KEY Page Changes 8 Oct. 2006
||Two LIPS Talking * Page created 27th April *
JOIN a Network, a
Community on Line. Work with others for the Common Good & A Better World.
Challenge & Expose Fraud & Corruption. REPORT criminal activities as YOU ARE duty
bound to do. Do so in the Public Domain. Name all Public Servants who act in contempt of
Parliament's Law Consider the ruling we point you to and
ask: "WHAT BE THE OVERALL AIM OF OUR INTENTIONS, for publishing such truths and
realities as we report and expose and as the victims of abusers of Public Office
Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (link) and ACT
with others against the offenders. Join
in a class action.
Sites For The Above Projected Action lbduk.org (File update)
JOIN the Community On Line and publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you
have. Use your rights in law (*Link) & ACT with
others against the offenders. It is in the victims' interest to work with
and for each other's successes through the mass of evidence. All can benefit by creating
the data of common practices, as in the member's
case you can access details of, as we invite you, below.
member's case as registered in June 2002 at the European Court of Human Rights. THE FACTS
VIOLATIONS as pleaded by us should be compared with your own experiences. Point to the
submitted work by using the links we provide you here. If you refer to or copy the work,
ensure that you do qualify the source of the intellectual property. READ of the latest CHALLENGES & EXPOSURES
necessitated after the childish assertions by persons who allegedly serve 'Justice'.
(ABDUCTED and raped daily by the very public servants). IF YOU wish to know of why
and what is behind it all and the FOUNDATIONS for the rampant abuse of the legal systems
in CIVILISED(?) democracies(!) that allegedly rest and are founded on LAW and ORDER YOU
MUST access the new site.
the member's site
for additional information and how solicitors and courts did act in contempt of the LAW.
the creation of the mass of evidence against the offending public servants. It will
support actions you and others can instigate jointly and or severally. We cover In our
pages such rights, & the laws breached and violated by the state through the public
servants who defraud citizens of their rights in law and
their assets / properties. Access the relevant page and consider our invitation and your rights.
the content of this page very carefully and recognise how each of the protagonists was
after self-promotion while at the same time agreeing over what was to come from within
their circles, as a mob organised at deceit with undeclared intentions and 'stitch you up,
behind your back mate', as fast learners care of the facilities we cover in the exclusive
and clearly stated page: * /confraud.htm *
Note, both protagonists in this page were proclaiming their
intentions to join in the exposures warranted and accepted as the only avenue through
which to inform the world, THE JURY AT LARGE, of the facts and the realities of life in
the legal system.
NEITHER proceeded to such activities. Both used contact with
*human-rights* for other purposes than just their alleged intentions 'to expose the fraudulent activities at and within the
courts / legal system'.
Their main pre-occupation was to use alleged intentions, to publish it
all on the Internet, as a lever and to cause the authorities to deal with claims to
compensation, sooner rather than later.
Failing to act as honourably and openly, as the Community On Line members
do and as the case stated and lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, was never
within 'the make-up of the two, actors. Submitting to the ECoHR as 'OUR AIMS' statement of intent cover and as the law provides
was never within their idea of: "Justice To Be Seen To Be Done & In Open
Courts". The 'confidential' settlement under
the counter, the constructive frauds on the Taxpayers, their only target.
Fast learners, indeed. Followers of the practices they
adopted as their modus operandi, too.
Both went for undisclosed parts in, and endorsement by them both, of the
realities we cover elsewhere. In fact the Honorary Secretary of the LIPS crowd / mob
declared, in an email that ...... it is all legal!
Below an email from Johan to Andrew. READ IT and consider five important aspects.
(1) Why did 'J' fail to use the judgement and appeal the Order of the
day? He did, after all, contact and instruct a firm of solicitors who, he stated would not
flinch to even take the government on! 'J' boasted so, following 'the
dismissal of the application as set down by 'J' and as presented to the court by 'J's
mentor Mr Lewis (Lou) Foley, who was also the mentor of the old age pensioner, whose case
was covered in the Daily Mirror article below, in September
of the very year. Read the article and draw your own conclusions as to the roles of such
persons for and in the scenarios promoted by Norman and 'J' about their playmate as
another of 'the fraudsters club recruits' and
'activist', alleged challenger.
(2) Why did 'J', his mentor and his new solicitors choose NOT TO APPEAL,
also the new dismissal? Why indeed default to proceed to an appeal of the order
resting on the application as advocated, settled and presented to the court by 'J's
mentor on the day? The answer, simple ; the scam was simply, theatre for the naive and
The answer to the above question, lay in the fact
that 'J' raised(!) funds FOR payments to the solicitors he had acted against, because of
the issues pleaded in the Appeal we publish in our pages. At that point in time Andrew
knew that the negotiations for which 'J' engaged a NEW FIRM OF SOLICITORS, were ONLY to
settle the 'fraudulent charges' (the FIRST FRAUD, by the legal circles, through
abuse of the courts' processes and facilities). It was clear that the agreed settlement
was in accordance with the provisions of Article 38. SETTLEMENT concluded meant THE
PARTIES who abused the courts' processes for asset striping and transfer to their circles
( constructive frauds) WERE TO BENEFIT from the conversions. It also meant that 'J' was
dreaming of further abuse of Andrew's time, and that much more had been in his plans with
others. 'J', after all, attempted, to pass HIS NEW SOLICITORS as the right firm to
challenge 'public servants who abuse public office and steal / plunder the citizens'
assets / properties.
Read the Appeal. Acquaint yourselves with the realities of life in the
Prepare for more factual revelations, in due course.
(3) Why fail to contact the Lord Chancellor and lodge substantial
submissions to his Lordship, instead of promoting 'the new wrongs' by word of mouth only
to other victims?
(4) 'J', after all was aware of the content of a succinct letter the Lord
Chancellor wrote in respect of the issues that evolved out of Mr G. H. Screen's case. In
the letter his Lordship very clearly stated that he had set up a special team to look into
matters of 'judicial conduct' .(Link)
(5) WHY did 'J' fail to confirm if he contacted the
European Court Of Human Rights to add the ongoing violations by and in the courts as a
gross breach of the provisions of Article
1 of the First Protocol? Andrew HAD, after all, pointed to that violation and
provision which his mates within LIPS, evidently knew not of just like both of his
mentors, past and present (at the time)!
"Andrew, The tape that you dropped at my
house, I am unable to transcribe the Judgement you recorded, I will make a copy for you
later and a copy for the Lord Chancellor if he so requests one.
Many thanks for your efforts to help me and others that are not given a fair hearing in
our so called Courts, by their determined actions to conceal evidence and hold
hearings in closed court rooms, and for abusing our rights to legal representations by
Johan F. "
ASK : '
WHY assert 'IF' the Lord Chancellor requests for one? A wronged party who had already
petitioned the ECoHR then establishes through his telephone call & vile attempts that
he was ready to go along the path that the party, assisting and guiding the old age
pensioner (see article below) AND the person he called
('N') ALSO eager that the procedure to be followed was the dead end alley. In other
words 'NO APPEAL and NO route to Strasbourg, BY choice! BOTH oblivious to the fourth dimension
FOR Abraham Lincoln's famous assertion "...' and there are some people YOU can never
fool at any time". AY 1956
same fraudster was also promoting lies by alleging that affidavits were altered by Andrew
before publication on the Internet. The fraudster, the person he called or the authors of
the allegedly altered affidavits NEVER raised such issues with Andrew, simply because the
FRAUDSTER WAS FABRICATING TO HIS HEART'S DELIGHT.
£100,000 chasing abducted justice
and the victims of the experts multiply as the advocates and
promoters of theatrical productions take their victims down the dead end alleys of
abducted Justice with promises for an eventual settlement under the scheme we expose [*Link to] in our exclusive revelations.
Joining in, is the new class of experts that 'J' and 'N' knew of, perfect
specimens, as recruits in 'the fraudsters club' both.
The article above was published at least three weeks before the two crafty engaged in the
exchanges we publish in this page. BOTH knew of the simple fact that the alleged legal
expert was but an earlier victim of the legal circles and a convert to the new codes of
morals imposed by and through the arrangements in place (*Links List). Note the issue and
prepare for more revelations. We point to the words
used by Norman, giving it all away.
Johan was to rely on the very expert who was guiding and assisting the old age pensioner. The exchanges between the two LIPS
members qualify and clarify, through the double-talk they engaged in, more than enough. (Link)
|J M Foenander &
N Scarth & references to the persons
entire file / page
2. N Scarth pages & CoL site
3. J Foenander Divorce Fraud
4. What for? Appeal
5. Who? Divorce Victim
6. Mrs. Justice Smith
7. Mischief Maker & Liar
8. Jim Hulbert
9. Jonathan Aitken
10. Pensioner Sues Blair
11. Andrew Yiannides
12. Lou (or Lew-is) Foley
the succinct letter from the Legal Aid Board that covers simple facts AND WHY Andrew was
interested in Johan's 'J's' case. The solicitor 'J' spoke of was one of the two who
took part in the attempt to convert and misappropriate Housing Benefit funds through
'the relevant county court's FREE 4 ALL facilities. THEFT of rents owing to a targeted
as had been arranged through the invisible services industry - part of the CIUKU
Odds are that the person who sent 'J' to *human-rights* and to Andrew was aware of
the challenges that put an end to the attempts by the solicitors and the county court
staff and officers to indulge in the usual 'theatrical productions'. The targeted victim
will be publishing a succinct affidavit. THE POLICE who negated in their public duties
while offering invisible services through their defaults and omissions will be challenged,
yet again, to state IF IT BE THEIR INTENTION TO BRING ABOUT PROSECUTIONS of at least two
criminals they have been harbouring for years now.
victims multiply, and of that there is no doubt. In preparation for the warranted
exposures and the realities that arose as of the day when 'J' (Mr Johan M. Foenander)
visited Andrew after he returned from a trip to Australia contacted *human-rights*
'N' (Mr Norman Scarth) and two other victims received, from Andrew copies of an explicit
and succinct affidavit that had been settled and lodged at a County Court, years earlier.
It covered much more than the recipients expected and the content / pleadings covered the
very issues, that our succinct *Confraud* page covers.
The transmitted copies WERE MEANT AS A WARNING SHOT to actors who were playing a dangerous
game as alleged 'challengers & victims of the legal circles / the system of LAW
The meeting referred to by Johan:'J' was one that Norman: 'N' knew of.
'N' had been party to undisclosed secret arrangements. As the pre- appointed' Honorary
Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, he knew much more. Andrew had not been
invited to the meeting.
The 'controllers and organisers of much the same shambles, for years, as
'J' complained of to 'N' nonetheless, new LIPS members were directed to
*human-rights* and to Andrew for assistance, as happened with and in the case with 'J',
himself. For days before the meeting, another member of LIPS was telephoning Andrew
and persistently 'demanded' of Andrew to telephone the self- appointed President of the
LIPS crowd . The caller insisted that Andrew should put proposals to the 'Life President'
for members to discuss at the meeting. Andrew flatly refused to get involved and told the
caller that he would only attend as an observer in order to report any 'LIPS' developments
in the Internet Newsgroups, IF the meeting did not turn out to be another sham as the two
fiascos in Birmingham in 1998, when in fact the persistent caller himself had been given
cause to walk out 'disgusted' as he stated then.
The previous year, Andrew had been invited and was able to attend only the second meeting.
At the time Andrew called upon the organisers, for the umpteenth time (since they invited
Andrew and The CAMILA Project' to join LIPS as Affiliates) to consider going on line, as
other organised groups were doing. The second meeting had been convened solely for the
LIPS crowd to select a steering committee with a brief to plan and steer the 'crowd' out
of the wilderness.
