To: TV-BerkshireMCEnq@justice.gov.uk Cc: waseemsl46jt@gmail.com, legal.enquiries@thamesvalley.police.uk, David.Drewe@kennedyslaw.com, jack.rankin.mp@parliament.uk, casework@housing-ombudsman.org.uk, NSUKilo@justice.gov.uk, data.access@justice.gov.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 24 July 2025, notifying me of the outcome of the hearing on 21 July 2025, and specifically the decision to rescind the order for the return of my mobile phones, which was duly made on 30 June 2025 (as per Case No: 432500137947). I must express my profound disagreement with the basis of this rescission and the procedural conduct that has led to this unwarranted reversal.
Your assertion that the original order was made under a "misapprehension that your application under the Police Property Act 1897 ('PPA') had been properly served on TVP" is noted. However, it is imperative to highlight that Thames Valley Police, as the respondent party, failed to attend the hearing on 30 June 2025 (Log #484). This non-attendance, coupled with the subsequent claim of improper service, constitutes a deliberate evasion of their duty to engage with court proceedings and to justify the prolonged retention of my property. Such conduct, under the colour of law, represents a clear abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent a lawful judicial order.
The actions of the Court in rescinding a valid order, and the prior conduct of Thames Valley Police in failing to attend and now claiming improper service, are not merely procedural irregularities. They represent a pattern of behaviour that operates under the colour of law – that is, under the outward appearance of legal authority – but which, in substance, undermines the fundamental principles of justice and due process. Furthermore, the presiding Judge's comments on 30 June 2025, stating "SHE KNOWS ME" – a declaration that, if referring to me as the living Man and not merely a legal fiction, immediately confirms her bias and compromises her impartiality.
This purported "knowledge" originates from a previous hearing at Reading Magistrates' Court where she asserted "this is not an appeal court" during my attempt to remove unlawful bail conditions. Yet, on 21 July 2025, she informed TVP Legal that "there is nothing she can do as the matter is at a higher court for a JR," notably without stating to the TVP representatives that "this is not an appeal court" as she did to me in Reading. Crucially, when I, as a Man, stood and then left the court, refusing to be a party to their fraud and without having given up my rights, she proceeded to hear the case in my absence, further demonstrating a clear and prejudicial inconsistency in the application of alleged court rules and jurisdiction.
Her subsequent threat to send me "DOWNSTAIRS" for not rising, despite her being without a robe and having at no point shown or stated her oath of office to me, thereby acting as an administrator and an imposter pretending to be a judge under colour of law, and in a public setting where she had no jurisdiction over me as a private individual who had not provided a NAME, ADDRESS, and DOB, nor "crossed the bar" to accept the court's jurisdiction (Log #484), collectively demonstrate an alarming display of judicial bias and coercion, further eroding confidence in the impartiality of the proceedings.
The subsequent "Orders" document from Berkshire Magistrates' Court (Case No: 432500161562, dated 21 July 2025) explicitly stating "Application refused" and rescinding the June 30th order is a legal and procedural nullity (Logs #645, #650). A lower court cannot lawfully issue a second, contradictory final order to overturn its own previous final order; the only lawful remedy was an formal appeal by the defendant to a higher court, which they failed to make. The assertion that the Judge "considered the matter afresh and heard sworn evidence from the officer in the case" is an egregious overreach of the Magistrates' Court's jurisdiction, as such a re-hearing of the merits is a power reserved for appellate courts, not the same court that issued the original final order. This latest order, issued after an ex parte hearing following my lawful withdrawal, constitutes profound judicial misconduct and a catastrophic violation of the Finality Principle (Log #650).
Moreover, this Magistrates' Court acted unlawfully by proceeding with the July 21st hearing while a live Judicial Review (AC-2025-LON-001909) challenging its jurisdiction and the very subject matter was active in the High Court (Logs #581, #588, #589, #603, #631, #634). The deliberate procedural obstruction by the court administration, attempting a "bait-and-switch" by demanding a new N1 claim instead of processing my existing N600 Contempt application, further exemplifies actions under 'colour of law' designed to subvert justice (Logs #651, #652).
In this context, I formally invoke the principles enshrined within the English Bill of Rights 1689, particularly: