• Falk[J] & Fancourt[LJ] Judgments ~ Appeal against ‘Self-Approved’ Judgment;

• A True  ‘Master’ at work;

• Final ‘Extraordinary Appeal’ direct to the President of the UK Supreme Court.

1. In providing clarity a reprise of Judicial events which commenced in September 2019 is provided. Litigant-in-Person[LiP] Fire Service Veteran[FSV~FMG] continued to act as a ‘stalking horse’ by Appealing Against a ‘Determination’ issued by the UK Deputy Pension Ombudsman[TPO] who was a non-practising barrister.  

2. The Appeal was lodged in September 2019 in Belfast at the UK Northern Ireland High Court of Appeal [a TPO approved Court].

3. A subsequent Judgment on the 6^th November 2019 concluded that the Appeal did not lie with UK Northern Ireland High Court of Appeal Belfast  “due to its want for jurisdiction”. The Appeal was passed to the UK Court of Appeal[CoA]. Go Here.

4. On the 20^th January 2020 to avoid further delay the Appeal was refiled at a helpful Registry of the UK Court of Chancery.

5.The Appeal was set down before Mrs. Lady Justice[J] S.Falk DBE PC and the Appeal was Denied. But very shortly after the Appellant was asked orally to re-apply which he did and this was promptly granted but required to be formalised, as it was.

N.B. With the approval of the then Lord Chief Justice and the government Lady Justice Falk DBE was plucked from obscurity as a solicitor in a finance house in the City of London and advanced as a Justice to the High Court and thence to the Court of Appeal. Her Sponsor and Mentor was the then Master of the Rolls and Chancellor of the High Court Sir Terence M.E.B. Etherton [2016-2021]; later Baron Etherton PC; the first publicly declared gay person in the British Judiciary; a former fencing Olympian, who was married to his partner at the central London Synagogue.

6. Before Justice Falk [J] permission was granted for the Appellant to Appeal out of time until 16:00hrs on 4^th February 2020. At this point the Bugler’s Barrister J.C-B expressed the encouraging view that Justice Falk was now properly ‘seized’ of the Appeal.

7. Unusually the Bugler was asked to provide a reference for FSV~FMG. Go Here.

8. Following tripartite correspondence between Justice Falk[J], the Appellant, and the Respondent, who was determined to be unhelpful, a Hearing was set down before Mrs Justice Falk DBE [J] on or after 1^st July 2020 which in the event became the 3rd July 2020.

9. On late morning 2nd July 2020 the Appellant rang  Falk[J]’s office to receive a pre-hearing briefing on using Skype for Business® only to be astonishingly informed without explanation, sickness, etc, that an unhappy Falk[J] had been removed from the Hearing and a late substitute appointed, Justice Fancourt [LJ] whose office then provided the briefing for the 3rd of July 2020.

10. The video/taped Hearing then took place with Fancourt [LJ] arriving 10 minutes late with subsequently the first 27 minutes missing from the tape for which no explanation was ever provided by the Court.

11. Fancourt [LJ] not unexpectedly Denied the Appeal and furthermore rejected any attempt at a further Appeal and on the 27th October 2020 produced his Approved Judgment dated 3rd July 2020 [as is the UK Custom]. Go Here.

12. Originally on the 4th February 2020 proceedings of Appeal had been issued against the LCFA which the Appellant asked to stay[granted] in May 2020  so that ‘due process’ might take place. Go Here.

13. On the 18th January 2021 a Certificate of Service was issued against the LCFA, when the Appellant asked his original stay to be removed to resume ‘due process’ to take place only this time the Appeal was to be lodged against the Fancourt [LJ] Approved Judgment 3rd July 2020 on Points-of-Law; Go Here.

14 On the 18th January  2021 two letters arrived from the Registry of the CoA at the Appellant’s address. The first from Cobourn/Choudhury indicating their decision to return all documents and fees to the Appellant which they did over time.
The second, on the same day, an allegedly ‘Final’ response from the Court of Appeal was by a genderless person call Yobi Oba, who did not indicate him/her/its occupation. Neither did ‘it’ inform who the ‘Master’ used was,  and in the process getting the law, like Fancourt [LJ], entirely wrong. It was clear this person was simply being forced to drink from a poisoned chalice just to keep ‘its’  employment. Go Here.

