Dear Sirs,

   On out of time JR, accepted by Master Fontaine. If I'd had wanted to submit a JR application, the case would have proceeded through the Administrative Court.

The case was submitted and accepted by the Queens Bench Division because this case is UK Civil Fraud (EU, Competition Law), not Judicial Review.

On Sir Alastair Macduff's "reasons given by master". He never ordered a transcript - I have proof of this.

Sir Alastair : "If at first you don't succeed, bloody well cheat"

Ref: http://advance-software.com/gov/uk/_video/macduff_cheat.mp4

He attempted to misuse s54.4 Access To Justice Act to cheat - to avoid engaging his legal mind to an important case.

No, Sir Alastair, we won't cheat. We'll do this properly - all of it.

You can't cheat in computation. Computers only understand correct instructions. Hence all computer programmers, self included are experts on logic & correctness.

The High Court, less so, apparently.

Best regards,
Steve.


Dear Sirs,

ECJ Judgment: 19 June 1990

The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: House of Lords - United Kingdom.
Rights derived from provisions of Community law - Protection by national courts - Power of national courts to grant interim relief when a reference is made for a preliminary ruling.
Case C-213/89.

Ref: http://bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1990/C21389.html

Judgment: When the sole obstacle which precludes granting interim relief is a rule of national law, the Court must set aside that rule.

s54.4 Access To Justice Act 1999 must be set aside, Lord Kerr.

Please do so and proceed accordingly.

Regards,
Stephen J.H. Williams
Managing Director
Advance Software Limited
Telephone : 0789 8862206
Email : steve@advance-software.com
Mail: 34 New House, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8JY



Dear Sirs,

    A correction if I may. The judgment thus far is idiotic & wrong but that does not make all of you idiots, particularly those who have yet to make a decision.

I thus withdraw that comment & have removed unnecessary emotive from below - it doesn't help.

Master Roberts is not an idiot. He considered this case briefly & advised the matter appeared to be Civil Fraud. Promote him, please. A rare diamond.

Refusing to complete a necessary form citing various misleading excuses lights up Crossman Catalogue, yet this is not maladministration :)

Right ... :)

We can consider the necessity of completing the marking frame form at your convenience, in detail, but I won't do that here to keep this brief.

As for what I have to prove beyond dishonesty causing financial loss to fit within UK definition of Civil Fraud, I have no idea. It seems vague & poorly defined.

If there's a specific pattern I must match against, please provide it.

On 19 June 1990 the ECJ court (as "full court" of 11 justices) en banc gave its ruling, rephrasing the question posed as "whether a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule".

Ref: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1990/C21389.html

The sole obstacle in this case preventing an intelligent judgment (and hence interim relief as an initial step in the right direction) is to disapply s54.4 Access To Justice Act.

You *must* therefore disapply s54.4 Access To Justice Act.  Please also consider granting interim relief.  I no longer live in London. Minimal interim relief will allow me to work from there again and to instruct a legal team, to assist with resolution of this case.

We then have the remainder of 2020 to consider the substance in as much depth as you would like at your convenience.

Thank you for your serious consideration, President Hale.

You have said law must be rational. Thus far we have impossible already complete software should not be supported because it is illusory and civil fraud application submitted was in fact an out of time JR which should be ignored because completing forms is optional & support for projects is completely arbitrary at the entire discretion of civil servants managing public money - they can do what they please with the public's hard earned money with no redress possible for those who object to being ignored. That's only rational to a fraudster wanting insufficient oversight to enable them to act as they please - with all the implications that presents. Even without the element of fraud, civil servants having entire discretion is a terrible idea. They are not and  cannot be experts across the wide range of fields in which we in industry innovate. They make wrong calls all the time. These calls should be open to scrutiny, especially when the call is to ignore a valid application ... for 18 years !

Have progressed with work delivering the 3D web over that period on a minimal survival budget but that approach results in extremely slow delivery, quite possibly below the rate of progress required for critical mass global adoption - the ultimate objective of delivering said technology.

Please could the Court advise how it wishes to proceed. Available at your convenience.

The case must initially proceed in my name with a desire to re-plead as the Company once proceedings have begun. This is necessary as the company has insufficient funds with which to file an application.

I am the majority shareholder.

Case docs : http://advance-software.com/gov/uk/BEIS/adv_sc_beis_1.pdf

Can get them printed again if necessary. Ideally we save some trees & work from electronic.