On that occasion, as soon as the 'life President' walked in, she told Andrew that he
should not / could not address the meeting, unless invited by the chair! Andrew
responded by clarifying that he was attending as an invited person who was not prepared to
waste his time by going through the same 'cry over each other's shoulders' and tell us
what happened to you shams, THE ANNUAL farce that had been on-going for far too many
years. IF any of the attendees were there for similar performances, Andrew pointed out,
THEN the invitation was misleading and an abuse of other people's trust and time.
The word had been that the self appointed life president was to resign, and a steering
committee was to be elected in order to 'plan for the future'. On that basis Andrew was
attending that meeting and was to act as observer and reporter on the all important
As sure as the sun rises every day the pantomime was in full swing within minutes. The
president who was going to resign did not, on the grounds that there was no quorum. The
'president' was to stay on until a meeting when enough members were to attend and vote in
persons who could steer the 'crowd' out the frozen capsule it had been for years. It was
but another farce of a gathering, just as the organisers had arranged a few weeks earlier
for a Channel 4 documentary on the legal services. Very disappointing results all round
with C4 securing and using nothing of substance.Andrew asked the 'president' simply:
"How many invitations had been sent out to 'members' and IF it was possible to
provide him with a copy of the Articles of Association, the charter or the Statement of
Intent of the crowd known as the Litigants In Person Society, and he pointed out that it
was something he had been asking, of the president and her lieutenants for years. Andrew
then pointed out that 'The CAMILA Project' had delivered, years earlier, to the
crowd's leaders such and to the day he never received the essential
documents. MORE TO FOLLOW.
IS clear that the caller set out to interfere in our work. He
used a number of ploys, in his attempts, to bring about an end to the co-operation between
'N' and Andrew.
The two scans, below, do evince
the fact that there was continued 'common interests work'. The leaders of the LIPS crowd /
mob had introduced other victims to.
One such 'victim (?) / challenger'(?) had been
involved in numerous court applications. After one such 'production / presentation' at the
RCJ, Strand, London, which Andrew attended, there followed a private meeting at the
victim's residence. Persons from the LIPS crowd, who had been assisting the victim, were
present. Andrew pointed out that:"As the issues were of a criminal nature, a
Section 9 Statement should be prepared, signed and then delivered to the police. It would then be a matter FOR the police to act as their
The victim and his LIPS assistants, subsequently attended the
police at Charring Cross, London after another failed / rejected court application.
We were later informed that in a letter the police sent to the victim,
the police were stating that INSTRUCTIONS from the Lord Chancellor and his Lordship's
Department 'forbade the police to interfere in the work of the judges'.
That was what Andrew was told by the victim, WHO then refused to hand a
copy of the letter from the police to the victim'. We hasten to add that the 'victim' had
'joined(?) the Community On Line and qualified that he was to act as 'OUR AIMS' statement
of intent clarify.
The victim, Like 'N' & 'J' never acted in that direction. All three
were good at theatrics intended to impress 'victims and others they had been & are
The letter from the police we
publish here, IS FROM A FAXED copy that Norman Scarth, in his capacity as the Honorary
Secretary of LIPS, received from the victim(?).
Recognise the fact that co-operation existed far beyond the telephone
call attempts evinced in this page. Such went on and was to be the
situation (until July 2001) despite many more vile activities, behind the scenes by and
from 'victims' operating from within the LIPS crowd / mob.
Norman's letter to the Lord Chancellor's Department and note that 'N' sent a true copy by
post to Andrew at *human-rights*.
Do not fail to note the fact that the issue was PERJURY - false statements on OATH in order to defeat /
pervert and CORRUPT Justice (as if she had been released by her captors and rapists).
Norman did what had to be done. He was co-operating at the time with human-rights and
acted as the occasion commanded.
over the reply from the Lord Chancellor's Department below. Work out for yourself IF we
were and are correct in our conclusions that what victims are faced with: IS, No More, No
Less, Organised, Institutionalised FRAUD AND CORRUPTION that is serviced and
promoted by fraudsters of the calibre we expose in our pages*. (*F10)
You should recognise, WHY WE SAY: "It Is High Time the Home Secretary and the Lord
Chancellor got their act together". They should act as the citizens' servants, they
are meant to be.
We particularly expect of our elected representatives TO ACT as COMMANDED in such
situations and as the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Spokes Person on Legal Affairs
stated what a NEW Labour Government was to do when in office.
The actions taken at government level SOON AFTER WE contacted
the Treasury, were evinced in Press Releases. The move to the Treasury and Ministerial
office for the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng indicate that we are in for real changes. At least
that is how we interpret the cabinet changes. Time and MORE exposures by victims
will bring about THE CHANGES. Below copy of the letter from the
Metropolitan police to Mr G Ebert, who declined and failed to let us have a copy, or even
to have sight of It, after promoting the 'news from the police'..
Mr N Scarth, also heard of it, asked for and received, by fax, a copy. He agreed with us
that the issues it raised were fundamental. Our stance on the issue of POLICING /
investigation of AND PROSECUTION of CRIME has been well known among the crowd / mob LIPS
that he represented. As the Honorary Secretary of LIPS Mr Scarth exchanged the two letters
published above with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
It is for the average citizens to draw their own conclusions and to recognise WHY we
persistently refer to directors and actors in matters legal, judicial and
We should emphasise the fact that Mr G Ebert signed up as a member of
the Community On Line (*Link) he benefited from coverage of a hearing at the Royal Courts
of Justice. Many of the LIPS crowd/mob attended. Among them the two in conversation in
this page. Mr Ebert did not publish anything in his free
web-site. Evidently, he and the rest of the LIPS crowd were/are only interested in
dancing cheek to cheek with the abductors and rapists of Justice in the quicksand all dare
refer to as 'Justice Halls' - courts. All have been playing badly tuned musical
instruments and drumming up the issue of "NO JURY - no fair hearings...",
in personal exchanges ONLY. The mob apparently DID and DO NOT WISH (like the media
barons) FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW OF THAT WHICH THEY SING & DANCE ABOUT in private.
All they ever were interested was and remains HOW TO USE THE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE for the
constructive frauds we cover (*Link to an exclusive page). Like others who are leading
figures in other 'organised / set-up or taken over FOR deception aplenty groups (*Link to
solicitors acknowledgement of such roles in societies that allegedly rest & are
founded on principles of law and order). The mobs simply do not want the public
RECOGNISE THE CAPABILITIES OF THE TRIAD controlling CIUKU Enterprises, that
many aspire 'to serve in' for personal gain and other undisclosed reasons/benefits.
The above letter makes clear that in so far as the POLICE are
concerned THEY HAVE NO DUTIES to perform and their supremo is not the elected MP who
accepts the position of Home Secretary but a non-elected 'appointee' who acts as Cabinet
Minister for Justice and MASTER OF CEREMONIES For The Theatrical Productions In Our
Apparently the police asserted that they are under instructions and the control of the
Lord Chancellor! An all too familiar allegation by the police who have other priorities,
like 'freebies' (Link). Organising Investigations FOR Tangent Exercises, all about
their defaults to comply with and or to attend properly to their duties and retainers is
their other great asset. Neither activity falls within INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION OF
we publish below was sent by FAX to Andrew. It is from the Lord Chancellor in
response to an MP and relates to issues that arose in the case of Mr G. H.. Scriven (*F1 for background)
Below, the fax
we were caused to transmit to St. Luke's Hospital in Bradford evinces our concerns
about Norman after the attempts to have him certified, were reported to us by one of his
mates from within the LIPS crowd / mob. It was also a case of putting the facts reported
to us on record.
We publish in HTML the text in order to introduce links to and
from the content(*Link to text)
below is from a leaflet which the creator of the Campaign for a Fair Hearing - Suzon
Forscey- Moore with help from others, (including Andrew, the founder of human-rights) were
handing to the public during the picketing of the courts in connection with 'The
Secret Briefings', YEARS BEFORE the stooge and fraudsters' club recruit, Johan M
Richard Foenander entered the scene. He was sent along, like a good little lap dog, to
mess around with our time and to abuse Andrew's good will and readiness to assist all
victims of the TRIAD [*Link]. Little did the
fraudster know that Andrew was and HAD BEEN RESEARCHING, (looking into) THE ELEMENTS
& REASONS WHY for 2000 YEARS since the words of Christ (*Link) the ongoing abuse of The Law [*Link]. He benefited from much information about the
said work, stretching to over ten years by then. He was told that the research
evolved around fraudsters who were/are gifted with the mentalities of the two in
conversation in this page. He was informed of the fact that the 'guru' who was using the
Pensioner [*Link] had been identified for that which he was engaging
in 'CHILDISH THEATRICS IN THE COURTS'. In fact both of the stooges (in conversation here)
were fully aware of the guru's activities and the exchanges recorded by the fraudster
Johan M Foenander covered and gave away unwittingly, much [*Link].
The above leaflet relates to an UMBRELLA Organisation. It, the
Campaign For Fair Hearing, existed for years. Long before the charlatan, stooge,
fraudsters club recruit, Johan M Foenander came along as a tutored, by others, stooge. He
was simply guided by the gurus who were controlling (with their affiliates and associates)
the members of the Litigants (loonies) In Person Society.
apologises to friends who joined him for the common cause at urrights.ning.com as concerned victims, for the developments after www.ning.com introduced NEW terms for the provision of the
facility. Andrew was informed that the existing material on line could be dowloaded BUT
the facility WAS OBSTRUCTED by the very people ning.com
Access the evidence that we publish in our pages [*Link]. The stooge had seen it all, just as he saw
the evidence about his solicitors who engaged in invisible services to criminals. They
were involved in the Housing Benefit fraudulent conversions instigated by staff and
officers of Haringey Council [*Link].
A. The persons below NEVER
reported-published IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN the very issues that the caller Johan Michael
Foenander did put in a letter to Mr Geoffrey H Scriven, very clearly [*Link]
B. The very person, as with
others that he shared much in common, engaging in the relentless promotion of the powers
that be FOR & in the SUBLIMINAL SUBJUGATION programme of 'the serfs'.
C. INDOCTRINATION tactics with the additional promotion that the police and the
media simply take no interest in the crimes which they, reported in order to simply
promote the type of letter that Mr. G. Ebert was brandishing about AND DENYING US the
right to challenge the crap he was selling to the naive & gullible (*Link to how Mr
Norman Scarth acted after Andrew asked of him to challenge the promotions by G. Ebert)
A three-page letter was
sent by a fraudsters club recruit to Mr. Geoffrey H Scriven, a victim of the Divorce
Industry. Researchers and readers / visitors are urged to acquaint themselves with the
facts stated by the fraudster, in a typical LOVE LETTER, intended only for the usual
promotions of the system 'as is' BY MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS and lovers / participants in the
DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS on the taxpayers. Visitors, readers, researchers are urged to access the letter from here and to acquaint themselves with the ploys.