15.On the 28th January 2012 the Appellant rightly wrote to Cobourn and his cronies pointing out to them that they were engaging in corrupt criminality albeit at the direct of MoR Vos and in the process that they were continuing to damage the former  excellent worldwide reputation an independent and fair English Judiciary. Go Here.

16. 31st January 2021. Appeal ~ Against Fancourt[LJ] 3rd July 2020 ~ Appeal Addenda (Amended 31st January 2021) original issued 18th January 2021. Go Here.

17.  11th February 2021. Mr. M. Chowdhury from Cobourn – All papers from May 2020 were to be subsequently rejected/returned by Cobourn using various ‘co-opted’ subordinates, and alleging use of ‘Jurisdictional Lawyer’ Mrs. Angus[who did not know-apology later], and unnamed “ Master”, a confidence trick to be used repeatedly by Cobourn/Choudhury leading them into trouble with actual Masters. Go Here.

18. 17th February 2021. After the third letter by disabled FSV~FMG to Master of the Rolls Vos[MoR], the ‘courtesy’ of a reply/threat from Mr. Andrew Caton, Assistant Private Secretary to the Deputy Head of  Civil Justice; Assistant  Private Secretary to Master of the Rolls [Vos]. Note the similarity of language used in Caton’s smarmy response…” unable to assist”;  Di Mambros’s later response… “unable to help you”. QED, collusion. Go Here.

19. 6th March 2021. First Letter to Cabinet Minister Coffey in the Johnson government. Go Here.

20. 19th March 2021. FSV~FMG reply to Master Meacher’s ‘invitation’. Go Here.

21. Ist April 2021. Fourth Letter to MoR Vos. Go Here.

22. 27th April 2021. Disabled FSV-FMG ‘Extraordinary Application’ to the UK Supreme Court. Go Here.

23. 11th May 2021. Mrs Louise di Mambro OBE; UK Supreme Court Registrar responds. Go Here

24. 15th May 2021 .  Sting Operation at the Supreme Court. Go Here.

25. Scot Anonymous. ECHR “What’s The Story”. Go Here.

26. 28th October 2021. UK Parliament Public Accounts[PAC]  Select Committee ~ Evidence[59 Page Report] presented by Invitation. No Response ~ intercepted repeatedly by MI5 Director Mr. K. McCallum and his operative ‘Shave’, ’employed’ at the time at PAC. Go Here.

N.B. In case you missed it… Number 16. 31st January 2021. Appeal ~ Against Fancourt[LJ] 3rd July 2020 ~ Appeal Addenda (Amended 31st January 2021) original issued 18th January 2021. Go Here.

The fact of this ‘Self-Approved’ Judgment is that Fancourt[LJ] simply, and self evidently, got the Law, and more importantly the historical Judicial Case Law entirely wrong from beginning to end in his ‘Self-Approved’  Judgment. 

It never rains but it pours…This Judicial Case Law clearly states that when a UK Justice has clearly got the Law wrong then an Appeal has to be reopened and re-xamined by a Panel of Justices…what then?

Next, the Master demonstrated why he is a Master by simply and brutally excoriating  Fancourt’s[LJ] Self-Approved Judgment in the Master’s Class of Opinion No:8, authored by pro bono Barrister Mr. John Merlin Copplestone–Bruce, Life Member ~ Inner Temple, which includes :

• Understanding the ‘Meanings of Words’;

• How to read UK Judicial Case Law and specifically, Statute Pension Law;

• How to Apply these Lessons by reading the UK 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129 and understanding the Statute Law, which states how the Law is … unlike how a criminal imagination might make it.

This detailed Appeal Against the Fancourt[LJ] Self-Approved Judgment repeatedly confirms why Fancourt [LJ] got the Law entirely wrong. An Appeal was, once more, promptly lodged a the Court of Appeal with the usual fees. Go Here.

Needless to say neither, Fancourt [LJ] nor his controlling Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos PC, with his associated/compelled, colluding, and corrupt Civil Servant Staff never apologised or owned up having been caught with their ‘hands in the ‘Golden Purse’ of corruption.

