1. The courts interpret and apply the law to cases brought before them.
2. Courts, from county courts to the European Court of Human Rights, have made dozens of unlawful decisions in cases regarding me.
(i). I define an unlawful decision not as one that displeases me but, rather, as one that plainly is incompatible with the law. 3. In most instances, the courts must have known, before they made the decisions, that they would be unlawful. For example: some decisions were supported by lies.
4. Examples of courts making unlawful decisions are:
(i). a Mental Health Review Tribunal justified its refusal to discharge me with more than ten lies in a single decision, and
(ii). the High Court of Justice dismissed an action I filed, on the grounds that it was an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided by another court.
(a). One of the grounds of my appeal was that some of those complaints could not have been heard by any court: there had been no court process relating to me since the occurrence of those events. The putative process - whose particulars the Court refused to divulge - would have had to decide on matters that had not yet occurred and of which, I am sure, it would deny advance knowledge (assault, battery, etc.), therefore, the Decision was not rational and could not be lawful.
(b). My appeal was dismissed on the same grounds - including that the Complaints had been decided in a previous process.
5. Transparency is core to the principle of open justice: it is a vital component of our justice system. Anyone may request transcripts of a public trial. If they pay the cost of transcription, they should receive the document, even if they have no connection to the case.
(i). I requested a transcript of my case that was heard in the Crown Court, in 2018. The Judge who presided over the case rejected the application on the grounds they would be too expensive to produce.
(ii). I appealed the Decision on the grounds it was unreasonable, given I would bear the cost of transcription. The appeal was rejected, again on the grounds the transcript would be too expensive to produce.
(iii). Audio records, from which transcripts are made, are kept for up to seven years. By refusing to produce that transcript, the Court may have ensured the details of what happened during that trial will never be available in objective form.
6. The Lord Chief Justice has the responsibility of overseeing the training of judges. I reported the conduct of judges to Lord Burnett, when he was Lord Chief Justice. Given the number of unlawful decisions against one person, he had a duty to investigate the matter, whether he considered the Decisions mistakes or deliberate misconduct.
(i). He referred me to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. I observed they could not accept such a matter: they only consider the personal conduct of judges, not their decisions. This observation was ignored.