Legal services commission cover up over multi-million pound payments to wealthy convicted criminals. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/unacceptable-coverup-over-cost-of-legal-aid-for-wealthy-criminals-8359947.html Legal aid started out to help the poor who couldn't afford a solicitor. Now solicitors and courts divert the money to the wealthy, hold lengthy expensive court hearings and furnish their own pockets with the proceeds. If Judges were paid a salary of £20,000p.a. and solicitors could only charge litigant in person rates, you'd see a lot more justice in the system. Money and power always corrupt.

Answer me this. When the Respondent argues that the written exclusion clause is not definitive and other items (not listed) should be included. Do you agree? Gaston, you strike me as a timid soul. Someone who doesn't question authority.

Today I lost my appeal. In summing up the Judge started by outlining the respective positions of both parties. He stopped doing so when the truth would inconvenience the pre determined outcome. I realised the purchase protection insurance isn't a contract, it's an amendment to an existing contract. I said as much but the Judge persisted in calling it a contract. Once he accepted the agreement was with Royal Sun Alliance despite Natwest settling disputes in regards to claims I knew the Judge was ignoring case law in relation to conduct. The Judge however wouldn't approve cost until a cost Judge had looked at the costings. A small crumb of comfort. For anyone out there who later reads this and is in a similar situation. My advice is don't bother appealing a decision. In some ways it felt like a FOS decision. Meaning the law was never applied.

I take it you gained your court experience watching matlock. I hear if you watch it long enough you start to believe the courts are just and never wrong.

A good way of knowing when a decision is likely to go against you, is when you are a litigant in person facing a solicitor. The solicitor will always be allowed to present his claim or defence first. In the many of the cases where the solicitor is the defendant, he\she will be allowed to present your claim and their defence before you've even uttered a word. The judge will then ask hostile questions of your claim as the defendant has provided it, denying you the right to present your claim until you've answered their questions. The excuse for this behaviour is a solicitor is legally trained and therefore better equipped to speak to the court in a language it can understand. I never knew corruption had it's own language. Oh well, you live and learn.

The listing manager at the lambeth county court has informed me DJ Wakem no longer sits at the court. Unfortunately that's the extent of the good news. The e-mail goes on to say the court had received the N460 form I had sent on the 23rd July 2012 but was faxing a copy to the Judge today. It's a good thing the courts are protected by the royal charter otherwise it's incompetence would have seen it bankrupted thrice over.

I dealt with this same judge. 2 seperate claims, 2 seperate claims of bias from this judge http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326955-Does-the-Judge-violated-a-court-rule-and-can-I-dispute-the-jurisdiction-of-the-court-to-hear-my-claim

I'am in a similar predicament. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357628-Natwest-purchase-protection-insurance-claim-struck-out Please don't give up if a district judge strikes out your claim. You are in the right. As I have found district judges are no better than the FOS where banks and public institutions are concerned.

Here's another example http://www.standard.co.uk/news/this-secrecy-in-court-wont-give-us-true-justice-6532410.html

I shouldn't get into trouble for posting this link since it's from a 'reputable' newspaper and the facts are public knowledge. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254134/Tanned-relaxed-earning-big-bucks--judge-far-stressed-face-trial.html#comments http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1362611/Judge-and-solicitor-held-in-corruption-inquiry.html How about 2 miscreants? How about 3 with Judge Richard Green who was found guilty at Lewes Crown Court of swindling the elderly out of £85,000 while he was a solicitor.

Today the Lambeth county court refused to accept documents to a circuit judge and a listing manager. Why? I hear you ask. Because they are trying out a pilot scheme where only urgent matters are dealt with. I asked for the documents to be stamped so as to verify the court had witness them. I was refused again. I was told to post the documents in a letterbox by the judge's entrance. Considering the Lambeth court has lost 4 documents I had sent it, it doesn't bode well for the documents I posted. The court can lose documents without the claimant\defendant being able to prove it was ever sent. The difference between the courts in england and those in afganistan, pakistan, zimbabwe etc is that the lie of the rule of law is still believed here. You are optimistic because from on high the judiciary does seem like a noble bunch. It's only when you're in the trenches that you see what everything is made of.

The cleaning company can't prove anything. They're probably trying it on. Their claim will be struck out.

It lacks credibility to suggest a hearing shouldn't be filmed due to the sensitivity of another hearing. Legislation could be drafted to ensure only certain hearings were digitally recorded. To my mind it's a false dictum which allows the courts to do as they please without fear of repercussion. The decisions of the lower courts are not scrutinized. Who other than the interested parties will ever bear witness to the proceedings? The impression you give is that these judges try their best and sometimes get it wrong. Though I suspect you'll say that's the prices we pay for a free and fair judicial system? When nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think the Judge will allow minors in. No matter how well intentioned.

You haven't helped me out as much as caught me out, which given our previous correspondence is an achievement for you. Perhaps you should go lie down.

An indemnity is compensation and it refers to contracts between parties. Judging from the misuse of the word in your post, you are under the impression myself and the judge are in a contract. Even if you somehow meant myself and the bank, you would be wrong as I cannot indemnify the bank in relation to payments I made to it. The mistakes you make are of such a fundemental nature as to make a person question which high school you attend.

Shouldn't the court system be open to the public? What better way than recording the proceedings? That way everyone sees Justice or Injustice being done.

In my appeal I accused the original Judge of "extreme bias". I realise now the courts don't recognise bias amongst the Judiciary. I also have no way of proving imputed bias or actual bias without knowing more about the Judge's professional\personal interests. How does a person go about finding out such details? Although I may have some luck with apparent bias. This will never be attributed to the Judge directly, but through her actions. If indeed it's acknowledge by the appeal at all. In Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd v Lannon [1969] Lord Denning M.R. had this to say "In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other". Denning also goes on to say "Surmise or conjecture is not enough" to challenge the impartiality of the Judge, but circumstances must bring about the real likelihood of bias. Porter vs Magil [2002], Lord Hope (aptly named I might add) phrased the problem in the following manner; "the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was bias". Lord Hope's interpretation is more in keeping with natural justice and it's something I will rely on.

I never said it was. The quote is a posit (be sure to look up the word before posting again)

I'm literally stunned when I read your posts. You have a list of items and events the policy doesn't cover, yet you still assert I wasn't covered in the event of something or other. You can't even name the clause or event that's supposedly in the contract. I had thought I had presented my claim in such a way as to verify it's merits. Unfortunately it's not foolproof, as you are now proving.

Please read post 14 again. In it I was presenting a scenario the bank had to adopt in order to legitimise their defence. The whole argument would be raise if I needed to question the Judge's error in using evidence that requires further proof as to the claims the Defendant makes of it. The real meat of my argument is the contractual liability the bank assumed in it's terms and conditions but won't pay for.

Here is a link you should read http://www.gosford.nsw.gov.au/community/community_information/insurance/iPolicies.html Take note, a operative clause is a general statement of the insurer's obligation. It doesn't SHOW (lol) what an insurance policy covers. Even when you have the time to get it right, you fail miserably. You still fail to understand what it is I've written. I suspect comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. Let me state the facts again. Non performance of a contract or an agreement renders it unenforceable. In short there was no contract.

How can the truth be inappropriate?

What about the other links I provided. The story of the Coulters is very damning. What's worse is they aren't alone. There's another forum member who has suffered at the hands of the same District Judge. When i can be asked I will provide the link. I see the thread title has been changed. I wonder why that is?

Here's another story about the Judicial selection process. Even Judges think the way in which they were appointed was corrupt. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/legal-selection-system-is-corrupt-admit-judges-706668.html An all too familiar experience for some of us.