R V Gorge Carter – Case Management – 07-10-2022
Crown Court Case Number T20020133-1 - Magistrates Court Case No - None
NOTICE AND DEMAND - UNLESS ORDER
I George Carter, a living man, has never been served, with any proceedings Issued by the Court Barkingside Magistrates’ Court of Record, nor any other Court.
TAKE NOTICE
The Court Manager Kate Robinson confirmed this fact.
There is no Case Management file nor record of any such case.
There is no Sealed Order, Issued by the court, which I allegedly breached.
Mr Gregory of the CPS ambushed me with 200 pages of sham documents, which contained none of the above, and no case number, Issued by the Court.
The evidence verifies, that I am the victim of a proven violent pedo-sexual gang, falsely and repeatedly using the court as cover – exposed on – www.scambuster.tv
In particular, the persistent violent harassment, started when I was incarcerated on case number TO32208245, where the High Court confirmed in writing, that there was never any order, Issued by the Court.
ORDER
Unless the accuser can produce a certified copy, of the Information which was laid, to commence proceedings, the sealed order which I allegedly breached, and the various authentic warrants which were allegedly executed, within seven days, I require an administrative Order as follows :-
a) This matter being struck out as a nullity
b) Costs and aggravated damaged be awarded to myself and other victims, to be decided at a separate costs hearing, as per In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene (attached)
c) An investigation be commenced into the nineteen purported Court Case, over twenty of which have already been confirmed in writing, to be fabrications by Andy Donald and others in the network.
In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:
(i) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
(ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and
(iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.
1953:
In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not;
(ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party.
1961:
(ii) the setting aside must be done under the Court’s inherent power to set aside its own void order;
(iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
(iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void;
(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages may also be claimed;
(vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act;
(viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning;
(ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary;
(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;
(xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act;
(xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament.