causes me anxiety and distress.





Requests


Without prejudice to other actions which may be agreed, I ask for the following, in order to begin a process of resolution. While it may not be possible to respond to all of these within seven days, I do need a written indication, including a guarantee of protecting my interest in the current litigation, within seven days.

  1. I ask that the Secretary of State for Justice do write to me stating clearly how, if it is at all possible, I can obtain access to proper legal assistance and a fair hearing in the current litigation.

  2. I ask that the Secretary of State for Justice to write to me setting out how it is proposed that these matters be concluded. Since in both cases the right to know the nature and cause of the accusation against me is being denied, it would be fair and equitable to dismiss both, and I invite the Secretary of State for Justice to put my applications for dismissal before the Courts in order that both may be dismissed.

  3. I ask that the Secretary of State for Justice writes to me undertaking, as far as practicable, to bring the harassment I face from the Secretary of State for Justice, to an immediate end.

  4. I ask that the Secretary of State for Justice writes to me stating how it will protect my interest in the two proceedings above, without causing me further distress. I need proposals for resolving problems caused by actions taken in the name of the Secretary of State for Justice.

  5. If there are proper matters before either Court, then I must receive an Indictment, Particulars of Claim, details of how the Secretary of State for Justice proposes to make proper legal services available to me, and additional time to consult any legal service. Simply sending me lists of solicitors is useless.

The Secretary of State for Justice and/or the Courts, may consider it appropriate, as I do, that one named representative of the Secretary of State for Justice be appointed, and granted the time needed, to assist and guide me from the current, almost, if not in fact, impossible situation, to one where, preferably without the active involvement of Courts, I am able to make peace with the Claimant and the Complainant.

One reason for making such available to me, while it may not be to others, is the difficulty the Secretary of State for Justice has created, inter alia, by the actions of which I complain.

The Secretary of State for Justice may be able to make a better suggestion, but as far as I know, the only alternative is to wait for the Courts to determine questions of which I am ignorant, without anyone representing me. The Judge at Bolton Crown Court, on 6 August 2007, expressed surprise when handed my applications of 10 July 2007.

I do not know if the attention of any future Court will be drawn to existing outstanding applications. Presumably, if the current policies continue, they will not, and further injustices will be inflicted on me.

I hope to hear from you promptly, and I hope that your response to me, as far as practicable for a department of central government, will be, as it is agreed my response to the Claimant was, "generous and reconciliatory," (copy attached, letter dated 27 March 2007.

Yours faithfully

Victim of Keith Exford

T Moore

Lisa Shepherd

Footnotes

  1. Note 1 - the charge is breaching a court order

    Denial of legal service
    Greater Manchester Police


    Healy Connor Mulchahy

    Who did appoint bent solicitors Healy Connor Mulchahy then and who refused to transfer the Legal Aid to Kemps then?


    Civil service dishonesty

    and who invited Yates Ardern to involve themselves late . . . twice?

    Yates Ardern bent solicitors

    Yates Ardern bent solicitors

  2. I cannot show you either the Indictment or the Claim Particulars because I have never seem them, if they exist.

  3. Note 3 Rochdale Magistrates Court

    H M Court Service

  4. Note 4 Bolton Crown Court

    Ministry of Justice

  5. Note 5 Rochdale Borough Council

    Oldham County Court

    Oldham County Court

  6. E C H R Article 6
  8. E C H R Article 8