Just found this John. Sir Brian Leveson is President of the Queen's Bench
Division.
- personal injury
- negligence
- breach of contract,
- libel and slander (defamation)
- non-payment of a debt, and
- possession of land or property.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/queens-bench
Queen's Bench Division daily cause list
Cause list Thursday, 10 December 2015
Updated: 9 December 2015 17.10 (refresh your browser for the latest version)The
following list is subject to change until 4.30pm. Any alterations after this
time will be telephoned or emailed direct to the parties or their legal
representatives.INTERIM APPLICATIONS COURTCOURT 37Before MRS JUSTICE
COXThursday, 10th December 2015At 10 o’clockUNROBEDAPPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-queens-bench
From: john TIMBRELL <johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 December 2015, 18:11
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra
<!--#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817hmmessage
P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv9207489817
body.yiv9207489817hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}-->Hello All,
Re Ray's circulation and Mike's involvement. As I have previously circulated
there are four divisions of the Queen's bench, But, and a really big but, you
unlawfully denied access to the fourth. The Queens bench common law court of
record. This is because I, as a simple man could force Cameron before a jury
because he has harmed me at common law by giving away my sovereignty (my
control) to a foreign state. The fault lies not with Cameron. You would expect
nothing more from such an evil man. The fault lies with you. You the man or
woman that does not take the time and trouble to understand and object to this
unlawful control. Your laziness is condemning your descendants to slavery.
Sorry for the brutal truth , but it matters to me. Go on: ask questions of me
to prove me wrong. I welcome it. So far all I have received is abuse which
convinces me I am right. No big deal to me but to you, you are giving away
your children into slavery,
john T.
From: rayspost@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [patriots] Re: Mantra
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:36:53 +0000
<!--#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass p.yiv9207489817ecxMsoNormal,
#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass li.yiv9207489817ecxMsoNormal,
#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass div.yiv9207489817ecxMsoNormal
{font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",
"serif";color:black;}#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass a:link,
#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxMsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxEmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxEmailStyle18
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxEmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass span.yiv9207489817ecxEmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv9207489817
.yiv9207489817ExternalClass .yiv9207489817ecxMsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv9207489817 .yiv9207489817ExternalClass
div.yiv9207489817ecxSection1 {}--> meant to FW you this earlier. A lot there
but lookspromising? From:Rays1 [mailto:rayspost@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 December 2015 23:39
To: 'Mike Green'
Subject: RE: [patriots] Re: Mantra I'm sure your right about it Mike, but the
only one I recallquoting was Bg's peculiar tauntingemail to John in which he
was being mostly sarcastic and he did say the courts are corrupt butthe
sarcastic wording was hard to understand. If you have a copyof another where
he's notbeing sarcastic about court action, I'd like to see a copyand try to
see what his reasons are - Presumably, he's not tried it himself then? Anyway,
there is a QBD website
here,https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/queen-s-bench-divisionwhich
seems to show it but when you try the contact button,it sends you
here,https://www.gov.uk/contact which as you'll see,then makes no mention of
the QBD!The court is often mentioned so it must be accessible
someway?https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-the-president-of-the-queens-bench-divisionhttps://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-calvert-smith
Searching further got me tothis which seems to be a list of application forms
for various matters tobe put before the Queens Bench and high court. I think a
lot of readingis called for as I said earlier; section 4.1.5 of that earlier
Pdf guide to the QBD saysthis ...... 4. STARTINGPROCEEDINGS IN THE CENTRAL
OFFICE 4.1.5To start proceedings in the Action Department, a claimant must
use form N1 (orform N208 for a Part 8 claim) (or a form suitably modified as
permittedby Part 4), and should take or send the claim form to Room E07,
Masters’Support Unit, Queen’s Bench Action Department, Royal Courts
ofJustice,Strand, London WC2A 2LL. If the court is to serve the claim form, the
claimantmust provide sufficient copies for each defendant. The claimantwill be
required to provide a court copy, a claimant’s copy and one copy foreach named
defendant. Copies of forms relevant to the work of the ActionDepartment
(including the claim form and response pack) are availablefrom that office.
Alternatively, claimants may produce their ownforms, whichmay be modified as
the........ So, it would seem that it's not impossible to take out a QBDbut
some legal expertise would be wise before making any case. Form N1 attached. Do
we haveany takers? Someone could always write tothe address given on the QBD
website and ask them? Cheers Ray From:Mike Green
[mailto:mikegreen247@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 December 2015 20:30
To: Rays1; Patriots list
Subject: Re: [patriots] Re: Mantra HiRay,
You quoted BG yourself (see below) where he chided John for suggesting that
wetake police to court as according to BG, with which I agree, the courts
arecorrupt. That is all I was referring to.
As for the guide you attached, this only covers administrative courts. That
isnot the type of court in which I was proposing we take a joint claim
againstBHH. I was referring to a common law courts of record. This is part of
QueensBench Division but the guide deliberately ignores the existence of such
courts,access to which is free of charge. It appears that access to these
courts hasindeed been blocked. John knows a lot more about this than I do.
