Have you received any inquiries from any legal advocacy groups, newspaper columnists, television news reporters, Internet bloggers, solicitors or barristers who express concern for or interest in assisting you in the cause you are tirelessly attempting to bring to the attention of the the British public?
Consider applying to set aside the costs order on the following basis:**
Application for a Protective Costs Order
( *In N461 Part 7.2 the Claimant stated a requirement to limit costs and therefore wishes to avail themselves of this protection via a Protective Costs Order.) delete *if untrue*
Protective Order application under section 88(6)-(8) and section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and CPR Part 6.17(1)-(3) for the following reasons:
1. The claim relates to issues of “general public
importance” regarding the application of laws in connection with * ( insert reason here ) and the costs associated with them
2. As such, the Claim raises issues of public importance for bringing to justice public officials, who have abused enforcement in * ( insert reason here ) which has been mirrored throughout England and Wales and to clarify the law on numerous issues such as unsworn HMCTS staff abusing their positions to * (n insert reason here ), the unlawful discrimination against litigants in person
3. The Claimant would be unable to continue the claim unless a Protective Costs Order is made due to the inequality of arms when facing an Prosecuting authority as a public body with unlimited funds who have abused this position and previously weaponised costs as Lawfare * (or a SLAPP action.)
4. The Claimant estimates his costs of the proceedings as
£? and that of the opposing party as nil.
5. The Claimant seeks permission not to have to serve his
financial statement under CPR 46.17(3), as constituting
an invasion of privacy and in breach of article 6(1)
and/or article 8(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule
1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
6. This Honourable Court is therefore requested to make
an order limiting the Claimant’s costs liabilities to NIL.
I don't know if you know about Graham Moore of The English Constitution Party who is fighting in court under similar circumstances as you. He's been hit with costs of over £70,000 so far. He believes "The Constitution is the solution" and is extremely knowledgeable. Please consider getting in touch with him.
Martin, as I read this, about a third of the way in, I suddenly began thinking that you are not sitting at the table with a single party on the other side. I feel you are dealing with two separate parties supposedly on the same side (the High Court) but with one actually having a very different agenda than the other.
It seems you are dealing first with people who are trying to act as the High Court should. However, they are very busy (as competent people are). At that point the Wormtongue party enters the picture and begins to turn the competent party. At some point in the process, the WT Party says to the competent party, OK, we understand what you want to have happen here, so let us help you out by taking on the responsibility of replying to the Claimant as you say. At that point the WT Party takes over the response, distorts it to flummox you, and hits you with punitive costs.
You want to trust the High Court. The competent party wants to respond, and it trusts the WT Party to complete the process, and the WT Party uses its opportunity to advance its own interest, which is to trash you because they see you as a troublemaker that could derail its administrative gravy train of corruption.
We've gone back and forth before on whether there is simple human mistakes and incompetence and laziness or whether there is actual malice toward you and your fellow citizens. This is the first time I've been struck with the idea that there may be both types of people opposite you across the table, and one knows what's really going on and one may not.
I suspect if so, that the real judges and legal eagles involved may even want to help you, may even know somewhat about what is going on (ie, good people in a bad system) and see you as an ally in fixing it, but the administrative state has improperly granted or lazily allowed the power that should rest with the legal eagles to default to people who do not deserve that power and have grown to like it very much and like any good mafia, dislike what you are doing very much.
Q said, "There are more good people than bad." However, it only took one Wormtongue to come close to destroying the Rohirrim, because he slid into just the right position and said just the right words to capture the Crown's ear and get his rot to spread.
Do you see one opposite you at the table, or do you see two with very different agendas?
Hey, Martin, I just found this post and thread on X (usa) and immediately thought of you and your efforts. Is this post's content applicable to you and your situation or unconnected? Seems parallel to your efforts in some aspects. Do you know about this "Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007" law she cites?
I am in awe of your patience and perseverance
You are doing it for the good of the whole
Thank you. Silvia shanahan
Have you received any inquiries from any legal advocacy groups, newspaper columnists, television news reporters, Internet bloggers, solicitors or barristers who express concern for or interest in assisting you in the cause you are tirelessly attempting to bring to the attention of the the British public?
