This campaign is to fund a QC to represent me / my family after a Court of Appeal on 10 November 2016 has said that the UK's obligations under Article 8, Protocol 1 Article 1 and Article 14 of the European Convention are not engaged by inflated valuations for the payment of inheritance taxes, or the incorrect registration of property titles at Land Registry.
I contest this judgment because when you think about it, it means that property valuations for UK tax payments are only a private matter, which implies that tax payments to the UK Treasury are voluntary. Further, it means that every title ever registered at Land Registry is some kind of private, voluntary title, that cannot be state protected because no Land Registry titles engage A8, P1A1, or A14 all of which the UK is signatory to.
I need to take this case to the Government, and I'm looking for a master advocate who can finally put my case, and stop my family's farm from being confiscated.
Clearly if the QC can win a legal point against the UK government, then he ought to recover costs. If that happens then I can repay your contribution. Either way, thank you.
The videos above show you around the house, and farm, that I have been slung out of without my consent or a court order.
For further information - only read this if you have time - I have made 4 applications to the European Court of Human Rights. Firstly, to introduce this case by letter on 10 August 2014. The Registrar told me the rules changed in January 2014 so that applications could no longer be introduced by letter and instead a completed application form had to be filled in. So by 22 August 2014 I sent in an application form. The Registrar returned that because it did not include a transcript of an oral judgment from the UK's Court of Appeal given on 13 February 2014 to refuse permission to appeal in the domestic courts. I requested a transcript which was finalised by the Court of Appeal on 26 January 2015. I then resent the 2nd application form and bundle by 15 July 2015. The Registrar returned the 2nd application as incomplete because there was no transcript of judgment from a hearing in a related matter that took place on 11 June 2015 to determine the valuations of estates after the previous hearing. I did not entirely agree with the Registrar's decision and submitted a 3rd application to say that the UK's obligations under the Convention can be determined without the 11 June 2015 decision. That application was returned saying it was incomplete because I did not print out (again) copies of every item of evidence. It was clear that the Registrar could not put my applications together. Well, I had to request a transcript of judgment of the 11 June 2015 decision. That transcript was finalised on 1 October 2015. Meanwhile more Court of Appeal decisions were taken on 28 September 2015 and then again on 17 December 2015. I obtained transcripts of judgments for all these, and sent a 4th application on 24 March 2016. The application was returned telling me that I had not properly filled in the application form, that the European Court had changed 3 months earlier in January 2016. The old application form allowed 20 pages to set out the "Statement of Case" but the new application form allowed 3 pages, and requires by Rule 47 § 2 (a) "a concise statement of facts, complaints and information about compliance with the admissibility criteria MUST be on the relevant parts of the application form itself. The completed form should enable the Court to determine the nature and scope of the application without recourse to any other submissions." as well as "it is not acceptable to leave these sections blank or simply to refer to attached sheets".
What that means is that the alleged infractions of rights - of which in these Particulars of Claim I count 10 infractions against as many as 12 parties or their representatives - needs to be set out and explained within 3 pages. This case goes back across entire lifetimes, so, that is a big ask. The European Court does allow what it calls "an annex" of 20 pages to give further explanations.
In 10 paragraphs, one could set out 10 complaints and that may keep to 3 pages.
After the 4th application came back I wrote to the President of the European Court, Mr Guido Raimondi, on 25 April 2016 to ask if he could accept the Statement of Case as set out in 20 pages. My letter can be seen here. He has not replied.
For the reasons for these disputes I quote Aristotle: "For example, justice is considered to mean equality. It does mean equality - but equality for those who are equal, and not for all. Again, inequality is considered to be just; and indeed it is - but only for those who are unequal, and not for all."
The Philosopher says: "... the reason why there is a variety of different constitutions is the fact, already mentioned, that while everybody is agreed about justice, and the principle of proportionate equality, people fail to achieve it in practise. Democracy arose out of an opinion that those who were equal in any one respect were equal absolutely, and in all respects. (People are prone to think that the fact of their all being equally free-born means they are all absolutely equal). Oligarchy similarly arose from an opinion that those who were unequal in some one respect were altogether unequal. (Those who are superior in point of wealth readily regard themselves as absolutely superior.) Thus those on one side claim an equal share in everything, on the ground of their equality, while those on the other press for a greater share, on the ground that they are unequal, since to be greater is to be unequal. Both sides are based on a sort of justice; but they both fall short of absolute justice..."
"... For this reason each side engages in factional conflict if it does not enjoy a share in the constitution in keeping with the conception of justice it happens to entertain."
By factional conflict it is meant: political change.