August 17, 2012 - ADDED links
from other pages to the element of FRAUD that
is ORGANISED & IMPOSED on the citizens THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES care of
public servants from Local Government/Authority, POLICE officer & JUDGES with court
staff party to it all, in a pseudodemocracy
|Site under reconstruction - ongoing additions and
Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive
material: access instructions. For further
clarification email: webmaster@
Extremely important in this page: Read the email, in November 1999, from Mr. Johan
Michael Richard Foenander (hereinafter identified as 'J') to Andrew of
*human-rights* [*Link from here to the email in the left margin pane] for it betrays the person's true colours,
to anyone who uses grey material, Question:- WHY assert "If the Lord Chancellor
asks for...". Recognise
'the relationship' and benefits that 'J' secured [*Link from here to the fcailities /
avenue used] as a
tutored mischief maker and or as another lousy actor who contacted Andrew, on directions
from one Peter Hayward of the LIPS crowd/mob and others who were / are guiding and using
such charlatans/stooges, as legal gurus -and as intellectuals- covered in the page /protocol.htm. 'J' contacted Mr Andrew Yiannides for
and with other agendas, on a mission to accomplish. False promises aplenty,
false undertakings which he never intended to act upon, as a lover of the existing
ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE FOR RAMPANT FRAUD (through organised abuse of the courts
facilities) ON THE TAXPAYERS (national budget) AND CORRUPTION OF SUCH SHYSTERS &
BLOATED STOOGES as the two lousy actors (the stars in this page) who engaged and engage
in many undeclared parts' FOR the promotion of the corrupt and fraudulent
activities in, at and THROUGH THE COURTS.
|IMPORTANT introduction to parties and
'J' was directed to *human-rights* by the manager of the LIPS
crowd/mob, Mr Peter Hayward. Andrew did not seek the identity of 'the director' at the
time. 'J' later introduced another 'LIPS' member/person, Miss Ormila Bhopal who
NEVER disclosed to Andrew that she HAD been assisted by Mr Norman Scarth who was operating
from Leeds at the time as the allegedly hono(urable)rary Secretary of the crowd/mob [*Link from here to his capabilities, as a fraudsters club
latter was assisted initially by 'J' and subsequently by Andrew with 'J' party to, and
witness to Andrew's part. One problem the new victim was facing, at the
time of the introduction, was the need to recover bundles of documents (*F4) from the courts. The bundles were essential in and
for the preparation of 'an intended application to the European Court of Human Rights. Not
all the bundles were traced, by the court staff at the RCJ, and one bundle in particular
was found to be lacking a substantial number of pages/copies.[*Link from here
to an exclusive letter to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the 'need to
recover documents', and find out HOW and WHY the ECoHR complied with the demands submitted
were made of telephone conversations with the court staff
confirming the fact that documents were missing.
the time the court staff were blaming other parties for what, in law, would amount to
'tampering with the evidence', indictable offences.
recordings of the exchanges with the court staff were made by
Andrew from 'J's residence.
original tape recording was handed to the victim. 'J' was asked to make a copy of the
recording and clear instructions were given to the 'victim of those circumstances'.
victim was to transcribe the telephone conversations and to submit a signed and witnessed copy to 'J', who would then proceed, with Andrew, to
confirm the factuality of the transcript (by listening to the copy of the tape
recording). [*Link from here to an instance when Andrew used the same tactic in order to
secure contemporaneous evidence in support of such realities]
and Andrew would then submit their own statements of facts/truth, with a copy of the
relevant telephone bill that would confirm date, time, where to and duration of
which is stated below should be read in conjunction with the facts and realities that
'arose' in connection with the other 'victim's part, Miss Ormila Bhopal, as enacted after
she was introduced to *human-rights* and to Andrew by the agent of the 'LIPS' crowd/mob,
the maintenance engineer of the system, in place, which he, Mr. Johan Michael Richard
Foenander and his like-minded affiliates, fell in love with. [*Link from here to the parts of
another LIPS introduction fo the o]
Both LIPS 'victims'
defaulted to act as had been discussed and agreed. Months later 'J'
handed to Andrew the copy of the tape, after declaring that the other LIPS member was a
waste of time and a hopeless case. 'J' expressed concerns, like Andrew, at the waste of
roll upon roll of FAX paper because of endless and useless material the other victim was
transmitting to both 'J' ('J' alleged he had been / was the recipient of such invasions
but he never produced any evidence in support of such assertions) and to Andrew. Over a
year later, in May 2001, Andrew had been given cause to refer to the copy of the tape
because of inexcusable and unjustified assertions the other LIPS victim, Miss Ormila
Bhopal was making about all persons who tried to assist her, including Andrew who had made
it possible to that victim to go on line and to benefit from a free *human-rights*
web-site. It was at that point in time that Andrew realised the tape, given to him (by
Johan M.R.F) contained another recording from which part of the tape the transcripts,
below, made in late September 2001.
be noted that Andrew was never told of, or made aware of the exchanges and the
opinions expressed by the parties to the conversation transcribed below. At no time was
Andrew invited to express any views on the assertions and or the issues that relate to and
should be / were / are of concern to him. In the circumstances Andrew afforded an
opportunity to 'J' to justify and or to explain blunt falsehoods and unjustified
assertions 'J' was making, in the course of the telephone exchanges, with the other
member of LIPS, about the material and the pages published at *human-rights*. Reference to
the material could easily establish that 'J' was simply seeking to create and or generate
problems between two persons who *had common cause and goals to work for"
and HAD BEEN co-operating, for some considerable time by then. [*Link from here to the foundations
of and for such activities behind the scenes. A new web-site, where Andrew reveals it all,
is under construction. Andrew sets off with revelations about the God that persons of
Johan Michael Richard Foenander's morals, worship and follow the teachings of. 'J' was and
remains a perfect specimen of, as a follower of the 'teachings by examples stated', in the
most vile of works ever presented to 'the sons of men'].
|It goes without saying that 'J', allegedly, had similar
goals and aims, whereas the exchanges published below establish, otherwise. ALL ASSERTIONS
AND MISCHIEVOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS by 'J' will be dealt with appropriately with and through
links to other material and more than adequate documented evidence will be used /pointed
to [*Link from here here to an email in the left margin]. The material will cover the machinations and the
real aims and intentions of the LIPS crowd. 'J', as an agent provocateur and through
duplicity of purpose he was playing at cat and mouse, intending that Andrew could be
treated as a mouse, by 'J' and his colleagues within the LIPS crowd/mob. The targeted
mouse has been establishing since release of the material in this and other pages that
while the 'cat' was playing and benefiting - while testing Andrew's resolve / patience and
Andrew's knowledge and grasp of *the practices* within the system - the presumed mouse was
grinding his tiger's teeth while looking into the activities of persons of Johan's
mentality to other citizens and in particular 'the element of *THE RAMPANT FRAUD (on the
taxpayers) THROUGH THE COURTS' as he, Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander was not simply
aware of, BUT AN ACTIVE PARTY TO and a conscious playmate in the very area of criminal
activities FOR MORE OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS. [*Link
from here to the funds under the table facility, the REWARDS
FOR PLAYING THE FIELD - *link from here to proof. *Link
also from here to the arrangements in place to fall for. *Link to
persons, like 'J' and 'N' who run around using victims of the system; they act so
ONLY FOR MORE FRAUD THROUGH THE COURTS, as 'N' wrote of after it
was so organised that he should end in correction & mental institutions for him to
set-up 'Law Centres'. All as 'organised and
planned for by the Lord Chancellor', who spoke of such facilities when he addressed the House
of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in November 1999. *Link to the confidential arrangements for cash under
the table - proof on affidavit. *Link to 'J's' knowledge that what he had been subjected to AND HE WAS
ENGAGING IN were criminal activities click on the images of each of
the 3 pages and THEREAFTER link to the page where we have published the letter in HTML
format, for links to and from its content. The author relates to the activities and
THE PARTS OF the chap, Hussein, who introduced him ('J') to the use of the other victims
game as the Hussein chap did when he initiated 'J' in the practices which another known
*fraudsters club recruit*, Johan's chum Lou Foley was engaging in, too. Just like 'N' and
other *fraudsters club recruits* who operate as the LIPS crowd/mob, also their affiliates
within other organised groups and movements engage in. The HTML text of the letter can be
accessed in the page .org/someploy.htm where
the appeal covering some of the activities 'J' was subjected to, is published. HE CHOSE TO
SUPPRESS THE FACT & REALITIES as a moron (who was drawn to the system as is) and or as
a blackmailed fool who elected to treat the criminal activities (in the courts) as
immaterial in THE WORLD OF THE FRAUDSTERS WHO ENGAGE IN THE DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS
ON THE TAXPAYERS consciously. Visitors can Link from here directly to a page where we expose
another LIPS crowd/mob fraudster and her parts in the evil world of CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY, through the courts, as maintained in pseudo-democracies with the evidence in the
page for all concerned, and in particular the victims and the taxpayers to access]
OF THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN A DIVORCE CASE VICTIM Mr Johan
Michael Richard Foenander AND the LIPS, Inner Circle Self-Appointee, the Hon.
Secretary of the LIPS crowd/mob, Mr Norman Scarth, took place sometime in late October /
early November 1999. [*Link
from here to the page wher we expose
J.M.R.Foenander as promoter & maintenance engineer]
BOTH persons, had been wronged by the legal circles and the courts.
As one reads through their explicit exchanges one cannot but note the manner in which each
covered the issues of concern and interest to them. In the process both exposed their
individual traits and 'the duplicity of purpose inherent in the activities they engaged
& engage in as maintenance engineers and lovers / users of the system as is. [*Link
from here to the explicit page where we
expose such persons as nothing else but fraudsters club recruits'].
The first one ('J')
instigated the telephone call at a time when the former was under
a lot of pressure. A third person had approached 'J' out of the blue some years earlier,
one Hussein Saheed of whose activities Johan ('J') wrote an explicit letter to Mr Geoffrey
Scriven, another Divorce Industry victim of the courts and the legal circles. Hussein's
appearance on the scene occurred in much the same fashion as others were, care of the
organisers of the lives of 'the serfs' in the United Kingdom:-
- Mr. Norman Scarth. *Link from here
to an explicit page exhibiting his chosen area of activities as an abuser of trust and as
an accomplished and committed to the system, as is, fraudsters club recruit]
- Mr. Johan
Michael Richard Foenander. *Link from here to an explicit page covering some
of his parts & participation in criminal fraud on the taxpayers.
- Mr. William Spring. *Link from here
to a page where we copied the Home Page from his personal human-rights.org Community on
Line, website. Victims, visitors, readers and researchers should have no difficulty to
recognise why the false promotions by the victim who benefited from an Order granting him
Leave to Appeal, even though he had not lodged such an application at Court. It should be
noted that the order, intriguingly, sprung out of the blue as soon as he announced, in the
newsgroups, that he joined the human-rights.org Community on Line & that he fully
intended to expose and challenge >>> IN & THROUGH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
<<< the abusers of the courts processes & facilities. Needless to say after
he received the Leave to Appeal Order he simply took up residence in the cave where the
LIPS crowd/mob have been congregating for years. The LIPS crowd/mob AS an organised group
of FRAUDSTERS CLUB RECRUITS had and have only one interest. Their aims were and remain to
act and operate as alleged legal gurus WHO ACCOST & ASSIST TARGETED (pointed to)
VICTIMS CREATED THROUGH FRAUDULENT COURT PROCEEDINGS, BY THE LEGAL CIRCLES & COURTS.
The only interest of the LIPS crowd/mob was and remains to coerce and guide the victims
they are pointed to and target, to go for the REWARDS UNDER THE TABLE, to persons who,
like him, subscribe to the stipulation that amounts to blackmail because the aim is to
suppress the criminal activities from the taxpayers, as the media Barons, through the
Intellectual Prostitutes the Barons retain and maintain have been organising and arranging
for decades. *Link also from here to the
disputed, and prophetic plans of the abductors and rapists of both Democracy and Justice,
as researched and presented by the creator of this website, Mr. Andrew Yiannides.
- Mr. Nick Haralabidis Party to the attempt to cause us to publish
uncalled for racist element which Lord Irvine introduced in a letter [*Link to the letter] which were attributed to Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven
and we never heard of before we will release a FAX to Mr G H Scriven which he failed
to respond to, leading to the conclusion that he was party to the vile ploy.
- Ms. Marisa Sarda [*Link
from here to a page where we expose her parts in
attempts to create false instruments that could assist the fraudsters from within the
Inland Revenue to use her evil lies which she wilfully made sure WITH HER ACCOMPLICE Mr.
Patrick Cullinane were not for their target to know of].
- Ms. Anita Tierney
- Mrs. Veronica Beryl
Foden and many other affiliates and associates of the LIPS
crowd/mob all of whom proved to have been deceitful charlatans and fraudsters. All seen to
be lovers and aspiring users of the ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE FOR THE TWO CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS
ON THE TAXPAYERS.
