To Mr Sashy Nathan, solicitor & Mr Amos Waldman, barrister.
Gentlemen,
I have today, Monday, received by post the Attorney General's bundle of 141 pages, 15 dividers & one CD.
He & his gang may have nothing better to do than produce all this garbage (& receive vast amounts of taxpayers' money for doing so) BUT, having seen some of it before, & noticed the many lies, I am CERTAINLY not going to waste my time reading it again!
To recap & sum up:
This is my Final 'FINAL STATEMENT'.
Accused of 'Contempt of Court', how on earth can I 'defend' myself, when I have made it abundantly clear that I have the utmost contempt for those who currently run our courts.
What I seek to show is that my contempt (& that of a growing number of people) is justified.
The Attorney General seems to think that my contempt will be lessened by his savagery in trying to put me (completely sane) in a Stalinist 'Mental Hospital' for what few years are left to me to live. Could anything be more sadistic? (I send again as an attachment the Andy McCardle document.)
I am rather disappointed to learn that Mr Waldman 'handed up' my Statement at the previous hearing, when I had specifically asked that it be read out, & I again ask that he reads out my Statement of Facts, with addendums etc.
This is important, bearing in mind that one of my arguments is that the Official Transcripts cannot be trusted. I am being more than fair in giving an opportunity for the courts to show that, on this occasion at least, they CAN be accurate.
I ask you please to hammer away at the totally irrelevant lies in the Skeleton Argument & Affidavits (put in purely to blacken my character), & the malice of the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, he being the man who had me thrown out of an Election Selection Committee Meeting in 2008, before he come to power.
As regards this hearing, I am in the fortunate position that I cannot lose. If the case goes against me, it will be more proof of the truth of my words. If (as I belief he will) the Lord Chief Justice rules against the Attorney General, then that will indeed lessen my contempt for his profession.
In which case I ask you to remind him of my request that he should use 'The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court' to order an investigation into the 17 years of persecution, this action by the AG being only the latest. Also that he use that same 'Inherent Jurisdiction' to reduce the obstruction to my own attempts to use the law to seek a remedy for serious wrongs committed against me.
An example(a comparatively minor one) has just arrived by post today, Monday. On 17th September 2012 I made a 'Small Claim' against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Twice, the documents were returned to me for some fictitious fault. Sent in again with the 'fault' rectified, I heard not a word until today, when the letter arrived. With it was a Notice of Issue, saying that the Claim had been sent to the Defendant on 15th January 2013.
SO, IT HAS TAKEN FOUR MONTHS TO HAVE A VERY SIMPLE 'SMALL CLAIM' ISSUED!.
Was this just incompetence, inefficiency or laziness? Or deliberate delay against the hated Litigant In Person? I am tempted to think the latter.
I ask you to hammer away at all that which is above at the hearing.
You know you can do it!!
Norman Scarth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
[email protected]To:
[email protected]CC:
[email protected]Subject: A quick reply.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:15:17 +0000
This is a very quick reply to your message. You will by now have got what will probably be the final version of Addendum2.
To answer your question,
"If you do still want us to attend, please confirm that your instructions include the fact that although you do not want us to posit a case on your behalf, you require us to defend your position when required to do so at court at the hearing."
My answer to that, is yes, I DO want you to attend & to defend my position when required to do so. I particularly ask you to ensure the 'witnesses' answer my written questions, in writing, but also that those I accuse of monstrous lies shall be called in person, & give their 'evidence' from the witness box. I also ask you to denounce the lies in the affidavits, even the comparatively minor one about me being awarded ?25,000 damages by the ECt-HR - when that court specifically said I should receive NO damages whatsoever.
As said, with such a most blatant 'error of fact' how can anyone believe a word that is in the Skelton Argument or the affidavits?
As you know well (!!!) I am very plain spoken: With respect, I must say now I have been a little concerned at your emphasis on your 'Duty to the Court'. I would hope your primary duty, apart from your duty to me, would be your duty to TRUE JUSTICE, rather than to 'the court'.
In spite of all, I send my best wishes, & hope we might all come out of this covered in glory! Something which will enable Amos to put on his CV something a lot bigger than his reference to 'winning my appeal against sentence'!
Norman Scarth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
[email protected]To:
[email protected]CC:
[email protected]Subject: RE: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:15:20 +0000
Dear Norman,
I'm grateful for your comments on the affidavit evidence.
