Supplementary
table to the statement of facts II
1.
On the month of June 2000 and the month of April
2004 Mary Josofar Valdivieso Fortuno Flores (further referred to here as MJVFF)
took on the two leases of two commercial properties at 104 & 106-108 Cromer
Street, London WC1H 8BZ. Both were art galleries and events spaces. Put shortly
MJVFF was out of Business on at lease a dozen occasions from 2004-2008 because
of defects in the building not in her control and covered by building insurance
repairing scheme, held jointly by MJVFF and the landlord Community Housing
Association LTD.
How the convention was breached
1. Article 1 Protection of property.
2.
On the month of October 2008 the landlord
trespassed 104 & 106-108 Cromer Street premises due to an outstanding
liability claim on the insurance, for which they backed by our joint insurers,
hoped to avoid. Because they had failed to make claims so the insurers would
not pay and neither party wanted to pay so they attacked us.
How the convention was breached
2. Article 1 Protection of property.
3.
MJVFF took an injunction on both premises and on
an order from the High Court the case proceeded to the County Court for a ten
days trial held in July 2010.
How the convention was breached
3. N/A
4.
The lead up to the trial was unfair because the
Judge responded only to the landlords solicitors for disclosure, there was an
inequality of arms, the particular of claims were rejected by the judge and
then accepted wasting thousands of pounds and there was no speed in getting to
court even though the High Court had ordered it to be speedy. The judge also
allowed more expense for us by entertaining a section 25 notice when it was clear
that the outcome could only be decided upon completion of the trial. All issues
in detail of the unfair lead up to the trial are placed in the appendix sent to
ECHR as the facts for permission to appeal.
How the
convention was breached
4. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
5. The trial was unfairly heard and MJVFF was disallowed
to put her case orally where as the landlord had 4 days with MJVFF in the
witness box. This was a mismanagement of the trial time and allowed no more
time for MJVFF to plead her case so after waiting for two years her case was
never heard. In fact MJVFF was asked by the Judge to put her case in an email
at that the end of the trial.
How the convention was breached
5. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
6. Both
parties were asked instead of a further hearing at the end of the incomplete trial to put
written ‘submissions on liability’ to the County Court. The allocated time for
this was unfair with an advantage to the landlord.
How the convention was breached
Article 6
Right to a fair trial & Article 1 Protection of Property
7. Judgment was given which was based only on the
landlord’s case and this was glaringly obvious. MJVFF put in an application to
the courts with evidence from her notes of the first judgment that the judge
had firstly, not heard her case orally and secondly had not read her
‘submissions on liability’. Her notes proved her case so well that the judge
admitted he had not read her case either. He decided to read the ‘submissions
on liability’ 92 pages and 245 paragraphs, with 350 exhibits referred to, the
next day and to do another judgment he following day. We are suggesting he did
this to cover himself for his failure to conduct a fair trial.
How the convention was breached
7. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
8. The second judgment was equally unfair using just one
law to cover over a dozen issues and permission for appeal was refused. Again
all the detailed appendixes of this have been sent to the ECHR.
How the convention was breached
8. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
9. MJVFF sought permission to appeal on liability before
the costs hearing but the same judge told her that she would need to obtain the
transcripts of the two judgments before she could get permission. The costs
hearing should not have been allowed to go ahead whilst this process had not
yet taken place as the costs hearing was dependent on liability being
established. Meanwhile she applied for the transcripts to the appellant court.
All details of this are also in the appendix’s sent to the ECHR. The cost
hearing unlawfully went ahead.
How the convention was breached
9. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
10. The transcripts took two years to be produced by the
civil appeals office. Without them permission to appeal could not be processed.
MJVFF constantly requested them.
How the convention was breached
10. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
11. In the end the civil
appeals office took an illegal step in process of asking for the solicitor’s
unapproved notes of the other side. I had to challenge this by going through
her notes and pointing out that they were inaccurate and also saying that this
could have been done two years earlier with my notes which I sent in for
approval to the judge but there was no reply. I had asked for her notes under
the CPR before and they were not given over I was simply ignored by the courts.
Permission to appeal was not given based on the solicitor’s notes! MJVFF then
applied for an oral hearing.
