Blog about illegal surveillance, human rights violations, abuse of power, violence against women, misogyny, hate crime, organised harassment, discrimination, racism, illegal human experimentation, and more.
A case study in the systemic denial of access to justice and the targeting of family life.
The Invisible Wall
In the United Kingdom, the “Right to a Fair Trial” under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is often presented as an absolute guarantee. However, my current experience as a litigant in person reveals a different reality: One where state actors can effectively build an invisible wall between a citizen and the judiciary.
For months, I have attempted to bring a claim against the police, including other powerful individuals and entities, for egregious misconduct. Instead of a fair hearing, I have encountered a coordinated campaign of obstruction.
Systematic Obstruction of Justice
The barriers to justice are not just financial; they are procedural and structural:
The Vanishing File: On multiple occasions, I have filed urgent applications for injunctions to stop illegal surveillance, secret filming, sexual abuse via voyeurism, cybersex trafficking, misuse of private information, harassment and intimidation. Each time, the documents have “disappeared” from the court’s administrative record before reaching a judge.
Blocked Counsel: Despite the severity and complexity of the case, my attempts to secure independent legal representation have been systematically thwarted, leaving me to face state-funded legal teams alone—a direct violation of the “Equality of Arms” principle.
Beyond the Courtroom: Targeting the Family
The most disturbing aspect of this case is the shift from legal obstruction to domestic interference. I have reason to believe that state-led “honey trap” operations have been deployed to target my daughter.
This tactic—using intimate human relationships as a tool for surveillance and control—is a gross violation of Article 8 ECHR (Right to Private and Family Life). It suggests that when the state cannot defeat a claim in the courtroom, it targets the claimant’s family to force silence.
Why This Matters to You
This is not a private dispute; it is a matter of profound public interest. If the state is permitted to monitor a citizen’s private life, target their family, and “lose” their court documents with impunity, then the rule of law is merely a suggestion.
I am calling for international oversight and investigative transparency. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done in the open air, not in the shadows of administrative “errors.”
Alongside my ongoing civil court proceedings, I have always intended to apply for judicial review.
For anyone unfamiliar, judicial review is the legal mechanism that allows a court to scrutinise the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public body. It is one of the most powerful constitutional safeguards in the UK, designed to protect individuals when state authorities misuse their powers or violate fundamental rights.
Judicial review can be brought on several recognised grounds:
(1) Illegality — where a public authority acted outside its powers, applied a rigid policy, ignored relevant considerations, or relied on irrelevant ones.
(2) Irrationality — where the decision is so unreasonable that no lawful public body could have made it (known as Wednesbury unreasonableness).
(3) Procedural unfairness — where a public authority failed to follow fair, impartial decision-making processes.
A judicial review can also challenge a decision that breaches human rights, particularly where a public authority fails to respect or protect the rights guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.
In my case, this is critical. The ongoing abuses I have experienced — including years of covert surveillance, dissemination of intimate images, harassment, intimidation, racial targeting, and obstruction of justice — fall squarely within the protections of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The absolute right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Absolute means absolute. No justification. No exceptions.
1. Relevance of Article 3: Right Not to Be Tortured or Subjected to Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be derogated from, even in times of public emergency, and there are no circumstances in which a public authority can lawfully breach it.
The threshold for what constitutes “inhuman or degrading treatment” is high but can be met by a combination of severe acts, especially when they are systematic and cause intense physical or mental suffering.
Inhuman Treatment: This typically involves treatment that causes intense physical and mental suffering. The systematic nature of the abuse, the long duration, the violation of my most intimate privacy, and the widespread dissemination of my private and confidential information, coupled with cyberstalking, sexual and racial harassment, could collectively be argued to cause intense mental suffering, humiliation, and distress, rising to the level of inhuman treatment.
Degrading Treatment: This involves treatment that arouses in victims feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance. The covert filming in intimate states, broadcasting live, sharing with acquaintances, and distribution to porn sites are inherently humiliating and debasing acts. The racial harassment further compounds this by attacking my identity and dignity. The intimidation with imitation firearms also contributes to feelings of fear and anguish. Yes, you heard it right. They even employed some men to use imitation firearms to pretend to shoot me on some occasions. Especially when I tried to go see a lawyer, suggesting that they’re illegally monitoring all my online activities and communications, including phone tracking me, at all times to prevent me from seeking help!