Indeed no further communication of any description whatever was subsequently received from Fancourt [LJ] or the CoA Registrar, in respect of this final Appeal submitted to the CoA.

It was clear that the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos PC, who following his political  instructions from Cabinet Minister Coffey MP, acted with unabashed venality and mendacity. Controlling the whole ‘NO’ operation at ‘arms length’ which included instructions directed to Registrar Cobourn to return all the papers and fees to the LiP and erase any other records, including digital, in order to repudiate his personal criminality of denying 11,000 UK disabled Firefighters and their 30,000 Beneficiary Appellants ‘due process’ and the Human Right to Justice.

The UK Judiciary currently in the person of the newly appointed Lady Chief Justice, Dame Sue Lascelles Carr, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill DBE PC [LCJ], the first Lady to hold this post, reflects the special responsibilities which the LCJ holds when assisting Litigants-in-Person[LiP] within the UK Judicial system.

In the main the Courts are expected, unprompted, to recognise an LiP’s legal limitations and are expected, within pragmatic lawful limits,  to assist all LiPs in their journey through her Courts to Justice.

In this respect the Northern Ireland Judiciary, Registries and Courts set an example par excellence. Humanity and decency were foremost, nothing was too much trouble.

In contrast over an 18 year period, based on direct experience, the English Courts excelled themselves in perversity when faced with polite but determined LiPs. It rapidly became clear that obmutescence was being brought to a new art form by its political mistress Cabinet Minister Dr.Therese Coffey PhD, MP, PC, and her firmly controlled English Judiciary, its Registrars, and its Courts of Appeal. An unfortunate case of outstanding classic and International case of corruption.

If one was to presume to advise a newly appointed first Lady Chief Justice this debacle highlighted the vulnerability to corruption of her inherited Judiciary and equally its extreme vulnerability to a well organised, disciplined, better educated, and unreservedly determined opponents.

Opponents who are not remotely rule bound, nor overawed by pseudo professional arrogance, but who were and are seeking fair play and Justice within a UK Judiciary of questionably arrogant ethics, veracity, and integrity when it comes to Justice. We all live in the 21st Century of Transparency perhaps the Lady’s Courts might consider adopting this ethic?

N.B. Should you Dear International Reader care to read the entire correspondence which provides all the bare faced corruption associated within the UK Court of Appeal set against this Judgment, it is found at :

  ‘General Correspondence/Year 2020/Northern Ireland Judicature/Papers Falk CBE[J], Papers Fancourt[LJ];
& Year 2021′ .

Go Here.

This document simply and briefly illustrates the wilful time deliberately wasted at the Court of Appeal whilst supporting a cynical Government policy of ‘Withering on the Vine of Life’. If they are not alive you do not have to pay them ~ wrong because you have to pay their estates. So much for the addled claim of a UK ‘independent’, ‘impartial’  judiciary. Go Here.

Nevertheless in spite of these astonishing acts, without any form of Judicial admission of guilt or apology, it was decided, after meticulous Law and historical Judicial Case File reviews to lodge a further lawful final Appeal Application, using Opinion No:8 as its progenitor, to initiate an EXTRAORDINARY APPEAL, sent directly and personally  to  the President of the UK Supreme Court Lord Reed of Allermuir, so that he might not later claim ignorance.

The forwarded bundle included 203 pages of Appeal and evidence of corruption sent to 3 separate addresses ~ 2xScotland, 1xEngland whose anticipated Denial confirmed the final exhaustion of common decency[never mind the Law] of the UK Appeal Courts and British Judicial protocols; all told a curious business as we shall see.

Lord Robert Reed of Allermuir PC is Lord President of the UK Supreme Court. In his required collegiate deliberations he is assisted by 11 other Justices, in total 12, of whom 2 are female.

Lord Reed’s Deputy is Lord Patrick Hodge like his President a fellow Scot. Standard practice and Rules demand that Legal issues raised before it always require a Quorum; in this case of 3 Justices; which is all rather antediluvian and whilst  quite suitable for a Magistrates Court dealing with pub brawls it is hardly supportable for a Supreme Court though clearly the hidden ploy is to control which it does by having its own edition of corruption?

