OPEN JUSTICE – THE SOLUTION
Open justice is a constitutional principle of English law, not a procedural aspiration or administrative courtesy. Its three indivisible dimensions — observation, accessibility, and participation — are enforceable rights rooted in common law, confirmed by the Supreme Court, reinforced by ECHR Articles 6 and 10, and now being institutionalised through the 2026 Commercial Court pilot scheme.
But before those rights can be deployed, a court must accept the constitutional method by which they are established and applied. That method — the common law system as meta-law — is the first logical bridge.
This analysis begins there and then works outward through the law of the land, the judicial oath, the foundational case law, and the full operational architecture of open justice across its three dimensions.
The Proclamations–Entick–Cape chain is stated in full.
The observer effect is grounded in both constitutional authority and documented empirical evidence. The challenge pathways for physical exclusion, CVP refusal, and document access denial are set out in full.
This document is designed for ongoing addition as further research and litigation experience accumulates.
Under this principle of open justice unless the court has good reason ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS…
If I have missed redacting something let me know so I can correct it (also if there is a file referred to anywhere that I may have missed)
CLAIMANT AND DEFENCE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND THOSE REFERED TO IN CLAIM AND DEFENCE
20260204 Defence and Direcions response_sealed_form_774MC171 Redact_Redacted
20260107 MCOL Notification and 4 feb response date
20260107 774MC171-sealed-claim-form R
20251217 Confirming Hodder no supporting evidence_R
20251210 Letter Before Action_R
20251209 PK Reply to performance claim_Redacted
20251203 Peacekeepers prize claim 03122025 R
20250920 b Edmund Reply_Redacted
20250920 a PK 2nd appeal rejection_Redacted
20250919 c Hodder 2nd Appeal email_Redacted
20250919 b 1st Appeal Refusal_Redacted
20250919 a NOC NOC Challenge 1st Appeal_Redacted
20250919 Email enclosing 1st Appeal_Redacted
20250916 b Rejection of Hodder 1st performance submission_Redacted
20250916 a Hodder 1st perfomance claim Reminder_Redacted
20250729 NOC Challenge Response by Edmund Hodder_Redacted
20250729 EH first online submission_Redacted
C3 – 20260222 Notice of hearing 12 March 10am
STRIKE OUT / SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION
C4 – Hodder – Exhibit EH1 R_Redacted 1
C2 – 20260217 Statement of case for strike out application compressed x2 R_Redacted
C1 20260217 Hoder Strike out application and Notice o fHearing for 12 March reduced R_Redacted
REMAINING DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY IN PRE STRIKEOUT APPLICATION
LATE SUBMISSIONS
C5 – 20260307 Exhibit EH2 Supplementary Evidence Bundle R_Redacted
PK RESPONDENTS Skeleton Argument with Annexes
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Typical MOJ incompetence… fail to give notice of hearing and send CVP Link a week before – so well done CVP link department BUT who is responsible for the incompetence???
20260422 – 774MC171 EDMUND HODDER v PEACEKEEPERS FOUNDATION_Redacted
and 2 days later
20260424 Notice of Hearing 774MC171 – Strike out Defence Judgment hand down 1 May 2026
BUT STILL MORE INCOMPETANCE…
After aborted hearing as the reserved judgment and order was not circulated… for the first listed hand down on the 1 May 2026…
Reserved Judgment circulated after the aborted 1 May hand down
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2026/CC37.html
20260501 b 774MC171 Hodder v Peacekeepers Foundation Judgment
But well done for including new notice of hand down / sequential matters before the re-listed 3 June 2026
20260511 Notice of 3 June Hand down
SEQUENTIAL MATTERS
Having failed to join me personally by having changed (this takes application of the mind to link the distinguishing difference of pledges v Carlill ‘held funds’ which the court failed address in its ratio…. by Blitz failing to go through the Parker-Grennan warning in my Skeleton of ‘the reasonable person web site journey) the defendant in EH2… with expanding his doxing allegations (which failed) he tries again…
Hodder’s Statement of Costs to make further applications…
774MC171 Claimant N260 Statement of Costs_Redacted
Alleging:
- I ran a public harassment campaign… FAILED
- I am responsible for other peoples facebook posts… FAILED
- Misleading the Court… FAILED
- Jurisdictional Subversion… FAILED… claiming
- judicial authorities [HE MISSED OUT OBITER COMMENTS] were dismissed as ‘mere commentary’…
- I called the court ‘Corrupt’ which is impossible when asking a question where the alternative is incompetent!!! Those of you who know me is everybody accuses me of failing to accept judicial corruption because I believe to make such an allegation evidence is required and at best one can say they are incompetent!
- And ‘Malicious Bad Faith Conduct’… FAILED
- Forcing a litigant in person to endure a “puerile” online public humiliation campaign…
- and alleging my ORTHODOX CONTRACT DEFENCE was ‘pseudo-legal, unnecessarily voluminous, and spurious defence is completely “out of the norm”…
Copies of Receipts for Disbursements Claim 774MC171
With his Annex of ‘evidence’…
774MC171 Claimant N260 Statement of Costs_Redacted
and
20260530 N244_Joint_Several_Liability_Application_Claim_774MC171_Redacted FAILED
Then verbally Hodder even tried to get a penal notice attached to the order…Â FAILED… needs to go through normal process…
Despite this I fully supported his statement of costs as far as the courts treatment of LIP’s costs… arguing they cannot be compared with that of a legal professional time taken… and BLITZ partially acted… but still to claim a LIP time per hour is only worth £24/hour is disgraceful when the minimum rate for a legal professional is just under £200/hr… BUT THAT IS ANOTHER BATTLE WE ARE FIGHTING IN COURT!
FINAL ORDER AND REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO APPEAL…
202606 774MC171 N460 Verbal Refusal PTA
SO now appeal to Circuit Judge who has an interesting legal decision to make…
Documents will be posted here…