- Not forgetting the charlatans who were/are fronting
the UKMM and the FnF, both groups known to be targeting and using victims of the
family courts and the Divorce Industry. The front men of the UKMM. one Barry
Worrall and one Ian Kelly, sent an unsolicited invitation to Mr
Andrew Yiannides (the founder of human-rights) and both failed to respond to explicit
requests / demands. In the meantime, for years the UKMM's alleged legal gurus, recognised
to be using many victims of the divorce industry for their own personal ends. (Evidence
will be released at the right time in respect of the unsolicited invitation by and the
failures to respond to requests / demands made of the UKMM's front line who operate as
maintenance engineers of the system as is).
- Visitors, readers, researchers are urged to
access the page .org/4deceit.htm where we publish proof
that the managers / gurus of the LIPS crowd/mob when it came to delivering upon their
promises, as alleged challengers, they simply proved that which their activities and
propositions had already established over the previous five years. We emphasise that Mr
Andrew Yiannides, was contacted by the managers / organisers / controllers of the
crowd/mob soon after the explicit appeal we publish in our pages was lodged BOW County
Court (*F12). The alleged victim-challengers of the
system of operations through the court, as lovers of the rewards under the table
(suppressed from the taxpayers as covered in the page our visitors can link from the above
URL) they simply cash in on the facilities in place FOR REWARDING LOVERS &
PROMOTERS / USERS OF THE SYSTEM. The page we point to links to an explicit paragraph where
the obvious cannot be overlooked by the victims of the free-for-all Administrator /
Johan M R Foenander was sent along (introduced) by Mr. Peter Hayward 'the
manager / director of the LIPS
crowd/mob in late July / early August 1999. After a theatrical production on 11th
November 1999 (purporting to be an appeal from the sham of an alleged hearing on 1st
October 1999 before a Master at the R.C.J), the
fraudster, Johan, thereafter retained a new firm of solicitors for the distribution of the
funds secured through the arrangements we cover in the exclusive page* *linked to
from here, the very page which NONE OF
THE ABOVE FRAUDSTERS ever addressed; their failures establishing beyond any doubt that
the BLUNT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES (through contempt of all law and
evidence) FOR CONSECUTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS are acceptable to such persons,
illiterates in law stooges / morons. Throughout the hearing at the RCJ the fraudster Johan
Michael Richard Foenander was 'the silent star' while the guru assisting him, one Lou
(Lewis) Foley, (as he discussed with the person he telephoned, readers /
visitors to this page will be reading below) engaged in uncalled for mannerisms
leading to the 'convenient expulsion', from the court, of the guru, Mr Lou Foley, the one
who 'knew best'.... and came along with 'the ONLY application essential &
waranted at the stage the two charlatans / lovers of and operatives of > FOR THE SYSTEM
ORGANISED by the criminals in control of the justice system<. All and everything,
simply intended to generate additional income for the legal circles, care of the abused
court facilities BY THE CONVERTS TO & lovers of the system of operations.
Nothing but dust in your
eyes theatrical productions as organised by charlatans who engaged & engage in such
activities and scenarios; all intended to lead to additional 'costs awards to solicitors,
as in many other cases we were called upon to attend 'and witness'. Nothing but the usual
arrangements with and through co-operating mentors (maintenance engineers and users of the
system as is) and new victims 'sucked into the system. Such
persons acting as seasoned lovers of the provisions and the conditional rewards, under the
table, to idiots who consciously elect to act in contempt of the law, knowing full well
that the rewards in such circumstances constitute bluntly
organised fraud on the budget / the taxpayers and NOT COMPENSATION PER SE.
The background to the
introduction of Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander prior to him
being sent along 'to play as a cat plays with a mouse (such were the games all LIPS
crowd/mob fraudsters indulged in after contacting Mr Andrew Yiannides) was born of claims
against solicitors who were party to the usual abuse of the courts facilities in the
course of Divorce Proceedings primed and cultured by public servants. The proceedings
against the solicitors were settled and issued by one Hussein who was sent along (out of
the blue) apparently in full possession of the facts attached to and arising out of the
fraudulent activities at, in and through the courts imposed on the 'victim'(!) Johan
Michael Richard Foenander. The visitor / mentor offered to 'the victim of the solicitors'
his services as a Barrister who, allegedly, was operating out of solicitors offices. With
the victim's collaboration the visitor instigated (drafted/settled and issued for 'J'
proceedings against a firm of solicitors who had acted for 'J'. That action
was struck out, on application to a Master, by solicitors who were acting for the
insolvent (as we knew to be the case) Solicitors' Indemnity Fund on behalf of the
solicitor and THE LAW SOCIETY'S PROTECTION RACKET FOR IT'S MEMBERS, the OSS. There arose
the need to challenge the striking out of the action and 'J'
..... allegedly needed assistance while a petition of his, to the European Court of Human
Rights had been / was benefiting from the rewards under the table facility..... and the
condition to silence..... the suppression of the facts from the taxpayers, care of such
fraudsters and the media barons with the Intellectual Prostitutes the barons retain, acting
prtecisely as stated by John Swainton over a century earlier* [*Link].... and as covered in
'the plans for the sons of men on earth' millennia ago'. [*Link from here to the explicit letter the
'victim-convert-to and lover of the operations through the courts wrote to another
victim-convert in February 2000]
We should point out that
Mr. A Yiannides had been shown originals and copies of letters and other documents that
confirm the opening statements (above) made by Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander to Mr
Norman Scarth. The aforesaid disclosures and access to documented evidence, after the
hearing on 1st October 1999. The said production / scenario, alleged hearing before a
Master, simply intended to lead to 'the planned-for application' by the alleged guru, the
known vexatious litigant Lou-is / Lew-is Foley. And such activities / scenarios in
contempt of the provisions FOR APPEALING DECISIONS ENTERED BY ANY COURT TO A HIGHER
AUTHORITY. Between them, mentor and alleged victim, recklessly oblivious to the fact that
Mr.Yiannides observed and noted more than enough, on 1st October at the RCJ and at the
residence of the fraudster who miraculously was being represented at the time (in other
matters but not for the application / scenario / scripts on 1st October) by the firm of
solicitors Anton & Co. in Haringey, north London. Mr. Yiannides had challenged the
aforesaid solicitors for their parts (in collaboration with another solicitor) in the
National Scandal Activities born of and resting on the Housing Benefit Scams and
Constructive Frauds, through the courts, that we cover in our pages. Intriguing was the
fact that the aforesaid solicitors had written to one of the many offending
solicitors (who allegedly had represented the fraud of a victim-come lover of the
arrangements in place for rampant constructive frauds on the taxpayers) that their client
was not interested in an offer from the other solicitors because their client's case at
the ECoHR (Strasbourg) was nearing completion.(*Link to the letter).
Of essence, however, was
and happens to be the manner in which both ('J' & 'N') exchanged views on the issues
and the persons they covered in the exchanges, which we publish below. Their 'antics are
typical of victims of the legal circles and the police authorities', the officers of which
invariably ignore blunt criminal activities by persons who are PRESUMED TO KNOW OF
& SERVE ALL LAW'.
|We pick up from where 'J' was discussing details of his case with Mr.
Norman Scarth, ('N'). (*Link to Norman's
J. I've got a letter of complaint... right.... I was set up with, you
know....., racial contents...., to the state where I was almost at breakdown point, after
three and a half days of deliberate lies by her barrister! Yeah?( R.11 )
J. And they turned and said, 'Well, oh you know, they
didn't'... eh… when I wrote to them after the investigation, they didn't find it was
racially motivated! Right? I said can it not be racially motivated... what is a
divorce proceedings got to do with the colour of his skin... if he' hasn't be promoted...
or anything else … the.... the.... the... facts of a divorce proceeding is eh....,
to...., to....., to.... for the divorce and..., and... ancillary relief matters.... In
other words, your assets and your income…
J. Right? Nothing else! Right?
Not the colour of your skin or whether you are … Oh..., oh...., oh...., you sleep in the
house.... or you sleep in the street!!! Right? It is the fact that she had more
money than me because she had taken money from my accounts and we've even got the
evidence..... gone into various other accounts.... and we showed the judge what these
cheques she had made from my joint account I gave her..... into several other accounts (R.12) that she'd
stashed money away … and also, you know the Calderbanks!!!! You know what
N. Eh, ah. only vaguely…..
J. The Calderbanks are offers that you make to settle,
N. ....... eh.. eh…
J. Every time that I made an
offer to settle from the outset, ah… right ? They wanted treble, they wanted treble of
what I offered!!! Then I said you have the house. They said NO. Then I said
look..... ah, then I phoned up...... they were getting false
valuations, my solicitors, her solicitors, everyone!!! So I said if these are values
sell the house now !!! Right ? And then they said NO! Right? Ah… I said
'look it's gone on long enough'... and I said, 'I am marketing the property by the same
firm of the estate you used! They didn't like that! They said, 'You can't do that!'
....Aahh, I said, 'Watch me!' And I had it marketed by the same agents that they
used; the solicitors used, and rather than say it was worth 180 to 250 thousand, eh! I was
offered 47 thousand for it. That was years ago! Right? Because it had
broken its back… and because it's got worse...., the same person who offered 47 thousand
ehh...... he is the highest bidder for this house..... as a plot of land for 18
N. Yeah..., eh ....
J. Yeah? So the judges were totally
wrong..... and then...... I found that this solicitor that is now put this charging order
and wants to sell the house and everything...., we've got proof from the..., from the....,
eh...., ehhh... the surveyor and the valuer that was in court,
eh...., to show that he was asking the valuer to give false valuations on the property!!!
Against the.... the... real valuation that he gave in the... the...., because he said the
property is not worth a light because it's ......eh, its... breech eh...., its broked.....
it has to be pulled down and to pull ehh... ehhh between the two house you'll have
to support the other two properties and.... and...... and you know.... eh.... therefore
it's not worth ehh... the value of land it's sitting on!!! Because whoever buys it will
have to pull it down, he'll have to remove all the rubble, so all that cost comes into it
…. You understand what I am saying? [*Link from here to the appeal warranted in order to
challenge the constructive frauds through abuse of the courts 'facilities'. For that work,
the FRAUDSTER 'J' was sent along by the LIPS organised Mafiosi. He did benefit from the
work while he was just abusing Mr Yiannides' readiness to assist and work with victims,
while the fraudster 'J' was just messing about with the rights of Andrew
Yiannides, as a self-assured cat while of opinion that the targeted Andrew Yiannides
was a mouse].
N. Yeah, yeah, ehhh…
J. And that's clear as daylight, even the valuation, so
now, even the valuation of theirs, you know this...... this.......
180..... 250......(*PI2) and when I told the
judge, eh… he didn't want to know…. He didn't want to know….(*PI3) And.... and.... but..... but...... but...., I
mean they can't rule on Pinochet that.... that..... that.... Lo… Hoffman could..... you
know....... shouldn't have been there.... and then..... then.... then turn said that Judge
Singer could interfere with the first hearing and then hear the second hearing....... the
Appeal!!! Right? And then..... then..... I've got the evidence!!!
Right? About the Appeal the..... the.... the..... ehh... ehh.... even the solicitors
offered it to the barristers..... the QC...... and every one else, and then at the last
minute the.... the ehh..... you know..... they were told they will
not show the evidence and they warned them they will be black-listed. And now, because of
that, my solicitors are back peddling now (R1) and they don't want to represent me in any case.....
J. Because of … because
these letters now..... because they went to Europe.... and obviously, because the other
side have got hold of them, as well, now.... so now there's threats (C3) coming on..... and my solicitors are not
given a Legal Aid Certificate to practice any more!(R13)
Right? Eh, that they didn't met the criteria or whatever, but it is not that, they were
warned that they would be black-listed, they gave me the letters showing they were warned
in front of me, right?(C.14)
Ah… therefore they are being black-listed, never mind anything else.
