MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.90.198 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:06:59 +0100 Delivered-To: mark.anthony.taylor@gmail.com Message-ID: Subject: B40BM021 - serious issue of Deutsche Bank's bribery evidenced in the court recordings From: "TheAbstraction ." To: County Court Litigation Cc: "Birmingham High Court, Mercantile" , SGT , SilverDoctors , rorytdc@hushmail.com, disputeresolution , len lawrence , "LEFROY, Jeremy (2nd Mailbox)" , mcconaloguej@parliament.uk, David Davis , tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0bb7e0581d5e055a4f8299" --94eb2c0bb7e0581d5e055a4f8299 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To Judge Worster: Dear Sir, As you may remember I contested the validity of the costs against me. Of particular seriousness was that from Morrison & Foster, whose advocate turned up to court having claimed to be representing Jain. Jain formerly shared Linklaters' services, so has imposed unnecessary costs by now having an independent solicitor. I was worried that the court recording device may not have been used correctly, particularly with these serious anomalies, and if you remember, at the end of the hearing I went to inspect it, whereupon you interjected and asked me to stay away from it, then you asked me if I had a recording device active - to which I said that I was tempted but that it was not so. I do not recall either yourself or the court recorder double-checking the device had done its job. For example, there was no playback of any sub-sequence of events. I presume the issue of the recording was somehow pertinent in your head, as if like me, you were worried that the device may have not been functioning - or perhaps - even sabotaged. As you can understand, when the advocate from Morrison & Foster demanded costs on the basis that I had insulted the judiciary, this was most odd. If anyone deserves reparations for libel against the judiciary, it is the judiciary involved. If they wish for such damages they have the recourse to a libel action, with a jury, evidence and so forth. It was never for Jain to collect money on the Judiciary's behalf. Since you accepted his advocate's argument, are we to take it that you understand that some of these costs awarded are to redistributed to members of the judiciary? Since Ian Burnett was one of the judges against whom I have made serious allegations, allegations supported by evidence in your courtroom, including the ICO confirmation he never had a transcript of hearing, I presume he would be in line for a payout from Jain? Or are we take to take it Jain and his advocate would pocket all the money ear marked for the damage done to the judiciary? I do hope you can respond to my basic request for a copy of the court recording. It should clear these matters up. I am sure things cannot be as bad as I remember. Yours sincerely, Mark Anthony Taylor