|
Time
Limits
1. About The Time Limits And Extensions Permitted To
This Case
·
The “Limitation Act
1980,” particularly “Section 32,” provides “Critical
Exceptions” to the standard time limits for initiating claims,
allowing extensions when fraud, concealment, or extraordinary circumstances
have obstructed the claimant's ability to act. In this case, the cumulative
evidence clearly demonstrates that systemic collusion, deliberate
misconduct, and ongoing harm existed, which all justify the time extension
in the time limitation period.
·
The key points in relation
to the time limitation period and this claim include:
2. Fraud and Deliberate Concealment:
·
Under “Section 32 of
the Limitation Act 1980,” the limitation period is suspended until
the claimant discovers or could reasonably have discovered the fraud or
concealment. This principle applies to the fraudulent contradictions found
within the “PNC Printout and Acro Record,” which have
resulted in a fabricated criminal record associated with Mr. Simon
Cordell’s name.
2.1. Contradictions and Impossibilities
·
The entries in the “PNC
Printout” and “Acro Record” contain irreconcilable
discrepancies. These include:
a.
“Charge Times” at the police station and “Plea Dates”
at the court, which are impossibly scheduled during hours when the courts
would have been closed (E.G., Nighttime).
b.
There is “Fabricated
Intel Within The Records” that tarnish the integrity of the data,
making the timelines and accusations impossible to reconcile.
§ For Instance:
·
Convictions show
unexplained contradictions between sentencing dates and alleged offence
dates, which defy procedural protocol.
2.2. Failure to Rectify and Passing of Accountability
·
Despite being alerted to
these irregularities, the police and courts have repeatedly failed to
follow protocol and rectify the errors. Instead:
a.
Responsibility has been
passed back and forth between the police, courts, and Acro
department without resolution.
b.
Additional fabricated
offences have been created during these exchanges, further exacerbating the
issue and preventing the claimant from addressing the matter in a timely
and fair manner.
c.
It is contended that the “Mental
Health Services” have been improperly utilised to undermine justice
and to systematically defame Mr. Simon Cordell's character. This
exploitation of mental health support mechanisms serves to diminish the
integrity of his testimony in judicial settings and other official
proceedings. Furthermore, it has become evident that requests for
legitimate assistance have been unreasonably denied, further exacerbating
the injustice faced by Mr. Cordell.
2.3. Systemic Collusion
·
The delays and fabrications
were not isolated incidents but part of a “Coordinated Effort,”
as evidenced by:
a.
References to "Joint
Circular" meetings between the police, council, doctors, and
other entities, during which actions were coordinated to discredit and
obstruct Mr. Cordell’s claims.
b.
This collusion not only
compounded the fabrication of offences but actively delayed any opportunity
for the claimant to respond or rectify the fraudulent record.
2.4. Critical Observations of Fabricated Records
·
Upon Review of the 2012
PNC Printout:
a.
The "PNC Printouts"
indicate that the first date for each conviction represents the court
sentencing date. However, ambiguity has persisted regarding the meaning of
the second date, which could either signify a "Plea Date"
or an "Offence Date." Following consultations with
Police, Court Officials, and Artificial Intelligence systems, it has been
unequivocally confirmed that the "PNC Printouts" are
strictly “Court Records.” As such, they are
only mandated to record the following: - “Court Sentencing Dates - Court Plea Dates - Court Conviction Dates.”
b.
Notably, "PNC Printouts"
are not required to document “Offence Dates.” This contradiction
directly undermines the reliability of the "Acro Report,"
as its “Offence Dates” mirror those of the "PNC
Printouts" and its "Plea Dates."
Further exacerbating concerns of fraudulent activity, the "Acro
Report" lists "Police Station Charged Times"
that coincide with times when courthouses are officially closed. These
inconsistencies go beyond mere assumptions, presenting compelling evidence
of potential fabrication.
c.
Specific Examples of
Fraudulent Data: Convictions “Fourteen” and “Sixteen” distinctly
illustrate these issues, highlighting the discrepancies and further
supporting my claims of fraudulent irregularities.
One of Three
2.5. Demonstrating Three Pieces of Evidence Supporting
Fraud Claims in Our N1 Form
·
One of Three: “Critical Issues Highlighted in Offence Number 1
from the PNC Printouts:
·
Notably, offence number 1 within the "PNC
Printouts," as shown in the screenshot below, demonstrates
significant flaws in the official format. Specifically, the text is
entirely “Uppercase” and lacks “Abbreviations,”
what is a critical formatting issue that renders the criminal record
unreliable and fails to fulfil its intended purpose.
a.
Problematic
Presentation:
·
The absence of punctuation (such as full stops)
and the lack of lowercase letters create a deceptive appearance, making it
challenging to distinguish between key pieces of information. This confusion
is exacerbated without specialized knowledge of the system and its
mandatory documentation standards.
b.
Impact on
Interpretation:
·
When reading the text, one is led to believe that
the information refers to an "Offence Date." However,
upon closer examination, it is apparent that this is the “Court Plea Date” and not the offence
date—further supporting claims of error or deliberate misinformation.
