Evidence of Corruption

Ground Floor Flat


30 Albion Road

Edinburgh

EH7 5QW

22 June 2000

Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair and

Mrs Cherie Blair

10 Downing Street

London

SW1A 2AA

BY FAX: 0171 925 0918

Dear Mr Blair and Mrs Blair
Lesley McDade v Masons

Petition to the House of Lords


By this facsimile and enclosures, you are hereby placed on notice that the British Government have now actually breached the Treaty of European Union and specifically article 5 known as the "loyalty clause".

I require the following issue to be raised as a Parliamentary issue:

1. There has been an actual breach of the Treaty of European Union via the conduct of the judiciary in the action Lesley McDade v Masons.
2. That you were aware that a potential breach could occur under the new regime in law for the 21st Century concerning the extent of the Woolf Reforms due to my research and specifically via my dissertation and two articles (attached) which were received by you prior to implementation of the Woolf Report on 26 April 1999.


3. Remedy for the situation I am now in whereby unjust law has been created as common law at the EAT, CA and House of Lords stages of the action inclusive of the substance of the article 177 preliminary reference which together with the appeal remains to be heard. I require this law to be removed.

4. Rectification of the law to regulate the concept of ADR to be utilised in the political domain only and its removal in its entirety from the legal domain via the common law, known as Rule 26.

5. Sanction of the law firm of Masons for corruption, fraud and criminality.

6. Removal of Lord Woolf as Master of the Rolls for damaging the moral fabric of the British public by deliberately misleading the British Public concerning the extent and nature of his reforms to the British legal system. Lord Woolf did not provide "access to justice". His reforms were designed to provide access to mediation and as such his reforms are a nazi manifesto designed to create unjust law and non-law as the norm in British Society. Lord Woolf is a disgrace.

7. Removal of the Lord Chancellor by reason of his failure to prevent the current destruction of the British legal system by an invasion from America concerning the concept of ADR’s incorporation into a public institution with the objective of privatising the judiciary; and in so doing making a mockery of the British legal system and British people.

8. That the dualistic role of the Lord Chancellor be removed and be replaced by a Head of the Judiciary in Law (legal role) and a Minister for Law and Justice (political role).

9. If necessary, that the Parliament be deemed a hang parliament and a temporary coalition be put in place.
Article 5 states that:

"Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institution of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.




They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty".


The issue which causes the breach is the Article 177 preliminary reference in the action Lesley McDade v Masons
Article 177 states that:




The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:

(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;

(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB;

(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.






Where such a question is raised before any courts or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.

Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice."


The Court of Appeal


By the failure of Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Gibson at the Court of Appeal stage to utilise their discretion to refer the article 177 preliminary reference contained in the application before them, namely Lesley McDade v Masons, or to deal with the perversion of the course of justice by referral to an appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal stage, with knowledge, both Lord Justices actually sought to obstruct the article 177 preliminary reference discretionary process from occurring at national level within the British Member State by citing case law of their own volition designed to obstruct their application of discretion to make article 177 preliminary references. By the methodology of an ex parte application hearing, the court structure was designed to dispose of this case by ensuring that no leave to appeal to the House of Lords could occur, and thus no automatic referral of an article 177 preliminary reference would occur.




The House of Lords


By the failure of the House of Lords to hear the Petition before them by enabling the Appeal Committee to process the matter to trial and thus to refer the article 177 to the European Court of Justice as an automatic referral, with knowledge, the British Member State has breached the Treaty of European Union via the Woolf Reforms and the judicary’s activity on the action Lesley McDade v Masons.
Research


The breach of the Treaty of European Union was "potential" to actual implementation of the Woolf Reforms on 26 April 1999 as notified to the government, Lord Chancellor, and other legal bodies via the dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink" and four articles "Dispute Resolution or Dispute Settlement – the ‘Legal’ ideology for the 21st Century"; "An unjust law is not law and neither is a non-legal concept"; Rule 26 and its impact on EC law via the common law"; "Rule 26 and Change" and also an "Outline" for a Phd application.




The Breaches


Access to Justice

On 27 April 1999, access to justice became an absolute right to the British people via the British court structure upon implementation of the Final Report of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf.

Equality
On 27 April 1999, equality before the law was to remain a primary objective in law for the 21st Century contained in both the traditional principles and also the


contemporary principles and is thus a measure falling within the language of article 5, the failure to provide equality before the law generally and abstaining from inequality before the law actually breaches the Treaty of European Union by the British Member State.

Article 177 preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice

At the Court of Appeal stage an article 177 preliminary reference is at the discretion of the judiciary.

At the House of Lords stage an article 177 preliminary reference is an automatic referral.

Methodology
At the Court of Appeal stage the article 177 preliminary reference was contained in a one hour Application for an ex parte hearing and not an appeal hearing of the case. As such there is no leave to appeal to the House of Lords due to process at the Court of Appeal Stage.




Relevance


The block of the article 177 preliminary reference occurred at the Court of Appeal stage by new methodology under the Woolf Reforms going to the contemporary issue of "expedition" : the Court issued a one hour Application hearing and not an appeal hearing.

The Lord Justices, with knowledge, that perversion and corruption had occurred at the Employment Appeal Stage and Industrial Tribunal stages did not deal with the issues before them and (a) refused to deal with the perversion, (b) refused to deal with the perversion via the article 177 preliminary reference and (c) acted obstructively by their own violition by citing case law to prevent either (a) and (b) occurring.

