Ref Judge Peter Jackson Order 12/3/2012 dated 22/3/2012  link
ref 10370284 copied to MPs John Hemming & Gordon Marsden – Hugh Jones -
firstly we are not sure the judge has received our letter of 15/03/2012 linked here please print & deliver
With specific reference to paragraph 12 of the judges order and questions to be put to the SPECIAL VISITOR
with other observations herewith;
Can I refer you specifically to the judges order in particular within the appendix paragraph section 6 starting with the words “Michael supports”.
If the SPECIAL VISITOR was making a report for their own mother, we would ask him to answer the following questions;
If mother had requested in writing to make a will on several occasions over 11 years were that evidence is clear to see, and were requests have been made verbally and recordings of them requests were available and clear to listen to and if the mother was available to speak to privately or otherwise to ask about her wishes about her will would the SPECIAL VISITOR after 11 years of trying to get this will in place, recently by gifting her house, believe and rightly so, that the mothers human right to that choice was being “corruptly” denied, by the powers that be? i.e., Judges, Court of Protection & Hugh Jones
yes or no answer will do?
For the SPECIAL VISITOR to read and digest the link as below; print & deliver to special visitor to read.
Having read the letter to the Judge on the 15th March 2012 after the administrative statute hearing of the 12th March 2012. Would the SPECIAL VISITOR believe that corrupt processes are taking place where due process is being denied, where consent to administrative hearings was refused in writing via this linked POSITION STATEMENT here to be printed and forwarded to the SPECIAL VISITOR & where the Judge openly admitted that “refusal of consent is irrelevant” and also that his actions that he also openly admitted to performing where taken within his sworn Oath of office that is incompatible with the terms of office tantamount to Perjury.
Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.
Based on the above statement in the Halsburys book of law will the SPECIAL VISITOR agree that an administrative hearing “denied consent” is an unlawful hearing and that there is no authority for administrative courts in this country. Therefore to request a common law court with a jury and be denied it is act of denial of due process?
Would the SPECIAL VISITOR agree that a clinical neuropsychological forensic expert report needs time and careful consideration probably amounting to a period of 3 to 4 hours and that any special visitor who may conclude incapacity within 50 minutes has in effect not conducted an assessment that might be deemed full and proper?
If the SPECIAL VISITOR has ticked a yes to all 4 questions;
Does the SPECIAL VISITOR believe Mr Clarke that Mrs Ann Clarke’s human rights are being denied and that HUGH JONES + COURT OF PROTECTION and JUDGES are corruptly depriving mother control of her remaining asset?
If the SPECIAL VISITOR has ticked a no to any of the 4 questions above, we would like to know why?
Will the Judge please answer also – Why he’s ORDER is not signed?

Mike & Ann Clarke
31 Cherry Tree Rd,
Tel: 07523287267