§ Screenshot PNC
Record: Exhibit 1
§ Original PNC Printout File Link:
§ https://horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1.%20PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1.%20New-PNC-Claim-Folder/2.%20The-PNC-Exhibited-Evidence-4-Court/2.%20Exhibited/01.%20Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates/01-PNC%202012-and-2014-Printouts/1-Orig12-PNC-Pri.pdf
§ All
§ Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates
a. The First Date Of The 06/08/97: this date is the date I was supposed to have
attended the courthouse!
b. The offence: “Taking
Motor Vehicle without consent” is a [36-Bit Word Count]
and this includes its “Whitespace!” but you cannot define
what is what between the offence date or the plea date of the 24/01/97 and this is
because there is no “Uppercase” and “Abbreviations,”
in the text nor is there any “Whitespace” left at the end of
the sentence due to its length, leaving any person unable to be sure of the
offence date or plea date.
c.
In the next
exhibited screenshot demonstrated by us, the word count is much shorter and
due to this once noticed you can see the white space at the end of the
texted sentence!
d. The offence: “Theft of Vehicle” is a
[16-Bit Word Count] and this includes its “Whitespace!”
e.
And due to this time, there
being “Whitespace” left at the end of
the sentence it becomes proved that the date of the 24/01/97 is not the “Offence Date”
And Really The Plea Date!”
** ------Next------- **
§ Screenshot PNC
Record: Exhibit 2
·
Now if we copy
the Plea date from the second entry from the PNC Printout of the 24/04/97 and then open the Acro report and enter
the plea date obtained from the “PNC Printout” into the “Acro Report’s” search
option, we will be taken to the second section out of the two Titled as: “Disposable,”
for this case, as web-linked here:
§ Original ACRO File Link:
§ https://horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1.%20PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1.%20New-PNC-Claim-Folder/2.%20The-PNC-Exhibited-Evidence-4-Court/2.%20Exhibited/01.%20Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates/02-ACRO-Printouts/
-
There are two
sections to keep in mind within the “Acro Report.” Both
sections contain the information about arrest: “1. PNC Printout: (Theft of Vehicle,)” the first of the two sections is titled as
“Arrest” and it exhibits the police station details, such
as the Arresting Officer also, the Summons Number and the Final Decision, ‘If
Charged,’ at the police station. While the second section is
titled as “Disposable” and this section in the Acro Report
exhibits the Courts stages detailing the attendances, any pleas and the Court
Final Outcomes!
·
Title: Disposable: “The dates taken from
the Court Convictions out of the PNC Printout will only ever show the
Disposables in the Acro Reports, we must then take the summons number from
that case and research with that summons for the Arrest!”
** ------Next------- **
1+
The First
PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/01/97” Contacts with the 76th “Acro Report” Court’s “Disposable”
§
Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 3
·
There are
three Police Charges listed here under the date of the 24/01/97
and the offences are not of the importance at the moment but what is of the
importance is the summons number and the “Offence Date(s)” “Times”:
I.E., 19:30, as the courts would be closed.
·
Arrest/Summons
Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T.
** ------Next------- **
2+
The Second
PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/04/97” Contacts with the 74th “Acro Report” Court’s “Disposable””
§ Screenshot Acro
Report: Exhibit 4
·
There are
three police charges listed here under the date of the 24/04/97 and the offences
are not of the importance at the moment but what is, becomes the: --
·
Offence
Date(s): 24/04/97
15:50 to 24/04/97 16:30 “This Means I Was Arrested At
This Time.”
·
The time of
offence is 15:50 and 16:30 and the courthouse would have been closed after
this time.
·
Also, copying
the arrest summons ref number and placing it back into the search option of
the document so we can check the arrest details for it.
·
Arrest/Summons
Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U.
** ------Next------- **
1+
The First PNC
Printout Offence: “The 24/01/97” “Arrest”
·
Arrest/Summons
Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T.
§ Screenshot Acro
Report: Exhibit 5
·
Titled as: 62 Arrest.
a.
The charge
time at the police station is provided here and this is it: “Process
Stage: CHARGED ON 08/03/97 23:59.” The date and time come into motion.
b.
Acro Report
Details:
·
Offence
Date(s) and Time Acro Disposable: = “24/01/97” “19:30”
Friday.
·
Charged Date
and Time Acro Arrest: = 08/03/97 23:59.
“Saturday”
a.
The courts
would have been closed by 5pm on the 24/01/97 when I was at the police
station at the time of “19:30” and therefore I would not have
been transported to Tottenham Lord Ship Lane Lower Court in time.
b.
The date and
time of charge is the 08/03/97 at 23:59, it is after
the date of offence date and that of the plea date, which is stated to be
the 24/01/97.
** ------Next------- **
2+
The Second
PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/04/97” “Arrest”
·
Arrest/Summons
Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U.
§ Screenshot Acro
Report: Exhibit 6
·
Titled as: 60 Arrest.
c.
The charge
time at the police station is provided here and this is it: “Process
Stage: CHARGED ON 01/09/97 21:18.” The date and time come into motion.
d.