N. Hm… hm…
J. And its
wrong, its wrong, Norman, I mean now, I mean even if it ended up
with bah...., I can't see how any judge or any court can order to put me on the street…
but, eh...., oh....., Lou turned and says no, we'll take a claim* [*Link from here to example of Lou's activities]
against them before the 23 days is... ar… before the 23rd of November to get
a much bigger claim …..(C.15)
N. Yeh… eh…
J. Because the.., eh..., eh.... , the judges and taxing masters can't refuse to look at the barrister's...., barrister's
affidavit! You know? The barrister is hiding the solicitors and if the barrister was
in charge of the case free from the solicitors and he could see I was being blackmailed,
right? Eh, you know he can't, you know he had to show that evidence!(C.16)
Right??? And he is a gentleman, Nigel Lee!!! Right??? So... and he's seen this evidence, now, and he's turned round and
said it's chronic!(R.17) He didn't realise what was going on, because the bundles that he had was
not the same bundles that the judges had in front of them!(Link)
N. Yeh, eh….
J. Yeh? Eh.... So the newspapers
will have a song and dance(I.8) about it in the
end(C.19), but in the meantime
they'll gone try and crucify me eh..., they will gone try and pick all the furniture and
everything else and leave me, eh..., you know eh…. to lay off the street but how about
my brother, my brother's flat up the road...., up the road, which he's been eh….. well
he is not paying rent for.... any more(C.20), because he's been..., it's been badly damaged by
his landlord..., you know the.... the..., you know... he is...., he's renting a flat there
and rabbety(!) ceilings and all that, so he's been living with me for the last
N. Yeah, yeah…..
J. Right? Or six years even. And yet he has
a share in this property.... so he is well within his rights to stay put….
N. Yes, yeh…. eh…
J. And all...., and how are they going to
distinguish between my brother's assets and mine in this property? What the
television? The carpets and everything else? Are they going to come and rip them up? Ah?
The washing machine? They got no rights to come and do that..., because..., I mean, is it
under Article 3? …. that you cannot be deprived(D4) of your..., you know..., your… your European Convention? Deprived
of your rights? ……
N. Ehm…ehm.. I forget now ….. eh.. eh….
J. (cont.) your rights …. Article 6 is..., is...., is
about, you know...., not having a fair hearing ….
N. (int)… Yeah, eh..., eh...., Article 3 is
about inhum…. eeh... eeh.... inhuman treatment and….
J. (int) … This IS about inhuman treatment, .... in a
way… isn't it?
N. Yeah…. Yeah…. Yes...., yes..., eh…..
J. You know something? I will have to make
another application to the European Court and say, this is what's been going on now….
N. (int) ….. you…..
J. (cont)... and the last judgement they had, I mean even...., even.... Lou has turned
and said it was totally fraudulent.....(C.21), I mean look at it! Right? The… eh..., eh...., the judge, the....,
eh...., eh...., master, again they switched! They... the same, as my other cases..., they
switched(C.22) the master on the
day before the case to a different master. I mean.... if you go before the other
master the..., eh... case is supposed to be before, Norm...., Norman....., for three
months, eh..., eh..... you know.... it was supposed to be laid before him, he has never
seen the case at all! Yeah?
N. (int) Yeah..., eh….
J. So, there was no intent, it was never ahm...,
ahm..., ouhm..., ouhm..., ouhm..., in front of the other master, ah..., ah...., and it was
always, ah..., ah..., they were waiting for the last moment, because you, eeh..., in case
you prepared staff, then all your staff will be uhn..., uhn..., null and void because you
know it was before the wrong(C.23) master, yeah..., so I had to alter my affidavit and eh...., and thing on
the night before the case to show that this is been moved, you know! And.... ehm..., I
just can't believe it!!! I just can't believe that...., but ahm...., what do they do?
I mean the next thing they do is to put a bullet(C.24) through my head, you know!!! Ehm....., ah...., but....
N. Eh..., ehm..., well they put it to somebody
else's head, not yours....
J. Yeah..., yeah...., eh...., eh....., see I....,
I have such concrete evidence ah!!! I mean if I..., if I..., if I filed...., if I
fetched you that...., the...., the...., barrister's affidavit and you looked at it, you'll
realise this is blackmail, it is genuine blackmail, and yet they, ey......, the courts
don't want to see a barrister's affidavit!(C.25) Yeah!!!
N. (int) Hm..., Well the thing is
what..., what... to do, then..., that..., that..., that..., thing really! Eh...…
N. I..., I can only suggest, and ehm...., and
please don't take ehm...., I...., I know very little, you know..., ehm…..
J. Oh No! You've done very well(C.26)...…
N. No..., no... don't... but don’t think I've great
knowledge. I know a little bit, I know certain things but...., but... eh..., eh...
there's an awful lot I do not know and because there is an awful lot none of us...., you
J. (int) Oh yes, because, because it's not our, it's
not our field…… s
N. (int) Even barrist. Even lawyers....
will tell you, eh...., when I..., when …eh.... in the..., eh...., in the midst of
this...... when I was desperate for somebody, I was trying to fight back when I was in
need, I felt.... I've got to hand some, see if I can get a lawyer to deal with some of it
for me... because I can't do it on me own,(C.27) you know?
J. (int) Exactly…..
N. I can't, so I
tried to get a lawyer...…
J. (int) … Yeah….
N. I tried four different firms( R.28 )….
J. (int) ….. Yeah…..
N. (cont) ….. and each of
the... said, oh no...., that's not my field!(C.29) I don't deal with that type of
thing! They passed me on to someone else, who said, 'Oh no, I don't deal with that sort of
thing now I will put you on to one of other partners who..'
J. (int) ….. Yeah….
N. (cont) …. So they put me on to the other
partners and she took details, all and everything, and THEN SUDDENLY said "Oh but I
can't be there at half past 10 in the morning, sorry...., you know..., you'll have
to get yourself back for …..
J. (int) …… Yeah …..
N. (cont) ….. Anyway he couldn't get his
head back, so that, so I tried another firm(C.30) of solicitors and they said " Oh,
no, we are too busy now, so I tied four firm of solicitors and none said…. Three of them
said "Oh no it's not our…. you know we don't deal with that type of thing, so none
of us can be expected to know……
J. (int) ……. Yeah …...
N. Eh…m..., every detail, every aspect(C.31) of the law …..
J. (int) ……. Yeah…..
N. But my.... oh... it' s just...., bearing in
mind that I am not speaking with authority but I would only...., I would just think
whether you should make an application for committal of those(C.32)
that you would say have committed either perjury or contempt of court….
J. Oh that is all the lawyers(C.33) and my wife, because there was a penal
notice against my wife on one of Orders as well!!!
N. Well, well, eh... are you on income support or anything of that
sort of thing?
J. Oh, I am on..., on...., on.... Reuters pension, you
know, I am on ehh..., Reuters medical pension…..
J. You know…… but….
N. Yeh..., eh....
J. They are giving me..., they are giving me…..
N. Do you have to pay court fees?
Or are you..., have you...., is your income sort of you..., you... are exempt from(C.34) court fees?
J. Oh, no..., no..., no..., I have to pay the
court fees, I've already paid out, you know! Like I said, for this other case to
one firm of solicitors, now there's another firm, so they start attacking two and threes
to try and..., to try and divide you....... and...., and....., and you know...., now they
are threatening with this thing that Lou has taken(C.35), they've sent me a letter, threatening that they are going to eh...,
ah..., eh..... if I don't….. agree, for that matter to be postponed, to a half day
hearing that they are going to go for costs(C.36) and all sorts of things and, and various other things and threats been
made to me..., you know.... by the firm of solicitors that got the judgement in front of
N. That … that's eh...., to…. one
advantage I've got. I am on income support and that sorts of..., I am exempt from
J. (int) …. Yeah …. Yeah …
N. So I can take action without it cost me
J. Yeah…. Yeah….. Yeah…
N. You know, as far as fees go, eh….
eh, now, if you've got to pay fees... then OK that's more… more…. more money to spend,(C.37) isn't it?
J. Yeah….. Yeah…..
N. Eh…. Eh…. Eh..
J. It doesn't matter, I'd sooner pay the fees and get
N. Yeah, yeah……
J. I am a one family …..
N. I am not certain what the fee would be / is
for ah..., eh..., eh...,
J. If it's an unlimited sum and you are taking
out against all the firms of solicitors(C.7)……
N. No, no, if you are going for committal then
a sum of money doesn't come into it then….
J. Doesn't it?
N. No, no, if you are going for committal to
J. (int) …. Yeah…..
If you were going for a claim yeah, you can
make a claim against them, yes…
N. That's…. that's one ……
J. How many, how can you….. You can't go for
committal unless there is… there is… there' s an Order made before, is there ?
N. Eh….. Yes, you, you can actually seek an Order for the …… I , I am not speaking with authority
here…. I am only thinking as I understand it and what I've been reading up these lately,
I and… , I believe that you can… eh… eh… seek an Order for committal of all ….
J. The firms of solicitors ….
N. Anyone that has committed contempt of
court, apart from perj…. Without bringing perjury into it…. Anyone that's committed
contempt of court , who had deceived the court or tried to deceive the court,(C.38) eh, that is contempt of court.
N. And you can seek an Order for committal for
that, now I'm not certain what the fee is for that but money doesn't come into that you
see, you are not asking for money from them, yeh… yeh you can make me ask for it, you
can make me put in a claim for all sorts of… for damages money as well …..
J. Yeah, and, and, and setting aside all those
false judgements(B.7)… against
N. Eh, eh, yes, but what were you,
was Lou, were you and Lou thinking about actually? This is a case against you
and whether it's good and whether it's right or wrong or legal or illegal, now what you
are thinking of doing, what I've actually done here in fact, it's make a claim, although
I've won my little case(C.8), I've also made a claim against
the nephew for…. for four hundred thousand pounds….
N. Now, if I hadn't won over the
N. Then that…. could well have put a stay on
any possession or Order, but you know, even… even if he's … the possession order
hasn't been granted, you know that…. even if I hadn't won that little bit …
N. My claim against him would have been
much bigger than the.. eh… eh… than the value of this house(C.40)… so, so I was hoping that would make
a stay on any of the possession action, well the possession action doesn't matter because
that's been decided in my favour(C.41) anyway…
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. But I still got this action against him for four hundred
thousand pounds eh…. well is that what you and Lou were thinking about(C.9) doing now, you
N. You put in an action for.....,
against them, for more(C.9)
money than what they are claiming from you and…..
N. And then that would have to put a stay on any possession until…
until the … eh… your claim against them were determined, wouldn't it ?
J. Yeah….. yeah , yeah so… in other words all, all,
all the other cases would be stayed pending, pend…. pending the outcome of that case …
N. Yeah… yes… yeah…. And being as
you are in possession of the house, your house is, you know, your house is the opposite…
and then they eh, eh, I, I wa… that was my thinking when(C.42) I took this house, although I didn't take it out ONLY for that, I took it
out because really I am been done great harm, you know…..
J. Yes…. yeah...., yeah...., yeah…
N. Whether you can, .... whether you are
thinking of doing that .... anyway, are you?
J. Lou said that for a cost of four hundred
pounds, you can go for unlimited damages against all the firms(C.9) together….
N. Well, do that, I would say do that …..
J. That's what I am asking him to(C.43) do, because he can bring that quickly
to the front, it will stay, stay, all these other matters…. You know….
N. Yeah…. Yeah….
J. You know, you know, because eh, eh, all these other
matters will have to be set aside, or stayed pending the ……
N. To be stayed until such …. Because …
yeah…. Yeah…. That's the best thing to do I would say….
