First-tier judge, David Hewitt. The ultimate shyster.

"I do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of shyster, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. " Judicial Oath.

First appeal

On 1st June 2013 I had my day in court, so to speak. I came armed with the DWP's submission known as the 'bundle' which I received in January and a file of other documentary evidence proving that I had been framed and that FIS Appeals had covered this up, the proof being in the bundle. I asked my friend Steve to accompany me as a witness and we entered government offices in the Prudential Buildings in Dale Street in the centre of Liverpool. I expected there to be a representative of the DWP there with the judge but there was just the judge. He introduced himself as David Hewitt and told me he was a lawyer. We sat down and I reached into my bag to pull out my evidence and said "right, I've been framed" and he said "I am conducting this hearing on a very narrow point of law Mr Grace, please answer the following questions".

Hewitt knew nothing about benefits and even less about computers, which was what my case was all about. After my explaining that my income protection payments were not a pension he presented Plan A to frame me over these payments. "So you were receiving this income when you made your claim on 3rd June 2011?" I told him I made my claim on 31st May. The first  page of the DWP's submission known as 'the bundle' was the contents. The first evidence was the transcript of my telephone claim and the contents dated this as 03.06.2011. At the top of the first page of the transcript which was legally the claim form as the original isn't kept, were two sets of handwriting: one with 'd.3.6.11' and the other 'according to input form 3rd June, 2011'. I showed Hewitt page 3 where Tanya who took my claim told me I was making my claim on 31st May. I then turned to the bank statements and showed Hewitt that I received my first payment on 7th June 2011. So Plan A was torpedoed and it was obvious that Hewitt hadn't read a single page of the bundle although it had been with the courts for four months.

(see below for Plan A proof)

He then put Plan B to me and told me that I was asked "Do you or Brenda currently receive or are you waiting to hear about any income from any pensions, permanent health insurance or compensation? and you answered 'No'". He looked up and I said "that's a fabricated question". He responded "what do you mean fabricated?", I told the idiot it means "made up". He looked at me like the schmuck he is and I said "the DWP have made that question up". I once again referred him to the transcript and he read that Tanya asked me "Do you or Brenda currently receive any income from any pensions, permanent health insurance or compensation?" to which I answered "No". Hewitt looked up and said "so you weren't asked if you were waiting for any other income?" and I said "that's right". He just smiled. So much for Plan B.

(see below fo Plan B proof)

It was as plain as the nose on your face that the questions Hewitt put to me had been provided to him by the DWP.

When the formalities were over, he relaxed and asked me why the DWP would frame me and what it felt like to be framed. He even cracked a joke about reading my letters to the DWP telling them the income-related award is 100% fabricated. As I left the office I said to Steve that at least he saw I had been framed.

A few days later I received his decision that my appeal was disallowed. I wrote for his 'statement of reasons'. It took him six weeks to come up with something and although I was so mentally impaired that I was incapable of doing any job when I made my claim he made me out to be Moriarty. He said that the question Tanya asked if I was receiving or waiting for any other benefits or credits was really about my private income protection policy and my answer of 'No' was untrue. You couldn't make it up! Furthermore, I wrote for his record of proceedings which, in a classic case of Kabbalistic deception by omission, failed to mention Plans A and B...and the question about other benefits. In my appeal I included the page from the forged computer record of my award where my answer to that question about other benefits is recorded as "Yes" and not "No" as I actually answered as when it was fabricated, I had been awarded contribution-based ESA. Funny that!

It was clear that Hewitt's role was to rubber stamp the framing of a mentally impaired benefit recipient and he didn't let the fact that he saw with his own eyes that I had been framed stop him. Imagine though, if I was of the same ilk as Judy Williams and Jacob Slinger, Hewitt would have awarded me record damages. But I'm not and he didn't. Even if I'd cried about being the son of an Auschwitz survivor it wouldn't have made an iota of difference.

With hindsight, it is clear that once Hewitt had shafted me there was no hope that I would win my appeal. Whiteside, who originally framed me and Hewitt who ensured I stayed framed are not so much like two peas in a pod but more like two rats in a sewer.

It's an outrage that they ever appointed this shyster as a tribunal judge in the first place.

Out of the four shyster judges who considered my appeals, I call Hewitt the ultimate shyster.

After retiring from his role of judge in 2015, David Hewitt has tried his hand as an author, having his screed 'Joseph, 1917' published. After skimming through this effort at amazon, I should say that this dreck is about as engrossing as watching paint dry.

Second Appeal

I appealed to the Upper Tribunal pleading that my case must be heard there as the DWP are targeting those with mental incapacity and the First-tier is corrupt. I also sent proof that I had been framed by the DWP and that Hewitt had in turn perverted the course of justice and in effect framed me himself. To no avail. The Upper Tribunal judge, Mesher, laughably wrote in serveral thousand words of legalese that Hewitt had got it wrong. I wrote to him and called him a coward, telling him I had no intention of attending another stitch up at the next hearing.

Interestingly, the judge who was originally due to hear my next appeal, Judith Birbeck, was replaced; possibly, because as a woman she was less likely to have sworn a treasonous oath of allegiance to a secret society and told the League of Shysters she intended to allow my appeal.

Third Appeal

I did not attend the second First-tier appeal in October 2014. This was conducted by Tribunal judge Alex Durance, who lied when he wrote I knew I had been awarded income-related ESA and that I received confirmation of my claim from the DWP. Proof of this was a template - pretty convincing or what? Once again this lying shyster ignored the fact that the DWP threw the towel in admitting that: I made my claim on 31st May, 2011; the transcript is legally the claim, thus proving the income-based award is a forgery and no explanation of why the rate of ESA increased. I appealed on those grounds. (see documentary proof below)

Thanks to the criminal decision of this louse, the DWP lacking the gonads to prosecute, threatened to seize my assets as if I were an absentee drug lord.

Fourth Appeal

No surprise that my appeal was denied by the shyster on high, Upper Tribunal judge, Edward Jacobs; a pompous buffoon bloated by his own sense of self-importance, who "utterly rejected" my "allegations of forgery, fraud, lies and perversion of the course of justice". He said there was no evidence of any breach of natural justice as I had maintained throughout since Hewitt refused to let me challenge the DWP's case against me or even look at the copy of the computer record.

The only option I was left with was a judicial review. I completed the application including proof of each allegation and signing off by saying that if Jacob's really does believe there has been no breach of natural justice he must have the same sense of natural justice as Roland Freisler. My application was returned for not being in triplicate, bound and indexed. Well, I'm not a frigging publishing company!

I'm afraid to say that appealing to HM Courts and Tribunals Service when you have been framed for fraud by the DWP would have been like asking the Gestapo to investigate the SS.


Plan A - Contents of Submission

Contents shows the phoney date of the input document as 03.06.2011.

Plan A - Page 1 of Transcript with phoney date at the top

Two sets of hand writing at the top with the phoney date of 3rd June 2011. Notice that something has been scrubbed out - 31.05.2011 perhaps?

Plan A - Page 3 of Transcript with actual date 31st May

Tanya confirms I am making my claim on 31st May, 2011

Plan B - Submission Fabricated Question

Fabricated question includes 'waiting to hear about'

Plan B - Transcript Actual Question

Tanya does not ask me if I am waiting for any other income.

Claim transcript is legally my claim

I have always maintained that the transcript proves the IR award is fabricated. DWP admits it is legally my claim. On CB I do not have to notify DWP of my income protection.

ESA rate CB to rate IR

DWP do not explain rate increase. But we know my ESA award was criminally amended to IR on 10th June 2011. DWP still maintain the lie I had received my first payment by 03.06.2011.