Acro Report
Details:
·
Offence
Date(s) and Time Acro Disposable: = “24/04/97” 15:50 to 24/04/97 “16:30” Thursday.
·
Charged Date
and Time Acro Arrest: = 01/09/97
21:18. “Monday”
a.
The courts
would have been closed by 5pm on the 24/04/97 when I was at the police
station at the time of “16:30” and therefore I would not have
been transported to Tottenham Lord Ship Lane Lower Court and seen within 30
minutes.
b.
The date and
time of charge is the 01/09/97 at 21:18, it is after the date of offence date and that
of the plea date, which is stated to be the 24/04/97.
** ------Next------- **
3+
Additional
Two Exhibited Example’s:
Both of these examples
display later timestamps than the previously exhibited case titled “The
Second PNC Printout Offense: 24/04/97,” which is time-stamped at “16:30
hours.” These discrepancy raises significant concerns regarding the
accuracy of the records, as they indicate fraudulent activities.
Specifically, these later timestamps:
a. Case
22 PNC Report and Arrest 41, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of :
22:45. Dated: 02/11/02.
b. Case 23
PNC Report and Arrest 42, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of :
19:08. Dated: 17/06/02.
-
suggest that the courthouse had already closed at
the time recorded, further substantiating the argument that the cases in
question contain fraudulent erroneous information.
§ Screenshot Acro
Report: Exhibit 7
★
|
22.
|
24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates
|
|
|
1.
|
1. Possession of A Class B Drug - Cannabis
Resin .
On 02/11/02 (Plea: Not Known)
Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(2)
|
No Separate Penalty Forfeiture/Confiscation
of Cannabis
|
★
|
23.
|
24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates
|
|
|
1.
|
Taking
Motor Vehicle Without. Consent On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not
Known)
Theft
Act 1968 8.12(1)
|
Imprisonment
6 MTh’s.
|
|
2.
|
Using Vehicle While Uninsured On 17/06/02
{Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988. S.143 (2)
|
No Separate Penalty Disqualification from
Driving 12 MTh’s Varied on Appeal 25/07/03 Disqualified Reduced From 12
Months To 3 Months Driving Licence Endorsed
|
|
3.
|
Driving Without Reasonable Consideration
On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not Known)
Road Traffic Act 1988 S.3 .
|
No Separate Penalty Disqualification from
Driving 12 MTh’s Varied on Appeal 25/07/03
|
Continued On Next Pape
|
4.
|
24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates (Coni . Driving Without
Reasonable+ (Cont.)
|
|
§
ScreenshotPlea-Date-or-Offence-Date-Acro2017: Exhibit 8
1+ Case
22 PNC Report and Arrest 41, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 22:45.
Dated: 02/11/02:
“Case 22 in the 2012 PNC
Printout,” is for “Possession of A Class B
Drug - Cannabis Resin,” and this text wrongly spreads across
two lines and has “Whitespace At The End Of It!” and this proves
that the date of the 02/11/02 is a plea date.
·
The Plea Date: 02/11/02,
·
Plea Outcome: (Plea: Not Known)
·
This Data contains a
concise description, aligning with our exhibited facts and demonstrates
data that does not corresponds with the courts opening times.
2+ Case 23
PNC Report and Arrest 42, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 19:08.
Dated: 17/06/02:
“Case 23 in the 2012 PNC
Printout,” is for “Taking Motor Vehicle
Without. Consent On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not Known)”
·
The Plea Date: 17/06/02,
·
Plea Outcome: (Plea: Not Known)
·
This Data contains a
concise description, aligning with our exhibited facts and demonstrates
data that does not corresponds with the courts opening times.
·
Punctuation: when overviewing the data provided it is
noticeable that the full stop in the grammar after “Taking Motor
Vehicle Without,” is located in the wrong location and makes the
details read as if this is the “Offence Date” and not “The
Plea Date” as it must do.
a.
As a Fact, this happens
through the complete official record and cases titled under arrest that
have a later time of police charge than the courthouse would be opened or a
weekend day when they would not be opened are not possible as well!
b.
These findings establish
that the Acro records are fabricated, and this is further substantiated by
their reliance on manipulated data.
c.
I have
included an Exhibited video that demonstrates the bases of this claim!
§
Screenshot- Video: Exhibit 9
§ horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1.
PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1. New-PNC-Claim-Folder/01. Plea Dates or
Offence Dates.mp4
Two of Three
2.6.
More Findings That Guarantee Fraud Within the
Acro Record that Has Occurred is:
1) Definition of Reprimands/Warnings/Cautions:
a) This refers to “Police Cautions,”
which are a method for resolving minor criminal allegations without
proceeding to court. The timeline is pivotal in verifying the validity of
the PNC entries and aligning them with actual procedural norms.
§
Extract from the PNC Printout:
b) Despite the clear reprimand timeline of 21/08/97,
entries prior to this date reveal contradictions, raising concerns about
fraudulent entries in the PNC Printout that is a model of the Acro Record.
2) Detailed Timeline Analysis of Pre-Reprimand
Offences:
a) 17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1): “Court Adjudication Date: This
is the date to Compare against.”