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. Again there is the other question of
seeking an Order for committal as well…. that…. that would be a separate
thing.... that would be entirely separate…. It might be a way of…. Eh… ehm…. well
J. When they'll be committed for the offence,
surely any costs are…. that have been won by them by deceitful means(C.44) should be, should be wiped off as well….
N. Ehm…. Eh....
J. Naturally …Or they won't be committed will they?
N. But they don't make it as easy as that as
you know …..
J. Yeah…. Yeah….. Yeah…..
N. You know, they, they … if you got
an Order for committal(B.9) and
they were punished in some way or other….
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. For, deceiving the court..... then possibly that wouldn't put a stay on
everything, but.... no.... that probably wouldn't mean that you would have won all that
but it would be very good grounds for you seeking to set all that aside….
J. Yeah.… yeah…..
N. You know, assuming that, even they were not
committed to prison, the fact that if they got censured or punished in some way or other
by the, by whoever, by, by application for committal….
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. Then that would be..… well you would be
able to use that in any action you took….
J. The unfortunate part
is that you can't put the two judges into prison,(B.10) can you? You know the two judges that were part from the start …
you know you will never get anything against them… I mean, even though I've got the
proof, by witness statements and everything eh… right …
N. Well look,
have you, have you read that staff that I sent you from… ehm…. Jim Hulbert?(R.45)
J. The Hulbert one? Yes I've read, yes I have, yeah ….
N. Well, have you read that through?
J. No, not completely, because I have been reading so
much staff lately , I have been …..
N. I don't….. I … Look that of Jim
Hulbert's through, oh, wait a minute, you haven't got his affidavit, have you?
J. His affidavit?
N. No, no, transcript
of(B.11) the hearing
actually! Of the hearing before Mrs Justice Smith. Ah, she goes into some..... quite some
extensive discussion that 'if a judge did a certain thing, if he was outside his
jurisdiction, if he did with malice(C.46) then its outside his jurisdiction and you can go for him
N. You're not… you
are not going to win because… eh, its like..., like..., like... this area of Jim
Hulbert's. This Mrs Justice Smith said, 'Yes, its quite proper, you can sue this judge',
so it's..., it's...., it's eh, and he can be sued and he could be prosecuted in the
criminal court. She said that!
J. Yeah…. Yeah…..
N. She then adjourned it for six months, and
then changed her mind…
J. Yes, but…. that's his case…..
N. Ah, she wasn't saying he would win, but you
are fully entitled to …. etc., etc., and do it.
J. What was that again?
N. The...., the use of power of office,
J. Yeah exactly, yeah...
After some interesting exchanges with Norman, on the issues of concern,
'J' (Johan), turns the conversation to an attack on the person who
accompanied him to the 'hearing' before the Master who, to all intends and purposes struck
out Johan's action, against the solicitors, who purportedly had 'served him and his
interests'. Needless to say, THAT ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE, some months after solicitors who
'were acting' for Johan, had written to other solicitors that Johan's case at the European
Court of Human Rights was nearing completion and learn of the arrangements between the
legal circles..... [*Link from here to the solicitor's revealing letter whereby he spelled it all out]. NOW go to our exclusive page where we relate the arrangements that
cover and expose WHAT FOR, the tax payers fork out their hard earned moneys. Marvel at the
ingenuity of the abductors and rapists of Justice AND DEMOCRACY, in a country where fraud,
deception and dishonesty flourish care of our Law Enforcement Agencies - the biggest
concentration of con artists within the control centres of CIUKU Enterprises. All achieved
care of the arrangements in place and the personal greed of stooges who do not know what
the next step is going to be AFTER THEY TURN THE CORNER, having chosen to join the
fraudsters' club*. [*Link from
here to the exclusive page].
Johan had been directed by
Peter Hayward the organising manager of the LIPS crowd/mob, to contact Andrew, the person
he set out, at that point, to discredit by promoting a number of unfounded and inexcusable
falsehoods. That appear to have been his aims, behind the back of the person he set about
to attack. A typical 'LIPS' crowd scenario from and by typical victims some of whom
operate in the 'stitch you up fraternity as 'directed by the gurus guiding the crowd. The
'new' LIPS member thus appears to have been a quick learner, if not an agent provocateur /
'At that point in time, Johan was fully aware that certain persons from within the LIPS crowd/mob
(those who sent him to the person he set out to assault) had been engaging in undisclosed
*secret Deals & Arrangements Between Them*. 'J' was fully aware of the activities and in the course of 'the' meeting,
to which 'J' refers [*Link],
the LIPS 'crowd' leaders and their associates exhibited enough of their *In Secret
Sessions Arrangements*. The group/crowd never presented a written charter or
constitution to Andrew, the object of their assault; nor did they produce such
instrument to any of the members they recruited as they went along promoting
'nothing' while aiming for the facility for enterprising charlatans, who fell in love with
the double fraud on the taxpayers arrangements by the criminals who are in
control of the courts and our legal system [*Link].
Requests for such an instrument, after affiliating with the managers of the group/crowd,
had been made on numerous occasions, as of 1992 but to no avail. The object of the
assault, Andrew, had been invited seven years before 'J' was sent along to indulge in the
usual cat and mouse theatrics, that members of 'the society' (LIPS crowd/mob) excel at.
Andrew's propositions (The CAMILA Project(Link)) attracted
the gurus in control/directing the LIPS members. They alleged that they agreed there was
need for the creation of a DATA bank, as proposed by Andrew (refer to 'The CAMILA Project') in order to
challenge the wrongs the citizens fall prey to when going, to a solicitor, for 'help in
order to regain rights or to resolve disputes', at and in our courts.They
indicated wish to partake in the creation of the data intended for the Citizens'
Alternative Precedents (cases) but did nothing. [*Link
from here to the material that attracted their
'J' was invited,
on numerous occasions, to access this page and to either justify his foul
assertions or to apologise for his maligned 'opinions that rested neither on fact or on
law'. He was also invited to furnish his own profile 'about his circumstances and
the theatrics he took part in, with all due consideration to the facts and the documented
evidence covering his pre-meditated acts of slander and wilful interference, at the time
when the telephone call was made and recorded by him. 'J' ignored it all in typical
ostrich fashion. The facts and the evidence will be published, including all the crap by
way of excuses attached to HIS PART IN PROMOTING material that he did not wish to
challenge, along with his soul-mates from within the LIPS crowd/mob. Evidently blunt
misconduct in public office, from which he suffered (as a 'helpless victim') was of no
relevance and the thousands of victims, out there, as of no consequence to an actor, who
frequents a 'Christian' institution once a week [*Link from
here to revelations about the Christian(!) institution Johan Foenander was attending
From the ongoing telephone exchanges … the reasons for the recording!
J. One thing I will tell you very quickly, don't …don't
take me the wrong way. Andrew Yiannides was writing a bloody essay here of 10 pages long [*Link from
here to the ORDERS SOUGHT ON APPEAL and get an idea of the situations the
fraudster was subjected to and WORK OUT why he was doing his best NOT TO CHALLENGE &
EXPOSE the criminals and above all WHY HE WAS WORKING ONLY for retention of the
arrangements in place, after you access the
exclusive page you can link to from here] and he wanted me to put that in, instead of ….. You know the thing he sent you? Remember …[* Link to an email from the fraudster
when Andrew took steps to safeguard the fraudster from the activities he was party to
along with the charlatan being promoted by 'N' in these exchanges] (
IMPORTANT NOTE: the document referred to here, by the mischief maker; is
not, we repeat, NOT the Appeal published in our pages. The Appeal in our pages
was subsequently warranted, because the legal circles were after their pound of flesh,
after the fraudster was in funds through the settlement he secured care of 'the
arrangements in place'. GREED for wealth, albeit
dishonest and the product of criminal activities for.... moneys.... moneys.... and
properties targeted...... for conversion...... through constructive frauds...... care
of the CIUKU Enterprises flagship industry...... the divorce machinations born of and
resting on old lessons. Teachings which 'the modern days architects, of it all, use.
Lessons to be exposed by Andrew, whose research goes back decades. Perhaps, possibly then
the pseudo-Christian Johan M R Foenander may recognise the errors of his ways...... but we
N. Yeah, yeah…
J. ..... the blues(?) …. I
said to him, he was wrong …. then he started about all this
rubbish about he is the one who helped you win your case, and Geoffrey Scriven's case
and eh…. and …. eh… ( R2F1 )I said
'How can you claim this, I mean, I had a right go at him and I said 'Andrew don't tell me
that; one thing I hate, I said when people lie to me. It's like my ex-wife and like the
judges', I said. It just winds me up, I said 'These people
deserve eh…. eh…. eh…. you know… the …. the …. to …. to ….. ( R2F2 ) be proud for what they have done, ..right? on their own merits, but for someone else to take credit to
something …. just because they give you a place' ( R2F3)….. I said … 'You are doing everybody a
favour by putting on the Internet, but' .. I said.. 'at the same time they are not responsible for the other articles you write on the
Internet eh… eh… which you try to broaden ( R2F4 )….. he tries to put his own words, and he says that he has been introduced …. you
know, that he has been invited to join [*Link to the evidence and WHAT the fraudster was
shown, then consider the fraudster's part in such activities as he engaged through the
telephone call, he recorded for posterity] the bar and everything else… eh…, right, and you know he's
written to the police and to 10 Downing Street and everybody else… but writing is
one thing (R2F5)… but all king's story … from the context that
was in YOUR affidavits (*FXXXXXXXX) or any other story he is libelled
you know that ....(R2F6)
N. Hm…. eh….
J. You know…because eh… eh… eh… facts can
be shown anything in an affidavit … anything like that's been before a court eh… eh…,
can be shown … BUT a person is not allowed to eh… eh… eh…
alter the statement the eh…. eh… eh…. in his own text and tries to take credit for
it. I mean it does not matter to you if he takes credit or not(B.17) because
you, yourself know that you are the sole person in charge of your life ...
N. ....... eh... eh... ehh..
J. and you know I will give you credit for until …
eh.. eh… eh… the cows come home and I don't like anyone
taking(B.18)…. eh … eh… both of you eh … eh …
N. .... eh… eh…. Andrew can
be eh … has a lot of knowledge but he can waste it (B.19)… but he … [NOTE
J. You know the 10 pages he
wrote ….. [*Link NOT to the document the fraudster
alludes to but TO ANOTHER. The charlatan / fraudster benefited from such assistance from
Mr Andrew Yiannides who was not aware of activities behind the scenes by the maligned
agents of the system, Mr. Johan MIchael Richard Foenander and his affiliates, one of a
number of recognised fraudsters-club-recruit, whose aspersions and intentions only morons could not recognise after reading his exchanges with
Mr. Norman Scarth].
N. ..... eh… eh…
J. If a judge was to look at that I would be the
laughing stock going(B.22)... [Marvel at the
audacity & nerve of fraudster-club-recruit]
N. If I, I,
If I was to look at that I would say 'rubbish'(B.23) … [Expressing opinion on something the 'wily did not read?]
J. Yes, EXACTLY, it has no bearing in my case(B.24)…..
N. No… No….
J. I can refer to all
these other things, and about …. You know? He was calling them MAFIA(B.25) and everything else… (Access please a FOOTNOTE below* (FXXXX) and
recognise what Mr Johan M R Foenander engaged in when he instigated and INTRIGUINGLY
RECORDED his exchanges with another fraudsters-club-recruit) [We urge readers and
researchers to access and read the appeal we released in the public domain - this web
site- and invite all to locate such matters & words in the appeal, which the fraud of
an alleged victim-challenger lodged at court. We released the said appeal after Mr
Foenander established -through the very convenient defaults he engaged in- that his only
interests lay in PROMOTION & USE of the fraudulent abuse of the courts facilities.....