Regards,
Stephen J.H. Williams
Managing Director
Advance Software Limited
Telephone : 0789 8862206
Email : steve@advance-software.com
Mail: 34 New House, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8JY

On 31/01/2020 13:44, Steve Williams wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
>     On 15/1/2020 for the second time, I attempted to have Lord Kerr's decision (attached) overturned as it is wrong in law. He should disapply s54.4 UK Access to Justice Act as it is contrary to EU Competition Law - fair competitive playing field.  Case Law : R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, March 1989 to November 2000.
>
> I called the UKSC Registry yesterday (30/1/2020) to determine status. In that call, the Registrar's representative (male, name not disclosed) advised appealing the the European Court of Human Rights even though this is an EU Competition Law violation. He then hung up on me.
>
> The Registrar has decided that EU Law no longer takes precedence over UK l aw even though it is in force for the remainder of 2020.
>
> Therefore I hereby register a complaint against the Registrar who is in violation of s3 & s4 UK 2006 Fraud Act which is a criminal offence. The case should be listed & properly considered.
>
> In the event the UK Supreme Court cannot (or will not) consider the matter I put before you (BEIS refuse to complete a form, citing various contradictory excuses for not doing so for 18 years causing us significant loss, tying up key personnel & access to equivalent funding granted to others despite positive MoD incubation & UK university report), how do I proceed to the ECJ General Court, please. Do I file directly with them a case of Competition Law violation by the UK or do you refer the matter to them for a consideration of the Competition law violation I raise.
>
> You're distorting the competitive environment by refusing us pro-rata support offered to others, sending me on wild goose chases & providing various contradictory excuses for your refusal to complete a simple form (attached, again).
>
> I have no idea how this fits into UKSC procedural rules. I'm busy delivering the 3D web to the whole planet with one pair of hands. Yes, for real. See MoD incubation report.
>
> What if single justice is wrong in law - then what ? Where is that written, please. Obv Kerr is wrong as EU Law has primacy over s54.4 UK Access To Justice Act. Still.
>
> As I understand it, nobody's got past 54.4 block before so you don't know what to do. What you do is list & consider the case properly. You don't ignore it. That's a  criminal offence. You can't break criminal law to avoid civil you can't be bothered with. Being bothered is why you're paid to come in. Don't want to be bothered, don't come in, don't get paid, retire or do something else. Nobody's forcing you to be there. If you are there, please act professionally. Clown court isn't funny.
>
> Will need at least two week notice so I can get back from Spain on a cheap flight in the event you will list - what is it exactly you're scared of ? That I might be right ? What's scary about that ?
>
> It is not the role of the Registry or a single justice (indeed the whole Court even) to make political decisions. Your role is to interpret law.
>
> Case Law : R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, March 1989 to November 2000.
>
> Summary: Courts hold the power to restrain the application of a UK Act of Parliament and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU Law.
>
> Are you overturning R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, March 1989 to November 2000 ?
>
> If so please explain by what authority & what rationale. How do you justify ignoring this case law ? s54.4 Acesss To Justice is contrary to the Competition law - specifics below.
>
> s.54.4 is abused to block cases you perceive to be vexatious. I'm not vexatious, I'm correct. Junior judges are arrogant and wrong. I can't help it, they are.
>
> Put me before someone competent please. In the event you find me to be wasting your time, which I'm not, bankrupt me.
>
> To be clear, Kelly-Anne is not at fault, she's professional & competent. Its others in that office who are acting fraudulently. They're blocking a case they perceive to be vexatious even though I cite clear errors in all judgments. Its not vexatious to demand correctness. Its being professional - try it.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen Williams.
>
> Contact via email steve@advance-software.com please as in Spain right now. Exercising my right to live & work in the EU as that right like all other EU law is in force for all of 2020.
>
> Please remind registry & Lord Kerr of this.
>
> Costs: QCs are £500 p/h. As CEO my pay grade is above a QC. So that's 10% of 18 years @ £500 p/h. Standard work week. Vague approximation. I'm not logging this. Too busy & you won't process it anyhow.
>
> Advance Software delivers the 3D web to the whole planet. You choose ignore our work & support others. Thereby distorting the competitive playing field to our disadvantage.
>
> Demo over period of hearing in the event anyone at the UKSC is wired into the 21st century.