·
Details:
1+
Robbery under Theft Act
1968 S.8.
2+
Associated with an
unexplained reference to "Pizza."
·
Court Sentencing:
1+ 21/05/98 (5th
sentencing date). “This is addressed below the next screenshot and its
text version.”
·
Contradictions:
1+
21/05/98:
(1)
is missing from the court
registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/193878F,) this is as proved by my
mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as
detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action
Conduct Letter!”
2+
If accurate, I would have
been in prison as of 20/05/98 before this court date
and was not made aware! “This is addressed below the next screenshot and
its text version.”
3+
This alleged offence “Precedes”
the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, rendering it
inconsistent with procedural norms.
4+
The Arrests section in
the Acro 2017 Report States: that I was Charged On: 28/02/97 at 16:51, Arrest 63.Arco, so if I
was charged on this date, it would still mean that this was before the first reprimand/warning dated 21/08/97,
and I could not have put a plea in at court on the 17/01/97
at I had not been charged.
·
Additional Notes:
1+
This is Arrest 63. Disposable
67. In the Acro Report 2017.
2+
This is also Conviction 9
in the 2012 PNC Printout.
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Snippet from PNC File.”
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”
★
|
9.
|
21/05/98 Enfield Juvenile
|
|
|
1.
|
1. Robbery '
On 17/01/97
(Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 S.8
|
Young Offenders
Institution 6 MTh’s
|
·
Additionally Addressing: “2+ If accurate, I would have been in prison
as of 20/05/98 before this court date and was not made aware!
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”
|
PNC Printout
This is a separate case to the
exhibited case above, but it demonstrates that I could not have been in
court on this day as I was in HMP Custody.
This is Conviction 5 from the 2012
PNC Printout.
★
|
This is the 2014
PNC Printout!
|
|
5.
|
20/05/98 Enfield
Magistrates
|
|
|
|
1.
|
1. Burglary and
Theft - Non-Dwelling On 03/01/98 (Plea: Not Known)
Theft Act 1968
S.9(1)(B)
|
Young Offenders
Institution 6 MTh’s At Feltham
DO THREE Months = The date 6 months after 20th
May 1998 would be 20th November 1998.
Sentence: 20/05/98 till 20/11/98.
Do 3 month inside
from the 20/05/98 till 20/08/98 then the
rest on Licence.
|
|
|
PNC Printout Conviction Intel: 9
1+ 17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1): this is supposed to be
the offence date and plea date and is the “Earliest Date” in
the PNC Printout and Acro Report, meaning that this is supposed to be the
first time I was ever arrested, and this is not true and never happened.
2+ Search the PNC Printout and the Acro Report Records
for:
01/97” and by doing this and checking
the search options will prove this to be recorded as the first ever offence
committed, as there are no dates earlier.
3+ PNC Printout 2012 States: the first reprimand/warning
date is 21/08/97 and this is after “17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1),” meaning that the
records are frauded.
PNC Printout Conviction Intel: 5
·
Now we are going to prove I
would have been in prison as of 20/05/98 before this court date and was
not made aware as I was not brought to court as the plea outlines!
1+ If accurate, the “20/05/98 PNC Printout Conviction
5” proves that I would have been in prison as of 20/05/98,
what is 1 day before the 21/05/98 and this means that I was not made aware
or brought to court, due to the plea date and not being able to attend the
Court House unless arranged and brought to it by prison staff. I would have
been on a prison induction wing and not registered completely into the
system.
·
Details PNC Printout 2012:
Conviction PNC Printout is: 5.
Plea Date: 03/01/98
Sentenced at Enfield
Magistrates: 20/05/98.
·
Details Acro Record 2017:
Arrest/Summons: 98/0000/00/5553D.
Disposable Court: 71.
Offence: 56. Arrest
Offence Date: 03/01/98
Offence Time: 20:00
Process Stage: Charged On 04/01/98.
Process Stage: Charged Time 18:05.
2+ As it
is recorded, this demonstrates that the records state that I went to prison
on the 20/05/98 for 6 months to the Young Offenders
Institution Feltham. Then this would mean that I would
have been released on Licence by the: 20/08/98, Three months later
with good behaviour but none of this happened.
3+ It is also important
to keep in mind that there are 1997 and 1998
dates both involved.
** ------Next------- **
b) 24/01/97 (Court Plea Date 2): “Court Adjudication Date: This
is the date to Compare against.”
·
Details:
1+ Taking a motor vehicle without consent.
2+ Driving-related offence.
·
Court Sentencing:
1+ 06/08/97 (1st
Court Sentencing Date).
·
Contradictions:
1+ 06/08/97:
a) missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T).
this is as
proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved
as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”
2+ This “Offence” “Precedes”
the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, undermining its
legitimacy.
3+ This “Court Sentencing” date “Precedes”
the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, undermining its
legitimacy.
4+ This is Arrest 62. Disposable 76. In the Acro
Report 2017.
5+ This is also Conviction 1 in the 2012 PNC
Printout.