ONLY FOR the type of cost creation awards to the legal circles, the TWO FRAUDSTERS CLUB
RECRUITS (Johan & Norman) were speaking of as USERS OF THE FACILITIES for more of the
same 'constructive frauds on the taxpayers, through ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES]
N. Yeah… Yeah….
J. You said you are going to get every good judge to have a chance
to look at the case properly … will refuse it
… I, … if I was a judge, if I was, if I eh… I would, I said …. I mean, I said that I told Andrew and I said it 'You've got to tone it down(B.26), and I,…. I,…. eh…. eh….
you didn't use that at all then …..
J. I didn't use his thing at all, I
used the thing I sent to you, that Lou set up for me(B.27)....
N. That was much more, eh… eh….
J. Yes, because he is quoting the laws(B.28) he……
N. You've got to quote… you've got
to focus on what you need to focus, I mean ….
J. Yeah… NOW in an
affidavit I can turn and say the facts of the case(B.29) is that this
judge should …… relevant …..
N. Yeah, the…. the…..
the …point is, …. Is,…. What to do…. You do now… is well I think Lou is on the
J. Yes…. he ….
N. ...... and you've got to take eh……
J. I am, sticking with Lou but any other help I can
get, like from people who… ooh…. have … you …. you …ooh… know your rep..
(non-decipherable) EP… ep… you've gone on the right path, you've shown you have
actually read law, right?(B.31) You have been a student of law…. I mean
there are other people who….
N. A very new student… I
mean, you know… eh… I haven't learned(B.32) an awful lot…
J. No, but….
N. ..... eh… eh…
J. You know something,
Norman, I…, I…, you know your thing, eh…, Norman, I eh… do you
like people being really frank with you…. oh…. Right? Because I will tell you
something eh…., when I went to this meeting, you know the LIPS meeting( I.33 ), I found sod all, eh…. eh…. oh…. oh…. eh… eh…. em…, what is
it eh… eh… ah… where people all had their own views, they are all wound up with
their own individual cases, which I am as well, I'll be honest with you…..
N. Eh… eh…. YES we ALL ARE ….
J. Oh… eh…. yes, yeah…. But, right but
people eh… like Andrew tried to start, tried and take over that meeting as well and he
was given a very rude letter and…, and a very rude telling off by the others… eh….
there and yet he tried to say eh…. eh.… you know eh…. eh… ah…, he told me that
they all in with the judges and they all pretend to be LIPS(B.34) people and they all, like Suzon Forscey
Moore he is accusing of being eh…. eh…. of being eh… eh…. eh…. is a person
supposed to be helping people…… (NOTE
a statement and copy of the letter that was handed to Andrew AFTER the meeting was over,
by Suzon Forscey Moore will be released in due course. Petty shit-stirring by a sold to
the devil soul person are not our priorities BUT HIS PART as a maintenance engineer of the
system as is, as we publish evidence in this page below, IS OUR UPPERMOST PRIORITY. His
part in, introducing another fraudster who simply wished to use contact for pressure
leading to the usual the the )
I…, I…, I…, I…., I've got to say that I do not trust(B.35) Suzon Forscey Moore
J. No… even then….
N. She is not ….
J. She is not a 100%
N. No… No…. Ha…. Ha….
J. ..... and also that other
woman, the…. the…. the…. one…
J. Right, he says that
she is bent right, eh…. he says that Lou is bent, eh…., right and I said who isn't
bent(B.38) Andrew in your opinion Andrew? Eh… he says … but… yeah…. He says
with his own mouth you shouldn't trust anyone including himself… so….
N. Eh…. eh….
J. I thought well…., hang on…
N. .... eh…. eh….
J. Ahh... he is…..
N. No, I
wouldn't have said that they are bent, I am not saying Suzon Forscey Moore…., I am
not saying she is bent, I am not saying she is a spy, or working for the other side ….
But….. I think she is on….., she can go off on the wrong track(B.39)…. We all can…
J. Yes…. Yes….
N. You know we can … eh…
J. She did agree with
me before the case, sorry, before the meeting, that I had a good idea
and she was going to put it forward and she didn't on that day and I brought it up towards
the end because, I said, 'look all these separate organisations are running around
from Leeds, Manchester, eh… Birmingham, London eh…. Kent, everywhere else'. I said
'it's all great, everyone is doing their great jobs, but when we come under one umbrella(I.76) eh…. and show
that there are several thousands(I.78) people
affected and put one big case forward, right? Then', I said. 'You have a stepping stone
there, as far as I can see if…. If…. The European Court (I.77) is…. Is…. As
corrupt as they are saying to me in LIPS, in the LIPS meeting by the…. by the…
N. ..... the AGS (not AGM Norman?)
J. ..... then we have, eh… there
is an alternative if there is such a vast group of eh…. you know… several thousand
people, and we all, willing to sign a petition we can go above the European Court to the
European eh… thing … European Court of Justice?(B.41)
N. No… No…
J. Fortunately that's involved with the same people…
N. No! No! No! No! No!
J. You can't?
N. No, they are two separate
organisations. They….. I know what you mean, The European Court of Human…. No, Justice
is part of the European Union(B.42)…
J. Yeah… Yeah…
N. Yeah… Yeah…
J. So…. So…. So….
N. The European Court of Human Rights is the
court to do with the Convention of Human Rights which is …..
N. Nothing to do with
the European Union(B.43)….
J. No, but the Commission and the court are under the same thing,
N. No! No! No! No! they eh…. eh… it's very confusing this…. But it's eh….
J. Mr. Phillips told me otherwise, because he told me that the
European Commission, that if the Euro Commission first gets a case they look at it and if
you got a case they give it to the European Court(B.44).
N. Yeah, but… ah… hold on a minute, NO!
N. No…. the…… European Convention of
Human Rights, that's when all the European nations got together….
J. That's right…
N. Eh... this is what
we believe in, now, that took place before the European Common Market, as it was to begin
with, then it became the European Union, The European Economic Community, it changed its
N. But the European
Convention of Human Rights was before anything to do with the European eh…. with…. the
European Common Market.(B.46)
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. AS they give it to me.
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. Before that, and it was
nothing to do with ….. now the European Convention when that was brought into force….
They set up what they called the European Convention, no… the European Commission of
Human Rights and(B.47)….
J. .... that's right…
N. ..... the European Court of
J. ..... yeah… yeah…
N. Now the European Commission of Human
Rights, dealt with all applications that went….
under the European… the European Commission…er… now the European Commission, not
the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights(B.48)…
N. That's what you've got to distinguish
between the two…. You see…
J. Yeah, I wrote to the European Court(B.49) of Human Rights…
N. Yeah. OK. They eh…. eh…. that is now
J. The Commission?
N. Yeah…., it eh…. eh…. they started to disband it last year, twelve months ago
and it is now, eh…. it finished today…. I think(B.50)…. Eh….
J. So, what happens to our cases that were forwarded to the European
Court by the ……
N. They were all passed on to the European Court of Human Rights(B.51).
J. Oh, I see, Yeah…. Yeah….
N. So, eh…. eh…. Philips who used to be
with the Commission of Human Rights, he is now with the court of Human Rights.
J. Yeah…. Yeah…..
N. But there
is no longer now a European Commission of Human Rights. That's all been taken over by the
European Court of human Rights(B.52)....
N. ..... but separate from that…
N. ..... to do with the Common Market of the
European Union,(B.53) as it's now called, is the European Court of Justice, which is a follow
on from ours …. The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with Britain….,
you see….., actually …
J. Yeah…. with the other one, yeah…. Yeah….
N. The European Court of Justice….
N. .... is part of the European Union and our
N. You can go to the House of Lords up to the
European Court of Justice…..
N. ..... eh….. eh….
eh… they stand ABOVE OUR LAW(B.54)....
N. .... the European Court of Human
Rights can only make recommendations…
J. Yeah….. Yeah…..
N. .... to this country, you see….
J. What, the European Court of Human Rights?
J. So, they can't order…..
N. No! No, they… eh…. yeah they
can state that the …… but the government can say….. tell it to go and run away….
And can tell it can…. it.. it can… tell the Court of Human Rights 'We are not going to….
We are going to ignore you(B.55)…..
J. So, what's the purpose of having the European court
of Human Rights?
It's only because they are there, they are moral… eh…. eh…. I mean they ordered the
government to pay me my costs and they have done that… and a year older….. eh…. eh…..(B.56)
J. For costs…..
N. .... a government to do certain things
but if the government says 'Hah… go… we are not going to…. There is nothing the
European convention will do, except SHAME them, so they…. they…. it's only SHAME them(B.57)
J. Yeah…. Yeah….yeah….
N. It's only SHAME
J. Yeah….. yeah….
the only power of the European Court of Human Rights.(B.58)
J. Yeah… but they can actually publicise a document, can't they…..
N. Oh, yeah, but they can only
SHAME the government, they can't order it to….. NOW the European Court of Justice…. (B.59)
part of the European Union, CAN ENFORCE it to do certain things….(*B.60)
J. CAN THEY?
N. Oh, yeah…. Yeah….
J. So actually, can we
actually present our cases to the European court of Justice then?
N. Eh….. I would have eh…..,
I would think you've got to go to the House of Lords first. I am not certain, you have to
go to the House of Lords first.(B.61)
J. But you can't go to the House of Lords because you've not been
given permission to go to the House of Lords.
N. I know, that, well that's that…..
as far as the European Court of Justice is ….. that's the end of it….. I would….
think…. I think….
N. I think…. I… think…..
J. ... but none the less the
European Commission and European Court of Human Rights were formed by the International
Convention because the International Convention rules are exactly the same.. except they
have been expanded and altered to the European…. Eh… Commission.
N. ... yeah…. Yeah…. International, you
mean the….. the….
N. You mean the United Nations….
J. That's right…..(B.62)
N. And they sent me their book and I've….
I have tried to compare it, although they've been a bit.. narrow, they haven't widened it
eh…. like the European Court has done but also, surely if the European Commission and
the European Court have taken the same civil rights movements from the eh… eh…
International Court, then surely that must be the next stage to go to…. Because if they
can go and intervene in Bosnia and…. and…. Czechoslovakia…. and…. everywhere else….(B.63)
N. Yeah…. Yeah…. Yeah….
J. .... they…. they…. have the right to
preserve the same human rights for people in this country as abroad.
N. Oh… Yeah…. But having the right to do
it is one thing and…. and…..
J. .... doing it abroad when they both do it, is
N. DOING IT IS ANOTHER.(B.64)
J. In America at least they
can impeach a President or they can try to… and….
N. Exactly! Yes…. Yes….
J. .... but here you can't impeach a judge…
N. No!!! No!!!! No!!!! ehm….
Look…. Read up that Jim Hulbert thing again, about Mrs Justice Smith, and what she said
…. Eh….. eh…. but that's flying a bit too high….. if you know what I mean… eh….
yeah? We should be able to do all of these things…(B.65)
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. ... but we know
the crookedness and the trickery of them all…..
N. .... so you've got to think of how
you can…. beat them….. by
J. ... but you have their own law…..
N. .... at least obstruct them and… and…..
and…. make it….. you know….. put difficulties in their ways……
J. ... yeah…. Yeah…
N. ... and…. and… fight your own
battle as best you can and…..
