Lord Justice Munby





FACTS


From September Onwards of 2014 This Man Was Copied Into All The Case


In Addition

He Was Provided Full Documentation In Respect Of F And His Claims Against The MoJ

He Was Provided With All The Information Indicating F's Intent To

Privately Criminally Prosecute The Judges

He Was Copied Into All Correspondence Between F and Susanna McGibbon ( The Solicitor To The Treasury)

He Was Copied Into All Correspondence Between F and The JCIO.


In Addition

Within Documentation F Warned Munby LJ

Not To Connive To Exonerate His Judges

In Respect Of Any JCIO Investigation.


Munby Then

Prior To The Completion Of The JCIO Report (See JCIO) Invited F to Make An Application

At That Point F Was Happy To Proceed Solely V MoJ


F was Not Interested But Went Ahead With The Application On The Off Chance That

Munby Would Address The Issues And

Attempt To Put His Division Of Law In Order


Note The Timing Of The Invitation

What If The JCIO Had Made A Verdict That His Judges Were Corrupt?

How Could He Preside If That Were The Case?


Of Course Munby LJ Knew That Was Never Going To Be The JCIO Conclusion


What Do You Think Munby LJ Did?



IT APPEARS:


He Dealt With It

OLD SCHOOL STYLE

How Else?


He Stuck It To The F


F will see him in court facing a Jury and A Commonwealth Judge As Threatened He Would Seek In 2014

(These Judges Are Too Well Connected)

but prior to this our sources indicate that F has been provided

the following indication from one of three senior criminal counsel employed to prosecute the judges


"The evidence is not just circumstantial...it is compelling..."


A Professional Fraudster Always Considers How His Actions Will Be Perceived In Hindsight


A Fraudster Acting On The Fly With Motive Totally Reflects In The PaperWork In F's Possession


The Documentation Prior, The Timings Of Events, The Transcript Of The Hearing,

The Judgment and The Orders

Reflect Something For A Jury To Consider

In Particular


Motive


He Knew The Bi Product Of A Successful Application Would Cost His Division Of Law Huge Sums



The Following Is A Considered Response To Just Some Aspects Of His Judgement


K v K






Highlights Of Judgement Munby LJ

"......It Would Appear That The Judgement Was Motivated By Other Issues
And Bore No relation To The Application In Front Of The Court........
......What Is More Surprising Is That The Presiding Judge Failed To Recuse Himself......."

" ..This Judgement was a smoke screen and represents unwarranted abuse by an exceptionally devious division of law....It cost F over £1,000,000 to be a daddy, It is likely to cost the Ministry of Justice significantly more...."



Pointers



Depending On What Occurs Moving Forward, This Judgement May Be Studied By Those Students Preparing Thesis On Judicial Corruption, That Is, If Found To Be The Case.


It May Of Course Be A Totally Innocent Judgement Made In Good Faith On The Facts As Presented By Both Parties. What Do You Think?