Involuntary Euthanasia Programme?

Based on the stats released by the DWP for 2011, I refer to in my Foreword, I have estimated that since 2009, somewhere in the region of 150,000 have died within 12 weeks of having their benefits terminated by sanction. Government ministers often cry crocodile tears about the heart-rending stories associated with these deaths when by a fluke they enter the public arena. The question to be asked is "Are these deaths by accident or design?" I believe the Skeleton Argument of Andrew Cooke, the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, contains the answer to that. It states that a Chief Constable has no duty to investigate a crime at common law. Additionally, it states that the police only have a legal obligation to investigate breaches of Article 2 of Human Rights Act - Right to Life and Article 3 - Prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment and Article 4 - Slavery and forced labour. Thereby, enabling the DWP and its officials to rob as many of us as it wants and by any means, of our legally entitled benefits and in many cases our lives, with impunity. See the document 'Police Betrayal'.

Police Betrayal

Police will only investigate a threat to life. In 2018, approximately 6.5 million people of working age are receiving state benefits. That's 6.5 million sitting ducks.

I Sue The Police

Notorious Nazi judge, Roland Freisler, role model to District Judge, Lee Jenkinson.

At the end of 2017, I decided to bite the bullet and sue Merseyside Chief Constable, Andrew Cooke for discrimination in refusing to record and investigate the disability hate crime committed against me, which I have reported over twenty times. I knew this was a long shot and in my claim I stated that if it was contested then it should be heard by a jury of my own peers as all four tribunal judges had violated their oath of office. The police responded with an application to 'strike out' my claim on the grounds that I had no case and it was an abuse of process. I responded by sending the court a letter stating that this was an obvious attempt to circumvent my case being heard by a jury. I knew if my case was heard by a judge, I had 0% chance of winning but 100% chance of winning if heard by a jury. The so-called "hearing" took place at the County Court in Liverpool at 10.30am on 1st May, 2018.

Needless to say, it was another stitch-up. I'm no lawyer, but I thought a hearing was supposed to allow both parties to put their case and ask questions of the other party etc. Wrong! At the off, I stated that "if I hadn't been extremely fortunate to recover sufficiently from the encephalitis which almost killed me to investigate what the DWP had done, I would have been wrongly convicted for fraud. I have no doubt of that." I should have saved my breath. All that followed was a confab between the District Judge, Lee Jenkinson and Graham Wells, the lawyer repesenting Merseyside Police; a dapper gent aged about 65, dressed in a classic pin-stripe suit. I would describe Jenkinson as a long slithery thing which hisses.

With hindsight, what they were discussing, from the outset, was the accuracy of the legal reasoning, provided by Wells, of Jenkinson's excuse to allow the 'strike out' of my claim. I was forewarned of this as I received the police Statement of Costs a week and a half before the hearing. Whenever I interjected, Jenkinson looked at me as though I had just stepped on his pet tortoise. When I heard them mention Article 2 of the Human Rights Act and the police didn't have to investigate, I said "hang on, the police must by law, record a hate crime." Jenkinson said the police do not. I continued "There is a mandatory procedure the police must follow when a hate crime is reported." A bit later, "the police swear an oath to uphold our human rights. Aren't we all equal before the law?" Each time Jenkinson just continued his confab with Wells. In my ignorance of the court procedure, I took this gross abuse of the process as constituting the hearing. As far as Jenkinson was concerned, I might as well have not turned up.

In a nutshell, Jenkinson struck out my claim because, as the DWP hadn't killed me, the police didn't have to investigate the crimes the DWP did perpetrate aganst me. Very reassuring, no doubt, to the millions in receipt of state benefits! Then again, I have never heard of the police investgating a single case of any of the the tens of thousands who have died after having their benefits sanctioned.

After the adjournment, Jenkinson whizzed through our Skeleton Arguments and said he was granting the 'strike out'. Smirking to Wells, he said he would reduce the costs from £5,600 to £4,500 because instead of the two hours allocated it had only taken thirty minutes. That's thirty minutes of humiliation and perverting the course of justice, right in front of me. He then asked me if I had anything to say, to which I replied "I don't accept the decision." I added "what does a member of the public have to do to obtain justice?" and lastly "you don't believe those on benefits have any human rights." Jenkinson has all the human sensitivities of a robot, who like all the other shysters, has perverted the course of justice. His kind of filth is what my father and uncles suffered and died fighting against in WW2. It's truly shocking that these Nazis are running the show now.


I complain to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)

Judicial Ombudsman, Paul Kernaghan. Interestingly, in an EU official capacity, in 2009 he advised the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. He learnt plenty about treating humans like animals.

Not being able to afford to appeal to the Court of Appeal and with the likelihood of my appeal being considered by yet another treasonous shyster, I complain to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office over the behavior of Jenkinson. The obvious grounds being that he perverted the course of justice, citing his taking instructions on his decision from Wells and the fact that the hearing wasn't recorded as it should have been. I receive short shrift from another minion, the not so sweet, Laura Honey, who tells me my complaint is "outside of the JCIO's remit." So, according to her, it is acceptable conduct for a judge to pervert the course of justice in front of the victim!

On 17th June 2018, shortly after I received this laughable decision, I complained to the office of the Judicial Ombudsman, stating that the JCIO thinks that the legal representative of one side in a hearing instructing the judge of the outcome is acceptable behavior. I also informed them of the reason given by Wells, which was "the only crimes committed by the DWP against those on benefits which the police have a duty to investigate is murder or manslaughter." Adding "This, no doubt, is very reassuring for the millions of U.K. residents who receive state benefits which they are legally entitled to receive."

On 11th July, I received the Ombudsman's decision which echoed that of the JCIO. No surprise as the ombudsman, Kernaghan, was a chief constable and doubtless a member of the same club as the others.