The only way we could attempt to get police into court now would be to bring
aprivate prosecution. As I said, however, these are allowed very rarely. Even
ifwe did get a high ranking police officer into court, if we lost the case
itwould be up to a judge (or judges) to decide whether or not we could appeal
thedecision at a higher court. It is not as simple as John makes out.
Mike.On 06/12/15 20:16, Rays1 wrote:
Hello Mike, Well, I didn't see anything from Bg about considering thecourt
route - only his refusal to deal with it whenJT was referring to it so I can't
comment on more than thatabout what he said (a lot of my emails seem to be
going back to my servers trash box for some reason?)but, it appears to be that
he disagrees withthat route - has he researched anything about it to lead himto
that belief?, if so, it would be helpful ifhe could re-post it. Has he tried
to do it himself andfailed? I think we need to find a list that we could store
such research for all to see, don't you?.That can't be done on this list so, we
need to find some wayof doing this. I suggested an online list like Yahoo but
there was zero interest from the list and there isa real inertia here - and in
most other places - when beginning to actually do something.So I'd suggest we
need to find a semi-permanent file hostingservice specifically for that and
which allcan visit at will...anyone any suggestions ? I believeI may have a
large cloud account that might be goodfor this but I'd have to check again.
Yes, it would probablybe spied on but all that would be there would be our
perfectly legal research. It's true that the courts are corrupt - I've had
experienceof that myself! I agree with John-T though thatif the higher ones are
approached properly and with allproper court procedures, they still have some
legalhonour. If they don't then we'll at least know that the gameis lost
already - and have proof You said this avenue appears to be blocked but
itdoes'nt appear to be so according to the attached pdf?It looks as though a
claim can be started there, without alawyer initially, but there is a lot of
reading to bedone concerning the correct forms and procedures which I'mtoo
tired to start to study but any buddinglawyers out there might be able to help?
Would a barrister benecessary? Preferable but is one required?I think some like
Ian R Crane could have the 'talk' for thatif fully prepped?I agree with you
that it's most definitely worth researchingso, how to start? . Possibly by
just downloading forms to study as a start?. Page 23 and 24 of thepdf gives
info about procedures and fees for taking a claim. It seems to be only £200 or
so; free ifdisabled etc so maybe a disabled person might be the best to
'front' it as they are not likely to be chasedfor fees if the case loses.
Certainly worth lookinginto further. As to them incarcerating or killing us, I
suppose it couldhappen but, if the claim is made by an established group,
sharing all information to ALL members then I thinkit's not very likely that
they'd carry out a massacre,No, I think at that point even a spook would baulk
andrefuse....jailing us all under some legislative pretextis more likely
('extremist' views or the like maybe?) but itwould be a difficult case for them
to win............or maybe not! Regards Ray From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of Mike Green
Sent: 06 December 2015 16:20
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra HiRay,
I agree with Brian on this one, in that I am of the view that it would not
bepossible to bring a successful case against them using their own
corruptsystem. I am not clear on what method John proposes to use to access
thecourts. When I suggested taking a joint case against BHH for refusing
toinvestigate crimes that had been recorded as such by UK police forces, I
wasproposing that we use the courts of Queens Bench Division. These courts
weredesigned to allow us to bring claims against individuals or organisations
thathad done or were doing us harm. However access to these courts now appears
tohave been blocked. It may still be possible to bring a private
prosecutionagainst the police (Michael Doherty has had some success in this
regard), butsuch private prosecutions are allowed only very rarely. It might be
worthexploring, however I am of the view that they will incarcerate or kill
usbefore they will ever allow us to get the likes of BHH into a court, and I
toldJohn that many months ago.
Mike.On 06/12/15 15:58, Rays1 wrote:
Hello Judith, Yes, 'Our man Flint' did indeed, drop a bit of aclanger with
those, shall we say, "Unwise"remarks he made. What struck me particularly was
his scathingsarcasm toward John-T, (Mon 30/11/2015 10:24)"My goodness
I have read it all now. The courts are corrupt and do not make fair judgements
so lets crowd fund and use the courts.
Astonishing logic"
Bg
Of course, John said no such thing; he did in fact propose anadmittedly
'roundabout' wayof a possibly very positive action that may turn out tobe a
successful route to try in the upper courts -if the money could be raised or
legal aid obtained orwhatever..I agree now though that this does raise a
serious questionconcerning Bg. Why would he distortJohn-T's words so much
whilst determinedly avoiding theproposal at hand? I'm not convinced he's been
"exposed" as some sortof establishment plant and provocateur or"controlled
opposition" and will just wait and seefor now. Regards Ray From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of Judith Longman
Sent: 06 December 2015 14:35
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra Jack & Mike
You are right. I have always made excuses for Brian in the past so thanks
forexposing him and opening my eyes.
JudithOn 06/12/15 13:43, Jack Lewis wrote:
When you look through all the emails Brian sendsin reply to us he sounds like a
programmed automaton spouting out the same'mantra' time after time without any
real reference the emails he is replyingto. Its impossible to try and get him
to respond directly to the comments madeagainst him. Its simply frustrating and
pointless in trying to dialogue withhim.
Jack
--
Unless you are a subscriber to the UKPatriots list, all emails sent
through'Reply All' to UKPatriots will be bounced.
--
Judith Longman
| | This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com |