Now that we are in the 21^st Century surely Judicial diversity in the Supreme Court Justices must extend  beyond one female Judicial  monitor and one other female Justice, which by the Bugler’s creaky maths is just the Satanic 16.666666%. Surely the Supreme Court is meant to reflect the Society it  purports to serve?

The UK Supreme Court is unusual in that it is an Appellant Court, in other word it deals directly with Appeals raised directly to it usually through the failure of the lower Courts and normally on Points-of-Law which actually do not arise in this case because the law in the 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129 stands on its own merits.

This case is not about a Point-of-Law but about a Local Authority’s failure[LCFA] to correctly implement the pension Statute Law as it stands which it refuses to do; allied with its complete failure to seek authoritative independent legal advice. This is simply because it pays it to do nothing because pension fraud pays.

This Appeal was raised to the UK Supreme because of the lower Courts persistent failure to actually initiate and implement the “due process of Law” and to provide acces to the Human Right to Justice which ought to have been self-evident to Lord Reed who disgracefully sits on an ad hoc Committee at the European Court of Human Rights whilst hypocritically dispensing his two Standards of the Human Right to Justice. One for these ‘foreign chappies’ and one denied to its English and Welsh Citizens?

Now to the Law in Summary but before that here is the actual Law.

In the first instance it is necessary to confirm the Law governing the conditional procedure required to lodge an EXTRAORDINARY APPEAL at Supreme Court. These conditions are contained in the Administration of Justice Act 1969 Part II. Go Here.

This  ultimate lawful Appeal , after the malignant manipulations at the Court of Appeal within the UK Jurisprudence was made by FSV~FMG on behalf of 11,000 UK disabled Firefighters and their 30,000 Beneficiaries to the UK Supreme Court their court of final Sanctuary.

These supplicants simply sought “due legal process” and the “Human Right to Justice”, Win or Lose.

It is a National disgrace for the Judiciary of England and Wales that a Scotsman no less, Lord Reed of Allermuir PC, was allowed to deny these Human Rights to Citizens of England and Wales. He was required, on an issue of National importance to, at the very least, to put the issue before a Quorum of Justices at least representing the nationalies of the Judicature of England and Waless which ought to have required a Quorum of twice the ‘abnorma’l size of 3. Yet in fact in his reply he does not indicate, whether or not,  he covened a single Quorum.

Furthermore it is an utterly shameless disgrace that this self same ‘Justice’ is permitted by the European Court of Human Rights to sit on an ‘ad hoc’ Committee implementing the European Convention whilst hypocritically denying these virtues in a practice of dual standards for his own UK Citizens. A Nation which was in 1953 a founding father of the European Convention.

As anticipated Supreme Court Registrar Mrs Louise Di Mambro OBE replied on Lord Reed’s behalf denying the Appeal. Go Here.

Lord Reed well knows that under Article 35 of the European Human Rights convention he is required to either state in writing that the UK Supreme Court holds Jurisdiction on the Law in question, or conversely, he is required by Article 35 of the Convention to state in writing that it does not.

In avoiding the issue, he nevertheless used the following words in their proper context in his dictated reply on the 11th May 2021 to the Appellant via Registrar Di Mambro[A Member of the Privy Council] who wrote …  “I have been asked to reply to the letter you sent to Lord Reed. I am sorry but from the information you have provided it seems that this Court will be unable to help you.”.

Based on the legal  ‘Meanings of words’ one can only conclude that by stating that he, Lord Reed President of the UK Supreme Court  is “unable to help” ; Lord Reed means [OED] ‘he is not able, lacking the ability, means, or power to do something’; in other words he does not hold the legal power or authoriry  to help the Appellant ; which means he does not hold Jurisdiction.

FSV-FMG acerbic response to the Supreme Court Registrar’s letter from Lord Reed rejecting his ‘Extraordinary Appeal’  Application. Go Here.

FSV-FMG response Letter was acknowledged by a second letter of acknowledgement from Registrar Di Mambro.

Accordingly, FSV Paul P. Burns GIFireE, et al, having legally exhausted the broken Rule of Law of the UK Judicature in their lawful pursuit of “due judicial process” and the “Human Right to Justice” now finally Appeal for Sanctuary and the Human Right to Justice at the European Court of Human Rights.