Public Servant Conspiracy – Private meeting between Council & Court
20 November 2012
Dear Office for Judicial Complaints,
Public Servant Conspiracy – Private meeting between Council & Court
Both Maidstone Borough Council and Maidstone Magistrates Court have
repeatedly been asked by former Maidstone Borough Councillor Sheena
Williams to provide full disclosure of all information relating to
the council issuing summons and unsealed not court stamped
liability orders and both have refused to do so, along with
Maidstone County Court who are accepting these liability orders as
evidence to issue a Interim Charging Order on her home. The Final
Charging Order hearing on the 6 November 2012 attended by public
servant observers as well as court security staff who were
disrespectful of the public servant observers present, was
adjourned without her consent, to allow the council & courts more
time to cover their backs and get their story straight, as the
evidence supplied prior to the hearing provided by the Ministry of
Justice, contradicted both the council and the magistrates courts.
The receptionist/clerk refused to identify herself and had to be
repeatedly corrected when she kept referring to Ms Williams instead
of Sheena Williams, which she ignored. She initially said that no
other person was allowed into the hearing, then re-checked with the
judge that only one other person would be allowed in, when this was
also rejected the judge said that no one was allowed in as the
people present had not been through security. When this mistake was
pointed out, the judge then met privately with the council’s agent
prior to the hearing (who refused to give her full name or business
card to confirm her identity) and for whom the judge later spoke on
her behalf in court. It was clear to the public servant observers
that an adjournment had been arranged prior to the hearing via the
private meeting of the judge and the council’s agent.
The judge made it clear that sometimes the liability orders are
stamped by the Magistrates Court and sometimes not, she agreed that
the claim number on the County Court Interim Charging Order should
not be the same as the Magistrates Court claim number. She even
managed to read the illegible signature of someone who had signed
one of the liability orders although their judicial position was
not clearly defined and no council tax matters were heard at
Maidstone Magistrates Court on that day, as confirmed by the
Ministry of Justice nor was she concerned that a summons bore the
facsimile signature but not printed name of a Area Director Of
legal Services and that this is not a judicial position. She also
didn’t seem interested in the fact that the magistrate’s court
would not confirm whether or not the second liability order that
had apparently been signed by a JP was in actual fact a magistrate.
All efforts to obtain full disclosure of the facts and to set aside
the liability orders were ignored by both courts and MBC.
Copies of the evidence file held by the county court (but not a
sealed county court order) were only sent out by the county court
when Sheena repeatedly telephoned both the magistrates and county
court, after being initially made aware by a land registry letter
that a interim charging order had been issued via a ex-parte
MBC chief executive sent a letter of conflation prior to the
hearing refusing to correspond further and conjoined two separate
issues, i.e. Council Tax / Building Services the latter who have
refused to provide proof that they have in fact revoked their
decision “deposited plans are of no effect” which is proven to be
in error after they received documented evidence and acknowledged
notification that work had been commenced prior to a expiry date
having been reached. May be its is just a coincidence that an
application for a interim charging order was filed on 21st August
2012 by MBC agents after she telephoned to complain on 13th August
that resulted in a visit from the building inspector on 14th to
correct their mistake ?
MBC have thereby effectively stopped Sheena from building her
extension to house her 4 granddaughters who Kent County Council
kidnapped for forced adoption in 2008, after she only agreed to
stand for election in order to raise serious concerns surrounding
children and children’s services. This was another reason why MBC
were asked to provide details of information shared between Kent
Police and the courts after her partner was stopped for delivering
the UK Column newspaper to MBC & KCC council offices by Kent Police
who said it could have been ‘terrorist related’.
A county court stamped ‘general form of judgment or order’ dated 13
November 2012 sent out by second class post contains no mention of
the final hearing date of the 6 November 2012 and does not state
any reasons for the adjournment. The adjournment date is 21
February 2013 at 10am Maidstone County Court and is far in excess
of 56 days mentioned by the judge at the ‘hearing’. The order has
not been signed by the judge nor is her name printed on the bottom
of the order.
It is quite clear to all who have witnessed and seen the evidence
that a collective of secret societies (Masonic & quasi-masonic)
hidden within public services are operating beyond their authority
and allowing individuals to be targeted.
My questions as a matter of urgency are as follows:
1. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan
have the judicial right to hold a private meeting with MBC agent Ms
Shipley from JE Baring & Co Solicitors prior to a court
2. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan
have the judicial right to speak on behalf of Ms Shipley at the
3. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Susan Sullivan
have the judicial right to decide that it is lawful to except both
sealed court stamped magistrates court liability orders and non
court stamped sealed magistrates court liability orders as
4. Confirm whether or not Russell Lite as suggested by District
Judge Susan Sullivan is in fact a JP/Magistrate or state what other
judicial position he held at the time of signing as no printed name
or title is listed on the liability order of 12 July 2011 or state
the name of any other person with judicial standing who signed.
5. Confirm whether of not Carole Finlay is in fact a JP/Magistrate
whose signature but not printed name appears on liability order of
10 July 2012 or state what other judicial position she held at the
time of signing.
6. Under what lawful authority does District Judge Edwina Millward
have the judicial right to accept unsealed non-court stamped
magistrate’s court liability orders as evidence to issue an interim
7. Under what lawful authority the county court receptionist/clerk
(who did not attend the hearing) have the right to refuse to
identify her position or give her name.
8. Under what lawful authority Malcolm Dodds acting as Director of
legal services has the judicial right to have his facsimile
signature printed onto summons.
9. Under what lawful authority both District Judge Edwina Millward
and District Judge Susan Sullivan have the judicial right to accept
a claim from MBC that bears the exact same claim number listed for
both Maidstone Magistrates Court and Maidstone County Court.
10. Under what lawful authority District Judge Susan Sullivan who
adjourned the hearing without consent can issue a order without
stating the date of the hearing it relates to and without giving
any reason for the adjournment.
11. Under what lawful authority District Judge Susan Sullivan and
District Judge Edwina Millward can issue orders without a judge’s
signature and printed name and title appearing on the bottom of the
12. Under what authority can a judge authorise court orders to be
sent out by second-class post.
13. Under what authority can a judge ignore a motion to quash in
favour of a pre-arranged private decision made between the council
and the judge.
14. Under what authority can a judge ignore evidence provided from
the Ministry of Justice and adjourn a final charging order hearing
in favour of the council.
15. Under what rule of law can a final charging order hearing be
adjourned and not made final.
16. Under what lawful authority a judge can decide that documented
attempts to settle a claim prior to a hearing are not considered
17. Provide the law that confirms that individual and not corporate
rights are protected in what amounts to a private ‘bar guild’
pre-meeting and not a court of law.
18. Provide the law that confirms that a fair hearing can take
place without equality of arms and full disclosure of the facts and
procedures being provided by the courts and the council who are
refusing to send documentation relating to a claim.
19. Confirm that a hearing can take place without the court
insignia being in the court, which amounts to a private bar guild
20. Confirm that a judge who has stated that they are operating
under their oath of office to Queen Elizabeth the Second can sit in
judgment without the insignia being present in court.
All of the above questions via FOIA require all recorded
information and the precise section of the law upon which the
public servants rely in carrying out their judicial duty
encompassing all judicial proceeding and rules that they are
required to follow by law.