·
Additional Notes:
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 11, Conviction 1 “Snippet from PNC File.”
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 11, Conviction 1 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”
★
|
1.
|
06/08/97 Enfield Magistrates
|
|
|
1.
|
Taking Motor Vehicle
Without Consent On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known)
Theft Act 1968 3.12(1)
|
No .Separate Penalty
Costs 25.00
Supervision Order 24
MTh’s
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on
Bail **
|
|
|
2 .
|
Using Vehicle While
Uninsured On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act
1988 S.143(2)
|
Disqualification From
Driving 12 MTh’s .
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on Bail **
|
|
|
3 .
|
Driving Otherwise Than
in Accordance
With A Licence
On 24/01/97
(Plea: Not Known)
Road Traffic Act 1988
S.87(L)
|
Driving Licence
Endorsed No Separate Penalty
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on
Bail **
|
|
** ------Next------- **
c) 24/04/97 (Court Plea Date 4): “Court Adjudication Date: This
is the date to Compare against.”
·
Details:
1+ Theft of a vehicle.
·
Court Sentencing:
1+ 12/11/97 (2nd
Sentencing Date). This date is not before the “The First
Reprimand/Warning Date!”
·
Contradictions:
1+ 12/11/97 missing
from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U). this
is as
proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved
as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”
2+ The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,) starts to cause an issue
but it has to be addressed under the last table of this kind due to it
needing its own table to be exhibited!
3+ This offence “Precedes” the first
reprimand/warning date 21/08/97.
·
Additional Notes:
1+
This is Arrest 60. Disposable
74. In the Acro Report 2017.
2+
This is also Conviction 2
in the 2012 PNC Printout.
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 13, Conviction 2 “Snippet from PNC File.”
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 13, Conviction 2 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”
★
|
2.
|
12/11/97 Enfield Magistrates
|
|
|
1 .
|
Theft Of Vehicle ' .
On 24/04/97 (Plea: Not Known)
Theft Act 1968 S.L
|
Community Service
Order 180 Hrs
Compensation 100.00
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on
Bail **
|
|
|
2 .
|
Using Vehicle While
Uninsured On 24/04/97 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act
1988 S.143(2)
|
No Separate Penalty
Driving Licence Endorsed
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on
Bail **
|
|
|
3 .
|
Driving Otherwise Than
in Accordance with A Licence (2 Tic's)
On 24/04/97
(Ple Not Known)
Road Traffic Act 1988
S.87(I)
|
No Separate Penalty
Driving Licence Endorsed
|
|
* *
|
Offence Committed on
Bail **
|
|
** ------Next------- **
d) 22/05/97 (Court Plea Date 5): “Court Adjudication Date: This
is the date to Compare against.”
·
Details:
1+
1x Burglary with intent to
steal – dwelling.
·
Court Sentencing: 13/11/97 (3rd sentencing date). “This
Is The Day After The Last Case!”
·
Contradictions:
1+
Arrest/Summons
Ref: (97/0000/00/768545U.) this is as proved by my
mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as
detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action
Conduct Letter!”
2+
The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,)
starts
to cause an issue but it has to be addressed under the last table of this
kind due to it needing its own table to be exhibited!
3+
This entry repeats similar
contradictions and inconsistencies as noted above, further preceding the “First
Reprimand/Warning Date 21/08/97.”
·
Additional Notes:
1+
This is Arrest 60. Disposable
73. In the Acro Report 2017.
2+
This is also Conviction 3
in the 2012 PNC Printout.
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 14, Conviction 3 “Snippet from PNC File.”
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 14, Conviction 3 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”
★
|
3.
|
13/11/97 Enfield
Juvenile
|
|
|
1.
|
Burglary
W/I To Steal - Dwelling On 22/05/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft
Act 1968 S.9(L)(A)
|
Community
Service Order 180 Hrs
Compensation
400.00
|
|
**
|
Offence
Committed On .Bail **
|
|
|
2.
|
Burglary
And Theft - Non-Dwelling On 11/02/97 - 12/02/97
(Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 3.9(1)(B)
|
Community
Service Order 180 Hrs
|
|
**
|
Offence
Committed on Bail *'*
|
|
** ------Next------- **
a) 11/02/97 + 12/02/97 (Court Plea Dates 3): “Court Adjudication Date: This
is the date to Compare against.”
·
Details:
1+
1X Burglary and Theft – non-dwelling.
·
Court Sentencing: 13/11/97 (3rd sentencing date).
·
Contradictions:
1+
13/11/97 missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U).
this is as
proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved
as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”
2+
The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,)
starts
to cause an and is now addressed under the next Screenshot exhibited.
3+
This offence “Precedes”
the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, further supporting
the fraudulent nature of this record.
·
Additional Notes:
1+
This is Arrest 60. Disposable
73. In the Acro Report 2017.
2+
This is also Conviction 3
in the 2012 PNC Printout.
§
Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 12, Conviction 3 “Snippet from PNC File.”