> On 15/01/2020 13:58, Steve Williams wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kelly-Anne,
>>
>>     The bundle was collected, thank you.
>>
>> It is available electronically here : http://advance-software.com/gov/uk/BEIS/adv_sc_beis_1.pdf
>>
>> I have considered Lord Kerr's decision (attached) and believe it to be wrong in law. Sorry for the late response - totally swamped in work. Pushing this forwards now because as I understand it, EU Law ceases to apply in 15 days, so this case has urgency as the case has a European Law dimension. Given earlier disappointing decision (UK Parliamentary Ombudsman) that it does not matter what DTI(BEIS) did as we probably can't deliver, I pursue this action as late as possible to demonstrate beyond doubt that we can deliver.  Evidence : http://advance-software.com/products
>>
>> Current position: Lord Kerr cites a lack jurisdiction because of s54.4 UK Access To Justice Act.
>>
>> Sir Alastair Macduff ruled case dismissed because no prospect of success because of reasons stated by the Master.
>>
>> Master Fontaine failed to explain why my allegation of civil fraud should not be upheld. She accepted Defence straw man that case was out of time Judicial Review & 2006 Fraud Act didn't apply because tort was from 2002.  Therefore for Sir Alastair to state that the straw man should stand rather than to explain why civil fraud has not occurred is being lazy. It has by definition because everything else has timed out & not performing necessary duties, lying in Court, stating our tech is "illusory" after demonstrating its very real in Court and before the Ministry of Defence & UK universities is dishonesty causing a financial loss.
>>
>> Case summary: DTI (now BEIS) refused to perform their required duty of completing a marking frame for our properly submitted funding application.
>>
>> The cause of action is abuse of the discretionary mechanism within the funding programme. The European Commission state I should contest abuse of the discretionary mechanism before UK Courts. I am trying to do so.
>>
>> You are all saying BEIS refusing to complete a marking frame is correct. Clearly this is nonsense. My job was to submit a valid application. Their job was to score it. A small child knows their work should be marked.
>>
>> The "you must not have started work" position that the EC double down on over & above UK position of same is idiotic idealism. The real world does not work like this :)
>>
>> We must start work before applying or we have no confidence ourselves we can deliver. I've said all this before. I find the stupidity of upholding that position surprising.  Things do not happen
>> like that in practice. Its like living in a cartoon "acme" world where things pop up when you snap you fingers. They don't. All work of note is slow incremental progress over many years.
>>
>> The Defence now agree ! They have replaced SMART - see attached. Why, if there was nothing wrong with it ?
>>
>> Analogy: If you don't support athletes showing promise you have a rubbish sports team. The same is true in business. Are you all really this stupid ? Is this comedy judgment really your final position ?
>>
>> Hey can you run ? No, never tried. Excellent, you're in the Olympics team. Does this happen ? Of course not :)
>>
>> Case Law : R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, March 1989 to November 2000.
>>
>> Summary: Courts hold the power to restrain the application of a UK Act of Parliament and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU Law.
>>
>>
>> I request s54.4 UK Access To Justice Act be restrained and disapplied because its application in this case is contrary to European Law Fair Competitive Playing Field requirements.
>>
>>
>> Article 101 - Treaty of Functioning of the European Union.
>>
>> 1.(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
>>
>> Withholding support from our venture "because started" whilst supporting other projects over 18 years, most of which would have started in some manner prior to entering into state support (because real world) is obviously limiting our ability to execute. Lack of support upholding this idiotic excuse ("because fairly advanced / started" limits our ability to attract investment & pursue an optimal technical development strategy.
>>
>> (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
>>
>> Billions have been spent supporting others. Dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions have occurred. We have been placed at a competitive disadvantage.
>>
>> There are further breaches, but this is enough to determine whether I have your serious attention. I'll stop here for now, pending the view of the Court.
>>
>> EU Law has been breached. s54.4 Access To Justice Act should be disapplied and the case should proceed.
>>
>> Please list it, urgently, as EU law ceases to apply in 15 days & provide a date for the hearing or a clear reason why you won't disapply s54.4 Access To Justice Act if this is the view of the Court.
>>
>> Service Details : Advance Software Limited, 34 New House, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London, London, England, EC1N 8JY.
>>
>> Telephone : 0789 8862206
>>
>> Email : steve@advance-software.com
>>
>> Please respond or at least provide copy over email so we can progress this as fast as possible given the rapid approach of the end of EU law. I receive postal mail very slowly as that's a low cost virtual office - all I can currently afford.
>>
>> The case must initially be listed in my name, with a desire to replead as the Company once heard. I must proceed this way as the Company has insufficient funds to apply directly.
>>
>> Thank you for your serious consideration.
>>
>> We only make things better by calling out & correcting stupidity.
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2019 10:33, UKSC Registry wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Mr Williams
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your email below.  We have not destroyed the bundle and it is still available for collection.  The Registry will re-open on Wednesday 9 January 2019 at 10 am
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kelly-Anne Johnson
>>>
>>> Case Manager
>>>
>>> Registry
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
>>>
>>> Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD
>>>
>>> DX 157230 PARLIAMENT SQUARE 4
>>> +44(0)20 7960 1991 | registry@supremecourt.uk | registry@jcpc.uk
>>>
>>> www.supremecourt.uk | www.jcpc.uk
>>>
>>>
>
>