Reply to the High Court London regarding Outcome of Hearing - 432500161562 East Berkshire Magistrate Court on 21/07/2025

To: administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@justice.gov.uk

Cc: David.Drewe@kennedyslaw.com

Subject: URGENT & FINAL EVIDENCE: Proof of Judicial Misconduct & Unlawful Reversal of Final Order – Case AC-2025-LON-001909

Links:

• Log #489 (Sealed GRANT Order – 30 June 2025)
• Log #650 (Unlawful REFUSAL Order – 21 July 2025)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to submit the final and most critical piece of evidence in my Judicial Review under case reference AC-2025-LON-001909. The King (on the application of Malik) v Berkshire Magistrate Court and other

Please find attached two documents:

• Exhibit A: The sealed court order dated 30 June 2025, GRANTING my application.
• Exhibit B: A subsequent, procedurally unlawful and contradictory order issued by the same court on 21 July 2025, REFUSING the same application following an ex parte hearing.

I did say to the JUDGE (without a robe) that is on the record “your honor, it is your ORDER they (The GANG) are disobeying” she did nothing.

These documents demonstrate irrefutable judicial misconduct:

1. Fraudulent "Misapprehension" Claim

• The Court has acknowledged the original 30 June 2025 order as legally valid, yet now seeks to retroactively void it.
• This act violates the Principle of Finality — final orders may only be challenged via appeal.
• It also contravenes the Police (Property) Act 1897, which contains no lawful basis for post-hoc rescission once property rights are vested.

2. Procedural Treachery

• An ex parte hearing was convened despite my lawful non-consent (Log #620).
• The reversal relied upon false sworn evidence submitted by Thames Valley Police, amounting to perjury.

3. Misuse of Liverpool v Pleroma Precedent

• That case pertains solely to clerical errors — not substantive reversals of sealed judicial orders under “Police (Property) Act 1897”.
• Its application here constitutes legal distortion, not legal interpretation.

This was never about police officer’s disobeying (filed N600 Contempt of Court but ignored) an order at the time of a “testimony.” Berkshire jurisdiction cannot re-hear this case without my lawful participation. The gang was oniking about a typo but the judge (without a robe) gave them more then a bone, she should have been sent PC H Lacey and the GANG “downstairs” as the judge (without a robe) threatened to do to me…

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT

1. Double Standard Exposed:

• My Treatment: Denied of rights ("This is not an appeal")
• TVP's Treatment: Allowed retroactive challenge to **sealed order.**

2. Judicial Partiality:

• Same judge (without a robe)
• Violates Judicial Conduct Rules 2014:
  • Rule 1.1 (impartiality)
  • Rule 3.4 (procedural fairness)

3. Witness Corroboration:

• McKenzie Friend’s Statement of Truth = admissible evidence

Furthermore, it is imperative to note that the same judge presided over a subsequent hearing regarding the removal of all bail conditions, at which I was present with my McKenzie Friend. On that occasion, the judge (not wearing her robe) clearly stated: “This is not an appeal, you can't appeal this decision.” extremely aggrontly almost without looking up at me. she did make me waste a whole day that time and my friend who had to go to work.

My McKenzie Friend, who stood/sat beside me throughout, is prepared to submit a Statement of Truth verifying this exchange. Yet no such assertion was made to Thames Valley Police, (she did say to them “it’s out of my hands as it is now a Judicial Review) who were permitted to retroactively challenge a sealed judicial order based on purported “misapprehension.” This double standard in courtroom authority highlights a deeper issue: preferential treatment afforded to institutional parties, while denying procedural parity to Claimants.

The inconsistency is not simply a matter of discretion — it is evidence of partiality, procedural breach, and judicial misconduct.

The reversal is procedurally untenable, legally void, and systemically corrupt. I therefore request the Administrative Court act with urgency on my application for default judgment and associated relief.

Regards,
:Waseem: Malik.
From the : OFFICE of the MAN.