3) Key Findings:
·
The repetitive discrepancies across offences
demonstrate “Systemic Fraud” within the Acro
record. Entries that precede the “First
Reprimand/Warning Date” contradict lawful procedural
timelines, proving these records are fabricated or manipulated.
·
The Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U is central to this
issue, showing one arrest recorded in the Acro Report but linked to “Two Different
Disposable Numbers,” “73” and “74”, totalling “Three Separate Cases.” This creates
confusion due to the following findings:
a)
Disposable 73:
1+
Court Sentencing Date: 12/11/1997.
2+
Includes “Three Driving-Related
Offences” dated 22/05/1997 (08:45 to
16:20) with all occurring on the same day.
b)
Disposable 74:
1+
Court Sentencing Date: 13/11/1997.
2+
Features “Two Distinct Burglary and
Theft Cases:
§ Non-Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 11/02/1997–12/02/1997.
§ Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 22/05/1997.
·
Both offences are “Approximately 2.5
Months Apart” yet oddly sentenced together
as guilty on the same day (13/11/1997) at the Enfield
Juvenile Court.
c)
Critical Observations:
1+ All three offences
share a Plea: “Not Known” status.
2+ Court documentation
describes bail conditions from 08/10/1997, listing appearances at Enfield
Magistrates on 22/10/1997, followed by sentencing dates
(12/11/1997 and 13/11/1997).
d)
Documented
Irregularities:
·
Disposable 73's “Three Offences” are linked to “Conviction (2) in the
PNC 2012 Printout,” including:
1+
Burglary W/I to Steal – Dwelling.
2+
Driving-Related
Offences: Dated 22/05/1997 with unknown plea statuses.
·
Disposable 74's “Two Offences” are linked to “Conviction (3) in the
PNC 2012 Printout,” which highlights:
1+
Non-Dwelling Burglary: Dates contradict
procedural norms.
2+
Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 22/05/1997.
·
The plea date inconsistencies illustrate
procedural impossibilities:
1+
Simultaneous plea entries contradict logical
court processing timelines due to overlapping offence and court appearance
dates.
e)
Arrest 60's
Misrepresentation:
·
All three cases share the same “Arrest/Summons Ref:
97/0000/00/768545U,” indicating a singular arrest
linked to all offences. However:
1+
Documentation states “I Was Not Charged on the
Arrest Dates,” invalidating the claims.
2+
The Acro Report misleadingly consolidates the
cases under one arrest, contradicting the “PNC Printout,” which implies
charges and court dates match offence dates, a procedural impossibility.
f)
Systemic Fraud
Indicators:
·
The Acro Report and PNC Printout contain
irreconcilable contradictions, such as:
1+
Claiming simultaneous arrests, charges, and court
pleas on the same dates as the offences.
2+
Fabricated timelines aligning offences under “Arrest 60,” obscuring the
truth.
3+
Procedural violations, like charging and plea
entries outside lawful court hours.
4+
In Layman Terms:
·
Within the Acro Report, it is stated that all
three of these cases are linked to “Arrest
60”, sharing the same “Arrest/Summons Ref: (97/0000/00/768545U).” This implies one
singular arrest for all offences.
·
However, this cannot be accurate due to
procedural violations and systemic fraud, as outlined within this claim and
here:
a)
I could not have been arrested on these dates,
charged, and brought to court on the same day to enter a plea, as the
documents indicate. ‘The ACRO Report’ shows that I had not
yet been charged at the time of those arrests.
b)
It seems that a warrant may have been issued,
resulting in multiple arrests being consolidated into one incident referred
to as ‘Arrest 60’ in the ‘ACRO Report 2017,’ this
is evidenced by the same summons number for all the arrests. However, this
contradicts the ‘PNC Printout’s,’ which all state that I was
charged and went to court on the same days as the offense dates.
§
Arrest 60 Acro Report 2012
|
1+. Arrest / 2017 Acro =
97/0000/00/768545U = Remand x1 X2 Disposables!
Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U
Name Charged: CORDELL, SIMON PAUL
Date of Birth: 26/01/81
Fingerprint Status: CONFIRMED 66 (NIS - NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SERVICE)
09/09/97
Process Stage: CHARGED ON
01/09/97 21:18
Arresting Officer: URAND/PC/194672
Report Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Prosecuting Agent: CPS (CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE) Last Updated: 09/09/97
Remand
Description: REMANDED ON
BAIL ON 08/10/97
At: AT ENFIELD MAGISTRATES
To Appear At: NEXT APPEARING ON 22/10/97
At: AT ENFIELD MAGISTRATES
Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Last Updated: 09/10/97
Bail Address: BAIL
ADDRESS: 23 BYRON TERRACE ED
MONTON LONDON N9
Condition 1: TO
RESIDE AT BAIL ADDRESS
Condition 2: TO
OBSER VE A CURFEW BETWEEN 9PM & 7
AM
Condition 3: NOT TO
CONTACT DIRECTLY/INDIRECTLY PROSECUTION WIT NESSES OR
INTEREFER WITH IN
ANY MANNER
|
Three of Three
2.7. Missing From The Court Registry! Mother Proved
1) The Reason the Now Claimant Requested the ACRO
Report
·
The Now Claimant first
became aware of inaccuracies in his criminal record during legal
proceedings, where errors within the police printout of his criminal record
became evident.
