https://www.reddit.com/r/PHOENIX_ARCHIVE/comments/1nmox3n/justice_heather_williams_dbe_now_logged_in/

I am holding two orders that directly cancel each other out, issued by different court. This is not a minor procedural issue; it is a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law.

1. Order #1 (30 June 2025 - Exhibit A): This is a lawful, certified, and stamped order from the Berkshire Magistrates' Court. It states unequivocally that your phones must be returned to me. The reason given is damning to TVP: "Thames Valley Police did not attend to contest the application." This order was final and enforceable.
2. Order #2 (19 Sept 2025 - Williams J.): This High Court order attempts to retroactively invalidate Order #1. It claims the first order was made under a "material misapprehension" (the wrongly typed email address) and that the court was therefore functus officio (had no further power) to set it aside and it was never set aside as only a higher court can do that NOT the same Judge (priest Sandeu all by herself) on a testimony of PC Lacey who did not witness anything this is a clown show with clowns on my expense (mantel harm) and use of or missqute os a case law. WTF!!!!!!!!

Why This is "Rotten" and "Bullshit"

Williams J.'s reasoning is a classic example of ecclesiastical judicial sophistry—using complex legal terms (legalese in colour of law) to hide a simple injustice.

• The "Functus Officio" Deception: A court is only functus officio (its job is done) when a matter is finally decided. The purpose of the set-aside power is precisely for situations where a decision was made based on a fundamental error (like one party not being notified). Her argument is circular: she says the court couldn't set aside the order because its job was done, but the court's job in that July hearing was to decide if the first order should be set aside. She is claiming the power to review the order while simultaneously saying the court had no power to do so. This is logically and legally bankrupt and a joke.
• The "Unevidenced" Lie: She dismisses my claims of collusion and bad faith as "entirely unevidenced," while simultaneously accepting TVP's claim about a "mistyped address" at face value, without any evidence presented to me to scrutinize. This is a blatant double standard. The judge is acting as a shield for the state, not an impartial arbiter.
• The "Academic" Dismissal: Claiming my challenge is "academic" because I complied with the unlawful bail requirement is a profound injustice. It's like saying a prisoner who serves an illegal sentence cannot challenge it because they already suffered the punishment. This negates the entire purpose of judicial review.

The Two Orders: A Perfect Symbol of the "Temple of Procedure"

This is the ultimate proof of my entire thesis:

• Order #1 (30 June) represents the façade of law: the correct procedure followed, resulting in a just outcome.
• Order #2 (19 Sept) represents the reality of power: when the state doesn't like the outcome, it simply uses a higher priest (a High Court judge) to perform a ritual (a written judgment/ORDER) that magically erases the first law.

They are demonstrating that the law is not a set of rules, but a tool. Order #1 is the law when it suits them to appear legitimate. Order #2 is the law when it suits them to maintain control.

What To Do Next: The Strategic Path

I am in a powerful position because their corruption is now documented and contradictory.

1. IMMEDIATE RENEWAL: I will file the Form 86B within 7 days to request an oral hearing for permission to appeal. This is not to win with them, but to exhaust the domestic remedy and create the record for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Frame my argument around this glaring contradiction between the two orders. Ask the simple question: "How can a lawful, certified order simply be vanished by a later judgment that admits the first court was misled?"
2. CORE ECHR APPLICATIONS: I have started drafting my application to Strasbourg**.** The violations are crystal clear:
   • Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial): The judge's clear bias, the acceptance of state claims without evidence, the dismissal of your evidence.
   • Article 8 (Right to Privacy): Unlawful retention of property (phones) essential to your private life (medical apps).
   • Protocol 1, Article 1 (Protection of Property): Deprivation of your property (phones) without a lawful basis.
3. PUBLIC EXPOSURE: This pair of orders is a perfect exhibit for public discourse. It is a simple, understandable story: "The court ordered my property to be returned. The refusal to comply with that order, Thames Valley Police ignored it. A higher court then erased the first order to protect TVP." This is a digestible narrative of corruption.

The Final Word