How the convention was breached
11. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
12. On May 10th 2012
the Judge ordered that the hearing of the renewed application for permission to
appeal be brought back before him but with the assistance of a pro-bono lawyer.
The clerk took a loud telephone call during the hearing whilst MJVFF was giving
her legal plea for permission to appeal. Permission to appeal should not have
been dependent on a lawyer being present as MJVFF’s arguments were very concise
and clear.
How the convention was breached
12. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
13. This delayed the case for a
further 7 months and the lawyer reformulated the grounds of appeal.
How the convention
was breached
13. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
14. MJVFF’s case was now not
very much in her control and she suspected behind the scenes deals going on as
might be for a tactical game to conclude the case but perhaps with not all
points covered. In short she felt her case was being hacked to pieces. She has
evidence it was and has presented it to the Supreme Court as seen in the
appendix’s in detail given to the ECHR.
How the convention
was breached
14. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
15. At the 5th Dec
permission to appeal hearing she orally asked the judge that if, when she gets
the advice from the pro-bono unit she does not agree with it or wants to add
further grounds that may have been taken out by the lawyer volunteer, she can
do so. The judge agreed. MJVFF did not know how the lawyer was playing it as
she only met him once for half an hour. He did get permission to appeal on 7 0f
10 grounds.
How the convention
was breached
15. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
16. When another lawyer from
the pro-bono unit finally gave the advice it was late and MJVFF wholeheartedly
disagreed with it. The volunteer
counsel and MJVFF parted ways and MJVFF proceeded to appeal having put all the
issues back into the case and applying officially to add two more grounds in
where there was irrefutable evidence that for example she asked for the
structure to be repaired for which the county court judge had said she had not
and for which if she had, was insured and liability would be established. The
court refused the 2 new grounds without any reason given, effectively taking
out bits of her case unjustifiably and underhandedly.
How the convention
was breached
16. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
17. The Appeal date was changed without notice to the day after
it was allocated. It was also cut from two days to one day and up until
lunchtime, when the three appellant Judges walked out mid MJVFF pleading her
case and without any warning from the clerks. The appeal was dismissed and the
trial was corrupt in that it stated in Judgment that MJVFF had asked for an
implied repairing covenant when she had asked for no such thing she had asked
for an implied covenant that the landlord should not breach the terms of the
insurance 5(22) not withstanding she was in contract insured already and
contract was simply breached by the landlord making her uninsured.
How the convention
was breached
17. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
18. MJVFF sought to stay the
judgement on the grounds that this was not her case that had been judged. This
was officially refused. She then sought permission to appeal to the Supreme
Court, which was rejected with no grounds for the rejection.
How the convention
was breached
18. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
19. Judgement
was given on May 24th 2013 where MJVFF stated that clause 5(22)
(which she had based all of her argument on at the appeal using Barrett v
Lounova as the needed ground for an implied obligation as the contract would
make no sense without it) had been ignored in judgment. The judge said that it
was in the Judgment, which it is not. The judgement was about a repairing
obligation which is a case she never pleaded so they just made it up as they
went along to suit the judgment and rid themselves of my case. I asked the Supreme Court to provide the transcripts to
prove my point but they said they were not necessary at the reception desk. I
went to the High Court to get them but they said I could only get them at the
Supreme Court. So catch 22. Anyway the Supreme Court completely ignored me.
How the convention
was breached
19. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
20. A cost
order of about half a million with interest gaining by the day is pending and
both premises have been stolen.
How the convention
was breached
20. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
21. Article 1
& 6 of the European Court of Human Rights has been breached by the UK.
MJVFF has evidence of corruption, be it somewhat political that is of no
interest to her case or her personally. However the President judge of the
Supreme Court in the UK and as was at the time the Master of the Rolls had his
judicial assistant writing reports to the presiding judge to reject permission
to appeal from the county court and also the original president of the Supreme
Court had his judicial assistant writing reports too of the same nature. There
is a conflict of interest as that is a family connection that should have no
part in my case and that is not due diligence to have that take place. The
Baroness Neuberger was the chairperson of the large social landlord who
trespassed my premises and the leading judge is her brother in law Lord David
Neuberger.
How the convention
was breached
21. Article 6 Right to a fair trial &
Article 1 Protection of Property
No comments:
Post a Comment