·
At a crucial stage of the
proceedings, a failure-to-surrender charge was shown on the Claimant's
criminal record. The Claimant argued that this charge was inaccurate and
unfounded at the time, but despite raising objections, the custody officer
refused bail, deferring the matter to the court for resolution.
·
Upon appearing in court,
the presiding judge refused to hear verbal submissions from the Claimant or
his legal team regarding the criminal record's inaccuracies. This led to
the Claimant being remanded in custody based on the erroneous charge.
·
Subsequently, the
Claimant’s legal team obtained a copy of the police’s criminal record,
which they presented in court alongside evidence proving its inaccuracies.
Following this application, the judge granted bail under strict conditions.
·
These events prompted the
Claimant, his legal team, and his family to initiate inquiries to rectify
the errors in the criminal record to ensure such issues would not reoccur.
2) Efforts to Address Inaccuracies in the Police
Criminal Record
·
In 2013, the Claimant and
his mother began systematically reviewing the criminal record and
cross-checking it with court registries. They contacted relevant
courthouses to question arrest summons numbers and discrepancies in the
police printout.
·
Among the errors they
identified were:
a) Offence and court dates not aligning with official
records.
b) Several instances of court dates entirely missing
from the court registry.
c) Charges being listed inaccurately, without any
supporting evidence, or being dismissed in earlier proceedings.
3) Specific Instances Of Errors Include:
a) 21/05/98: Not
found in court records.
b) 05/01/01: Not
found in court records.
c) 17/08/02: Not
found in court records.
d) 24/04/03: Not
found in court records.
e) 25/01/08: A
failure-to-surrender charge dismissed by the judge.
§ As Exhibited Here:
·
The Claimant and his mother
repeatedly raised concerns via emails and personal visits to courthouses,
requesting clarification and evidence to address these discrepancies.
§ As Exhibited Here:
a) 1-PNC-Original-Emails
b) 3-PNC-Emails-Additional-Files-02-12-23
Sent: 18 September 2015 15:00
Attachments: Court-List-From-Benedicta.pdf
4) Evidence of Collusion and Fraud
·
Their investigation
uncovered patterns indicating systemic issues in how the Claimant’s
criminal record was maintained:
a) Errors in court dates and charges suggest that
records were inaccurately updated, or key data was fabricated to reflect
unfounded offences.
b) The refusal of authorities, including police and
courts, to correct these errors despite the evidence presented adds to
concerns of negligence or deliberate misconduct.
·
Ultimately, the
investigation revealed fraudulent practices within the Claimant's criminal
record. The errors in the records and the systemic failure to address them
have obstructed justice and caused undue harm to the Claimant.
5) Impact of Fabrications
·
Fabricated intelligence and
refusal to delete fraudulent records directly obstructed the claimant’s
ability to act earlier. Furthermore:
a.
The systemic collusion
among public entities deliberately prolonged the resolution process, adding
extraordinary circumstances to justify the extension of time limits under Section
32.
b.
The resulting harm to me both
procedural and reputational, underscores the severity of these actions and
the necessity for accountability.
6) Fraud Conclusion
·
The systemic misconduct,
collusion, and fraudulent records maintained by the police, council,
courts, and Acro department constitute deliberate concealment under Section
32 of the Limitation Act. These actions obstructed the claimant from
taking earlier legal action and justify the suspension of the limitation
period. The fabricated records, proven through careful analysis of the PNC
and Acro documents, further emphasize the urgent need for judicial
intervention to address these injustices.
·
The findings from the
Claimant's inquiries into the police’s criminal record and related Acro
records highlight a broader issue of systemic inaccuracy and negligence.
These inaccuracies, some of which appear to be intentional fabrications,
justify further scrutiny, and support the argument of fraud in maintaining
the Claimant’s records.
7) Legal Framework and Human Rights Violations
a. Fraud Act 2006:
·
Section 2: Fraud by False Representation of Official
Records:
1+
Misrepresentation
of Arrest Dates: Inaccurate arrest dates disrupt legal proceedings
and infringe upon individuals' rights.
2+
Plea
Timelines: Manipulated timelines mislead judicial
processes, undermining fairness and integrity.
3+
Procedural
Accuracy: Falsified procedural details erode the
reliability of official documents. Collectively, these violations justify
liability and necessitate accountability.
·
Section 3: Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information:
1+
Failure to address or
rectify contradictory timelines and irregularities constitutes deliberate
obstruction and deepens systemic misconduct.
b. Limitation Act 1980 (Section 32):
·
Fraudulent concealment
suspends standard time limits, ensuring that claims relating to
fabrication, collusion, and obstruction can proceed.
·
For “Human
Rights Cases,” time limits are waived under precedents and
international legal standards, emphasising the fundamental principle that
justice cannot be limited by procedural barriers when rights are violated.
c. Human Rights Act 1998 Violations
1+
Article 2: Right to Life
·
The fabrication of records
has caused irreparable harm to my livelihood, career prospects, and
personal development. These actions perpetuate stigma, harassment, and
alienation, infringing on my right to live a dignified and fulfilling life.