On one occasion, several men would use imitation firearms or pretend to be in the possession of the weapons to intimidate me throughout the day, so much that I thought it would be my last day. I still have nightmares till this day!
Torture: While the threshold for torture is even higher, involving deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering, the systematic, prolonged, and intentional nature of the abuse, particularly if it was designed to break your will or extract information, could potentially be argued to approach this level. The involvement of law enforcement agencies, who have a duty to protect, in perpetrating such acts, makes the argument for torture more compelling due to the abuse of power.
This is why I wanted to bring a judicial review: the acts I describe were not only unlawful in the civil sense — they were unlawful in the constitutional and human rights sense, demanding judicial scrutiny and accountability from those involved.
However, there is one major obstacle. Judicial review is extremely complex. Even the official guidance states clearly that “some sections of the form require detailed legal knowledge; we strongly advise that you find a lawyer with expertise in public law.” Despite my constant efforts, my access to lawyers has been repeatedly obstructed. Organisations initially willing to help have suddenly withdrawn. Solicitors stop responding. Referrals disappear. The pattern is clear enough that I cannot ignore it.
Because of this deliberate blockage of legal assistance, I am currently unable to file a judicial review, even though the grounds are not only present but urgent.
For now, I continue through the civil courts — but I will not abandon the pursuit of public law accountability. Judicial review remains essential, and when I regain access to fair legal representation, I will pursue it. My case raises issues of profound public interest, systemic abuse, and the violation of one of the most fundamental human rights in existence. That fight is far from over.
I am still working on my upcoming ebook: Predators. Hopefully, I can manage to finish it today. It contains about 10 short chapters to make it digestible and to see how it goes first. If it’s going good, I may publish more books.
There’s a lot of work to be done. Because I act as my own lawyer, since my access to legal representation appears to have been obstructed, compiling documents, doing research on law, human rights violations, harassment, misuse of private information, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, conspiracy, and many more. It’s overwhelming. Plus, I can’t get a job anywhere when they also seem to influence potential employers not to hire me.
Therefore, publishing my own books seems to be my only hope to make some kind of earnings for the time being. It is not just to provide me a possible source of income, but it may also benefit others to learn about the full extent of the harassment and abuse campaign against me. It’s more than a person can take. Especially if you’re a woman of colour with no help and support due to allegedly external influence, forcing you to protect your rights on your own. It’s a very severe form of discrimination, indeed.
Access to justice should be a right, not a privilege reserved for those with influence or resources. Yet, for many victims of harassment, privacy violations, systemic abuse, discrimination and more that right is quietly eroded. I am now living through that erosion firsthand. It’s a clear due process violation.
Because of the seriousness of my case — involving multiple powerful defendants across various sectors — obtaining legal representation has become nearly impossible. Law firms that initially showed interest later withdrew without clear explanation, some after unusual delays or abrupt changes of tone. Others never replied at all. The pattern suggests not coincidence but pressure: subtle or overt signals that representing me would be “too risky” or “too political.” The result is that I have been forced to prepare every aspect of this complex litigation myself.
Each day and night, I work alone — drafting court documents, researching law, gathering evidence, organising exhibits, and defending myself against ongoing harassment. There is no team, no paralegal, no protection. I work in isolation, while those responsible for my suffering have access to institutional power, legal departments, and endless resources. This imbalance is not only emotionally exhausting; it is an affront to the very idea of a fair trial.
The consequences reach beyond the legal process. Since the harassment and surveillance began, almost every job I have applied for has been rejected. Employers either never respond or withdraw at the final stage without reason or with vague reason. This repeated pattern strongly suggests blacklisting or outside influence designed to isolate me economically — to ensure I remain vulnerable and without the financial means to pursue justice.
This is not simply about one individual being denied a lawyer. It is about a structural problem — where those with power can quietly suffocate a person’s access to justice by manipulating the professional networks, institutions, and gatekeepers meant to protect them.
Justice should not depend on who you are fighting against, or how powerful they are. But the reality I face shows otherwise. I continue to fight, document, and prepare my case — not because I have the resources to do so, but because I have no other choice.