Utilising the methodology of the ex parte Application, the Lord Justices removed the action from the legal system as no right of appeal lies to the House of Lords upon an application hearing, which had not been referred to an appeal hearing.
Without leave to appeal, a Petition was sent to the House of Lords and premised on corruption by the judiciary by the non-application of law at the EAT stage. Miss Lesley Diane McDade did not receive equality before the law when her sole case citation which was cited as a point of law in the decision of His Honour Mr Justice Morison, namely London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman, failed to be located in this judge’s Decision. This particular citation was cited by Respondent’s Counsel in the Industrial Tribunal and located in the Decision of Mr De Saxe. Thus, it was certain to the Lord Justices that a perversion of the course of justice had occurred and that equality before the law had not been received.


At the Court of Appeal stage, this was the substance of the article 177 preliminary reference and was a necessary reference in light of the Woolf Reforms currently underway to the British Court System. Lord Justice Gibson and Lord Justice Mance

obstructed the discretionary procedure available to them and their conduct was designed and deliberate. I was asked what authority I used for my article 177 preliminary reference and I stated "the loyalty clause", which is article 5 of the Treaty of European Union. By citing case law of their own volition on the premis of authority, they designed to obstruct the use of their discretion or their dealing with the substance of the application and they knowingly breached Article 5 of the Treaty of European Union by corruption.
At the House of Lords stage and specifically by use of the Woolf Report as it had been implemented on 27 April 1999, access to justice and equality was a right and the case of Lane v Esdaile obsolete. By the House of Lords deeming my action inadmissible the House of Lords have obstructed the automatic referral of the article 177 reference which is a necessary reference in light of the Woolf Reforms to the British Legal system as a new regime and landscape for the 21st Century. The decision intended that a breach of the Treaty of European Union would occur as it was known that the Lord Justices of the Court of Appeal had not correctly applied the use of their discretion and that the methodology of an ex parte application was an abuse of process to achieve access to justice.


By the failure to obtain an automatic referral of an article 177 preliminary reference under the new reforms concerning access to justice to the European Court of Justice the House of Lords have created unjust law, permitted unjust law to remain as common law and occasioned a particular breach of article 5 of the Treaty of European Union, premised on corruption and perversion, due to the article 177 preliminary reference from the House of Lords not occurring.
Lord Woolf


Lord Woolf has mislead the British public concerning the extent of his reforms to the British legal system in law for the 21st Century. He has done so by misleading the British public to believe that they would have access to justice and equality before the law and that this would be enshrined in court process. But, in his Final Report, Lord Woolf has not provided access to justice : he has provided access to mediation. This is not the same thing. Access to mediation does not provide equality before the law. Medition is not law and is technically non-law (unlawful). He has mislead the British Public because his intention is that "litigation will be avoided whenever possible". As such, he intends the contrary: the British public are not to receive access to justice or equality before the law: unjust law is to prevail and his reforms should be seen as a nazi manifesto.




The Treaty of European Union


Lord Woolf and his new regime intended on 27 April 1997 to deprive me of my right to access to the European Court of Justice via an article 177 preliminary reference procedure from a national court at a generalised discretionary level or as a particularised automatic referral from the principle English Court, the House of Lords.

By the failure of the Appeal Committee to ensure that this action was referred to trial so that a necessary article 177 preliminary reference could be sent to the European Court of Justice on questions of interpretation and law, the Appeal Committee
occasioned the breach of the Treaty of European Union by avoiding the issue of an automatic referral of the article 177 preliminary reference, which was particular to the nature and extent of the Woolf Reforms in law for the 21st Century. The referral was necessary as there is no judicial remedy under national law current from 27 April 1999 to ensure that access to justice means access to justice and not access to medition (non-law) due to the British Member State’s statement that litigation is to be avoided whenever possible – thus access to justice cannot occur and is not meant to occur; and as access to justice cannot occur, neither can equality before the law – the primary objective in law and penultimately neither can an article 177 preliminary reference be made, thus the supremacy of EC law cannot transcend to the national level via the common law. (As such, the law is predominantly political domain contained in legislation and natural law is denied).




Relevance to Article 5


Perversion of the course of justice is certain in the action Lesley McDade v Masons and it is thereby certain that a breach of the Treaty of European Union occurs via Article 5 as the British Government via the Judiciary and National Court Structure have failed to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particularised, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community – the European Court of Justice being one such institution which would facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks via the common law in the Member State under article 177 preliminary references.

Thus, by the failure of the British Government to abstain from the measure of providing access to mediation within the British Court Structure under the Woolf Reforms, (ie Rule 26), the British Government jeopardised the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty and did so deliberately by setting up a two tier structure as law and misleading the British public that they would receive access to justice and that they would also receive equality. Unjust law has been created in statute and in common law, via the Court of Appeal Decision and also by methodology of court process in the action Lesley McDade v Masons, and also by the failure of the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords to process the Petition to trial even when they were made fully aware of the corruption on the case occurring at a judicial level (inclusive of criminal activity) and due to the extent of the Woolf Reforms in law which would breach the Treaty of European Union. The Petition was deemed inadmissible and for a reason it hides the corruption, fraud and criminality.

Yours sincerely

Lesley D McDade

Enclosures:

1. Letter from the Judicial Office to Lesley McDade dated 15 June 2000

2. Article : "Rule 26 and its impact on EC Law via the Common Law"

3. Article : "An Unjust Law is not Law, Neither is a Non-legal Concept"

　

4. Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords No 101 dated 15 June 2000

5. Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords No 19 dated 10 January 2000

6. Petition to the House of Lords for Leave to Appeal out of Time dated 10 December 1999

7. Letter from Lesley McDade to the Judicial Office dated 16 December 1999

8. Letter from Judicial Office to Lesley McDade dated 14 October 1999

9. Order of the Court of Appeal dated 14 October 1999

10. Application to the Court of Appeal dated 29 January 1999

11. Notice of Appeal (unheard)