In advance of the Contempt of Court hearing on Wednesday 23 January 2013, Amos and I wanted to get some further instructions from you on how we can best represent you.
We have seen the material you have served on the Court and the Attorney General's office and noted that your instructions for us are now to do, "NO MORE NOR LESS than to read out this Witness Statement."
At the first hearing on 4 October 2012 , you may remember that we handed up your email response to the Court, as you instructed. We can undertake to do that again with your statement on this occasion, but you should know that there are other aspects to your case that will require representations to be made on your behalf in the course of a hearing.
Amos, as your barrister, can not be expected to only speak to the content of your statement. He and I have an obligation to the court to answer questions about your case and respond to any points of law raised by the Attorney General. We can, of course agree, not to make any further factual admissions about your conduct. We can also undertake not to put forward any legal arguments on your behalf that you have not set out in your statement but we can not be prevented from responding to enquiries during the hearing.
If you do still want us to attend, please confirm that your instructions include the fact that although you do not want us to posit a case on your behalf, you require us to defend your position when required to do so at court at the hearing.
We await your reply.
Yours,
Sashy Nathan
Solicitor, Criminal Law Team.
From: Norman Scarth [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: 19 January 2013 00:36
To: Sashy Nathan;
[email protected] Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
To Messrs S. Nathan, solicitor & A.Waldman, barrister.
I believe you already have my Statement of Truth', as sent to the Queen's Bench Office at the RCJ. This message & attachments are more which have been sent to them. Though I did not send the 'Portrait' to them (feeling that a few of the words on it were a bit strong!), I do attach it now.
I send them all to you now you to ensure you are up to date.
I hope you will do as requested in paragraph 9 of my 'Statement of Truth', to do"NO MORE NOR LESS than to read out this Witness Statement."
However, in addition I would be happy for you to mention the blatant lie in some of the affidavits - which I believe makes it perjury? It was repeated in the Skeleton Argument, paragraph 13:
13. "On 21 May 1998 the Commission declared the application partly admissible and, in a report of 21 October 1998, expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government did not seek to contest the opinion of the Commission , and the Defendant was awarded damages of ?21,590.17 [Tab E, KCPM1, p1].
The truth is that though the ECt-HR did order that I be paid a few hundred ?s to cover what I had actually paid out in lawyers fees etc, the Court SPECIFICALLY SAID words to the effect that, "We do not order the payment of damages, as the finding of a violation is sufficient satisfaction for the violation". (Those may not be the exact words in the Decision, but they are accurate in essence, & can easily be checked from the ECt-HR website, something which I do not have time to do).
If the affidavits & the skeleton argument can contain such a gross error (apart from other lies, less easy to prove), how can anyone believe a word in any of them?
One other point which can be checked: I believe it was the COURT, and NOT the COMMISSION (now extinct) which made that decision about the (non) payment of damages.
Norman Scarth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
[email protected] To:
[email protected]v.uk
CC:
[email protected] Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012. More pages for LCJ
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:36:04 +0000
Dear Mr/Ms O'Neill,
Attached are 3 more pages 'Index', 'Boateng letter' & 'Scharnhorst', to be added to those already sent. I will also send three copies of 'Portrait of a Hero' by post, as it does not scan well.
Norman Scarth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton * NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED *
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:11:35 +0000
From:
[email protected]v.uk
To:
[email protected] Dear Sir,
I confirm that your documents have been added to your papers for hearing by the relevant Judges on 23/1/13.
Yours sincerely,
C O'Neill
ACO Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone: 020 7947 6655 | Fax: 020 7947 7845
If replying by email, please use the following address:
[email protected]k
From: Norman Scarth [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: 16 January 2013 16:25
To: Administrative Court Office London, Skeleton Arguments; Administrative Court Office, List Office;
[email protected] Cc:
[email protected];
[email protected] Subject: HM AG v Scarth, case CO/3898/2012, Skeleton
To the Administrative Court Office List Office, Skeleton Argument Office & James Spybey of the Treasury Solicitor's Office.
Unable to get even acknowledgement of receipt from my own lawyers, or the Clerk to the Rt Hon. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice,
I ask the recipients of this message (as in the first line, above) to ensure that the message & attached documents are delivered to the Lord Chief Justice before the hearing on 23rd January (at which he is to preside), & to confirm to me (by email) that this has been done.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Norman Scarth.