Martin, if you require funding from us to meet these costs can you tell us (subscribers) how to help.
Like a previous person I am in awe of your efforts so far and wish you the best for 2026 and hope at some point you can take some rest.
DavidF
Consider applying to set aside the costs order on the following basis:**
Application for a Protective Costs Order
( *In N461 Part 7.2 the Claimant stated a requirement to limit costs and therefore wishes to avail themselves of this protection via a Protective Costs Order.) delete *if untrue*
Protective Order application under section 88(6)-(8) and section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and CPR Part 6.17(1)-(3) for the following reasons:
1. The claim relates to issues of “general public
importance” regarding the application of laws in connection with * ( insert reason here ) and the costs associated with them
2. As such, the Claim raises issues of public importance for bringing to justice public officials, who have abused enforcement in * ( insert reason here ) which has been mirrored throughout England and Wales and to clarify the law on numerous issues such as unsworn HMCTS staff abusing their positions to * (n insert reason here ), the unlawful discrimination against litigants in person
3. The Claimant would be unable to continue the claim unless a Protective Costs Order is made due to the inequality of arms when facing an Prosecuting authority as a public body with unlimited funds who have abused this position and previously weaponised costs as Lawfare * (or a SLAPP action.)
4. The Claimant estimates his costs of the proceedings as
£? and that of the opposing party as nil.
5. The Claimant seeks permission not to have to serve his
financial statement under CPR 46.17(3), as constituting
an invasion of privacy and in breach of article 6(1)
and/or article 8(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule
1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
6. This Honourable Court is therefore requested to make
an order limiting the Claimant’s costs liabilities to NIL.
**this is not legal advice
Credit to T Ewing
I don't know if you know about Graham Moore of The English Constitution Party who is fighting in court under similar circumstances as you. He's been hit with costs of over £70,000 so far. He believes "The Constitution is the solution" and is extremely knowledgeable. Please consider getting in touch with him.
Martin, as I read this, about a third of the way in, I suddenly began thinking that you are not sitting at the table with a single party on the other side. I feel you are dealing with two separate parties supposedly on the same side (the High Court) but with one actually having a very different agenda than the other.
It seems you are dealing first with people who are trying to act as the High Court should. However, they are very busy (as competent people are). At that point the Wormtongue party enters the picture and begins to turn the competent party. At some point in the process, the WT Party says to the competent party, OK, we understand what you want to have happen here, so let us help you out by taking on the responsibility of replying to the Claimant as you say. At that point the WT Party takes over the response, distorts it to flummox you, and hits you with punitive costs.
You want to trust the High Court. The competent party wants to respond, and it trusts the WT Party to complete the process, and the WT Party uses its opportunity to advance its own interest, which is to trash you because they see you as a troublemaker that could derail its administrative gravy train of corruption.
We've gone back and forth before on whether there is simple human mistakes and incompetence and laziness or whether there is actual malice toward you and your fellow citizens. This is the first time I've been struck with the idea that there may be both types of people opposite you across the table, and one knows what's really going on and one may not.
I suspect if so, that the real judges and legal eagles involved may even want to help you, may even know somewhat about what is going on (ie, good people in a bad system) and see you as an ally in fixing it, but the administrative state has improperly granted or lazily allowed the power that should rest with the legal eagles to default to people who do not deserve that power and have grown to like it very much and like any good mafia, dislike what you are doing very much.
Q said, "There are more good people than bad." However, it only took one Wormtongue to come close to destroying the Rohirrim, because he slid into just the right position and said just the right words to capture the Crown's ear and get his rot to spread.
Do you see one opposite you at the table, or do you see two with very different agendas?
Indeed " what does the rule of law mean..?"
It all seems very "Augustine" if there is such a term? https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_overextended_augustan_model.pdf
Hey, Martin, I just found this post and thread on X (usa) and immediately thought of you and your efforts. Is this post's content applicable to you and your situation or unconnected? Seems parallel to your efforts in some aspects. Do you know about this "Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007" law she cites?
https://x.com/real_shirelass/status/2006276514006946174
isnt that trustee fraud under ECCTA 2023 ? ens legis plundersing ?