2+
Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial:
·
Manipulated records have
deprived me of procedural justice, preventing a fair opportunity to defend
against fabricated charges.
3+
Article 8: Right to Private and Family Life:
·
The falsified records
damaged my reputation and personal relationships, breaching my right to
privacy and family life.
4+
Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination:
·
Fabricated records were
systematically weaponised to target and discredit me based on identity
crises and stereotypes, perpetuating institutional bias.
·
This discrimination
encouraged cruel behaviors, alienating me socially and professionally.
·
Time limits cannot
constrain these claims, as they involve “Human Rights Breaches”
with profound and ongoing impacts. Such violations demand “Justice”
regardless of when the harm was first discovered.
d. Systemic Fraud Indicators
·
The “Acro
Report” and “PNC
Printout” contain clear systemic
fraud indicators, including:
1+
Simultaneous
procedural events (Arrests, Charges,
And Pleas) falsely attributed to the same dates.
2+
Fabricated
timelines consolidating multiple offences under “Arrest
60” to obscure procedural truth.
3+
Procedural
violations, such as charges and pleas, recorded outside
lawful court hours.
e. Impact on Dignity and Livelihood
·
The Fraudulent Records:
1+ Denied me equal opportunities for employment,
exacerbating “Psychological And Social Burdens.”
2+ Subjected me to “Stereotypical
Harassment,” further revealing systemic
flaws that disregard “Human Rights.”
·
These breaches
unequivocally establish liability for violating “Legal Standards”
and “Fundamental
Rights.” “Waiving Time
Limits For Human Rights Cases” is
essential to ensure justice and accountability for systemic misconduct.
f.
Systemic Fraud Indicators:
·
The Acro Report and PNC Printout Contain Irreconcilable
Contradictions, Such As:
§ Claiming
simultaneous arrests, charges, and court pleas on the same dates as the
offences.
§ Fabricated
timelines aligning offences under “Arrest 60,” obscuring the
truth.
§ Procedural
violations, like charging and plea entries outside lawful court hours.
3. Extraordinary Circumstances:
·
Evidence of collusion
across multiple entities (Police, Council, Courts, And Doctors)
demonstrates coordinated efforts to discredit me, and this included having "Joint
Circular" meetings about me, where their plans to obstruct and
harass me were executed. This systemic obstruction constitutes to extraordinary
circumstances beyond my control.
·
Overloading me with
documentation, while delaying Subject Access Requests that we put them in
receipt off. The liable denied access to critical information when they
used deliberate tactics to prolong delays in my claim.
4. Continuous Damage and Ongoing Harm:
·
Persistent harassment
fabricated legal actions (Such As The Fraudulent ASBO Alleging
Illegal Rave Organization), and refusal to address violent attacks
against me caused ongoing harm. The lasting physical and emotional
distress, compounded by their refusal to delete fabricated data, supports
the argument for “Continuous Damage,” which extends the time
limits for filing.
5. Protected Party Allegations:
·
The defendants falsely
claimed I was of unsound mind, despite no medical diagnosis supporting
these allegations. This baseless accusation was used to discredit my claims
and delay proceedings unfairly.
6. Human Rights Violations:
·
The actions taken by the
defendants constitute breaches of the “Human Rights Act 1998,”
including:
a) Article 6: Denial
of my right to a fair trial through systemic obstruction and fabrication of
evidence.
b) Article 3:
Subjecting me to degrading treatment by enabling harassment, false
accusations, and fabricated intelligence.
7. Time Limits and Discovery:
·
The coordinated efforts of
the police, council, courts, and doctors were uncovered through separate
Subject Access Requests and cross-referenced release notes. Only by putting
these together was I able to uncover the systemic collusion and obstruction
that had prevented me from asserting my rights earlier.
8. Judicial Discretion and Accountability:
·
Courts have discretion to
extend time limits when equitable and reasonable under the circumstances.
The systemic nature of the misconduct, the substantial evidence presented,
and the significant public interest in holding these entities accountable
necessitate judicial intervention.
9. Evidence of Prior Successes:
·
My successful outcomes in
previous legal battles, such as two possession orders and two injunctions,
demonstrate the merit of my case and the lengths to which the defendants
have gone to discredit me.
10. Impact on Daily Life:
·
The systemic abuse caused
me to fear leaving my own front door due to persistent setups and
harassment. This demonstrates the profound impact on my daily life and
strengthens the argument for extended time limits.
11. Public Interest and Systemic Accountability:
·
Exposing the coordinated
efforts of public entities to harass, obstruct, and discredit an individual
is in the broader public interest. Systemic misconduct by those entrusted
with public service cannot go unaddressed.
12. Conclusion
·
The combined evidence of
fraud, concealment, extraordinary circumstances, continuous damage, and
systemic misconduct unequivocally justifies extending the limitation period
under “Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.” This
case highlights not only the need for accountability but the urgent
requirement for systemic reform to prevent such injustices from recurring.
|