J. Yeah…. Yeah…. Yeah…
N. .... what Lou
says, is, I would say is, the best way of doing it…..(B.66)
J. .... hm….. hm…..
N. .... Eh…..
J. I am going along with Lou by the way….
N. Yeah…. Yeah….
J. I am not
going along with Andrew, I mean…. I mean…. he is distancing
himself away from me because I said No…., I…. You can't put a document in under any
circumstances, it does not relate to my case, its specifics, I said any judge is going to
throw my case out of court… right?(*F6)
J. ... and I said
this is my last chance. I can't afford to have this type of
…. And he comes up with he won his case for his driver in 1974…. And I said I don't
care what you won then, before, I said the courts, I…., said the laws have altered and I
said you cannot put just mumbo jumbo about…. Eh…. you know…. judicial MAFIA…. And everything else…. I mean….. people can run around and
have placards in their hand and walk up and down in front of the high Court and all well
to them, if they get away with it…. Eh…. I said…. But if they can do that, what they
are trying to do to Geoffrey Scriven….. bringing in some 18th century law to
try and say he is scandalising the court….. ah…...
|*Link from here to the evidence, below, qualifying the fact that
the fraudster, Johan Michael Richard Foenander, HAD ALREADY agreed a settlement under the
table, months earlier. Thereafter he was simply engaging in blunt and
fraudulent misrepresentations BESIDES ENGAGING WITH ANOTHER fraudster, Mr Lou
Foley, for the theatrical production attached to a DEAD ACTION : his case against
solicitors that had been struck out. HE & HIS AFFILIATES DID NOT APPEAL THE STRIKE OUT
& USED THE DEAD COURT ACTION FOR AN INEXCUSABLE APPLICATION TO COURT, SIMPLY INTENDED
TO LEAD TO A FRAUDULENTLY CREATED COSTS ORDER >>>>> an award resting and
founded on 'legal costs' awarded against him.... for addition to the claims against the
state, lodged at the ECoHR and the agreement we point to, below, in this page and in other
Johan's words above : 'and I said this is my last chance'. THINK THEREFORE reader,
as a juror SHOULD YOU, WOULD YOU ignore the words 'last chance' through which to establish
his commitment to co-operation in the establsiegd ways of ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES
FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD APLENTY?
The letter, linked to from above, from one solicitor
to another, in July 1999, says it all.
J. .... ah…. For being very….. I think
Geoffrey…. To be honest with you…. Although I believe…. he's gone overboard… a bit….
N. ..... Eh…… but then he knows he's gone
overboard… he's done that deliberately…
J. Oh yes… he is challenging them….
N. And I am going to do the same. I am going to write
to the attorney General and I am going to detail, I have written my book denouncing all
these judges and naming them and say look 'you've gone for Geoffrey Scriven, for
scandalising….. what about me..(B.69)
(NOTE Mr. Scarth's confirmation relative to SCANDALISING THE JUDICIARY and no mention of
the theatrical production in respect of the show for the Vexatious Litigant Order, the
vehicle for justifying the silence of the sold souls' after conversion to the system of
operations we cover in the exclusive page [*Link to the page], which
page, NOT ONE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM-CHALLENGERS ever addressed & have been treating
for years as non-existent)
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. … you know I've…..
I am holding up…. I've done the same….
J. Yeah…. But there are several other people on the
Internet as well, ah… but the only problem, as I said, is…. it will be lovely ah….
Ah…. I wish Andrew had not altered these statements, the
affidavits and so forth…. With their places which would have more value than having a
judge to look at shall we say, you know eh…. h…. a fifteen page document to try and
come down to actual values of the case… eh… eh… and where things are presented
before the court and the court ignored them, that is showing you then…. That Article 6
N. Eh…. Eh…. eh….. even so
it's, I think…. I…., I….., eh…. you've got to …. You…. Need now to concentrate
on what you are going to do….(B.70)
J. Yeah…. Yeah….
N. Eh…… eh…….. I
think you've got to keep it simple as you can and go along with Lou's idea….
N. And I think… that's it…
N. Provided that you, I, Look…. I will try
and just confirm what is the right way of seeking committals to prison for those who
deceived the court…..
J. .... yeah…. That's right.
N. 'I'll find, I will
confirm what I believe, I think I already know, but I will confirm it, eh…. and eh…..
when I get confirmation that…. ah…. Ah…. I will pass that on to you.(B.71)
N. Eh……Eh… well…. you know it's
another, it's another…. Slinky (indecipherable) you know eh…. eh…. that's the only
J. Oh yeah…. Yeah….
N. You…. You… you….. you…
J. I mean… on another thing, if they can put that…. what's his name, the…
the…. minister that they put away…. Em.. oh… oh… you know the chap… the chap….
N. Em….. em……
J. .... an MP
N. Yeah…. Yes…. eh…. Jonathan Aitken
J. That's right.(B.72)
N. Eh…. eh…. eh…..
J. If they can put him away FOR PERJURY I can't see
why they can't put the rest away FOR PERJURY……
N. Yes…. Yes….
J. So, yeah… I might even quote that Jonathan Aitken case in my
pleadings in any way and see how it goes…. All right Norman…. I mean… thanks for
that and thanks for the chat…..
N. Ok….Eh…… Eh…..(B.73)
J. All right.
N. Eh…. Eh… look, as I say if you put a bullet to…. to…. anybody's
head, make sure it is not your head……..
J. Oh.. Yes, I know, I know, I know…. BUT they cannot eh….. eh…. put me
in prison again for another offence…. Ah…. Ah…. All right? Because it will be double
N. Yeah…. Yeah…..
J. They already put me to prison saying that I…., you know, for
non payment of a judgement debt or something of which I wasn't guilty of, it was a false
N. Hm…. Hm….(B.74)
J. Whether the court likes it or not if they
try any actions like that, then it will only strengthen my case and also, as I say, I am
hopefully getting a barrister from abroad who is interested, very interested in my case,
and he is willing to come on a no win no fee but it's the problem of the solicitors, see…
you can't bring a solicitor over as well, eh… because the solicitors they don't
recognise them, unless they are registered with the Law Society……
N. Yeah…. Yeah….
J. And the Law Society, as if the Law Society is in contempt of its
own rulings, by allowing solicitors who have been found guilty of their own…. On very
grave…. You know…. fraud… and they carry on practising and they can't get over that….
it was a two and half-hour programme… you know! which….. which….. I never seen
anything like it……
N. Hm….. Hm……
J. So, I'll record that, you know I haven't got a court…
that on the Dispatches programme on the position in 98 eh…. eh…… that you know the
Law society itself brought the Legal System into disrepute, you know?
N. Yeah…. Yeah….
J. All right?
J. OK, thanks Norman
N. All the best
J. All the best… bye
- And BEHIND
SUCH SCENARIOS the real world of hypocrites, sycophants and bloated
brains ego-tripping charlatans, stooges and tutored / used, by the agents of the system of
operations, morons, who fell in love with the cash under the table facility. [*Link from
here to full particulars after reading first the letter below from one solicitor to
- The exchanges between the
two hypocrites, evince the fact that the two in conversation (above)
were/are lovers of it all; persons who elected to act as users & maintenance engineers
of the organised FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES. Period.
- Both fully aware that it
all was/is intended to lead to THE CORRUPTION OF VICTIMS, of THE INDOCTRINATED, of THE
SUBJUGATED, of THE CONDITIONED.... MORONS, in short IDIOTS OF THEIR KIND OF shyster, yet
some fully aware of the legal implications quantifying CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES FOR RAMPANT
FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS.
- Such fraudsters elected to
join and adopt the New World Order Code of Ethics, as arrangers and front line operatives
of the organised fraud and corruption aplenty, through abuse of the courts facilities.
- Readers should note the
references of Mr Norman Scarth to Andrew, the creator of this website, revealing through
his words the fact that Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights.org and
proponent of the Community on Line did NOT entertain invitations to join such fraudsters
and use his knowledge and grasp of the law / court practice as the LIPS crowd / mob were /
are engaging with their affiliates from within other similarly organised fraudsters and
false fronts who suck in victims ONLY FOR USE AS THE MEANS TO MORE OF THE SAME
constructive frauds we cover in our exclusive page. [*Link from here
- Any decent and law abiding
citizen who reads the material facts stated and covered in our pages, and more
specifically in the exclusive page /confraud.htm [*Link from here
to the page]
cannot but recognise the validity of the above conclusions and opinions.
- We point to the evidence
and the law too. [*Link from here to the evidence : arrogance by a
judicial chair occupant whose part in constructive frauds through the courts AND THE
PROTECTION RACKET afforded to criminals, *by officers of the law*, could not have been /
be made more obvious]
- We present, in these
'open, to the world jury, pages', legal arguments which visitors, readers and
researchers should consider as realities and realisations that arose / arise out of the
facts evinced through the letter from one solicitor to another
solicitor. [*Link from here to the obvious]
- It is the practices which
the charlatans & fraudsters club recruits adopted as promoters and users of the New
World Order Code of Ethics', establishing beyond any doubt that what they 'fell in love
with' was and has been part of the long existing plans, by the most evil of persons ever
to have walked planet earth ('gaia').
one solicitor to another, in July 1999, evincing practices &
arrogant contempt for the law by an officer of the Supreme Court. [*Link from here to the page
where we relate the parts undertaken and enacted by the victim who endorsed it all and
joined the club of fraudsters operating out of and in the courts of abducted and raped
Evidence relevant to the Housing Benefit Frauds, we refer to,
is released in our pages. [*Link to an explicit letter to the solicitors
and their parts in abuse of the courts facilities when they engaged in constructive frauds
through attempted abuse of the courts facilities with another solicitor and court staff
parties to it all]
|Copy of the letter from Mr. Johan M R
Foenander's solicitors. (Important
"The taxpayers are to make good the damages you
caused. We do not want to discuss your offer; so we determined and our client agrees".
The obvious needs no
comment. Anyone can recognise that the client was fully aware of the fact that the
solicitors were engaging in blunt fraud on the taxpayers [*Link from here to an explicit
letter from 'the client', Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander]. The client was fully aware of the fact that the courts,
from staff to court officers, and the police, were party to the frauds through blunt
breaches of public office and arrogant contempt for 'The Law'*. (*F11)
Below a three-page
letter from the client of the solicitor, Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander, when the
client was writing to another victim(!) of the divorce industry. [NOTE: The 'client' was not informed of 'his
solicitors' parts in abuse of the courts' facilities a few years earlier. However, he was
informed of the solicitor's involvement and parts when the solicitor entertained an
invitation to defraud a targeted 'serf' out of funds owing to the targeted 'serf', and the
very solicitor (his solicitor) indulged in the institution of inexcusable proceedings on instructions
from a third party, not the clients the solicitors allegedly represented but simply
using with others. Immaterial if the client had been party to the scam from
inception of the plan. Interested parties MUST READ the affidavit we released in December 2006]
visitors, readers and researchers should access the explicit affidavit relative to
criminal activities, by Local Authority staff & officers. Also SOLICITORS - including
Antons THREE YEARS EARLIER - who indulged in abuse of the courts facilities - WITH COURT
STAFF & OFFICERS PARTY to the abused Legal Aid facility, through which criminal acts
with blunt and arrogant intent to convert RENTS DUE & OWED TO A TARGETED PROVIDER OF
ACCOMMODATION. Housing Benefit allegedly paid to a person who allegedly had been made
redundant and thus entitled to Housing Benefit. *Link from
here to the comprehensive affidavit by the agent of the accommodation provider; *link
also from here to another affidavit, one by
'the targeted provider of the accommodation AND NOTE THE PARTS OF THE POLICE & THE
JUDICIARY (plus court staff) IN THE ARROGANTLY ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH THE COURTS IMPOSED
ON 'THE SERFS', IN A PSEUDODEMOCRACY.
letter, below, the introduction of elements we never heard of
before. The letter, from the Lord Chancellor to the Rt. Hon. Graham Brady MP,
in 1999, was sent in response to the MP's interests and concerns in the matters that
attached to and arose out of the abused facilities of the courts in the Geoffrey Harold
Scriven divorce case.
- "I should explain that since
becoming Lord Chancellor, I have established a dedicated team of officials in my
department who make thorough enquiries on my behalf into all complaints about judicial
conduct." [*Access from here the explicit letter / challenge to the
Lord Chancellor, one of many on the very issues - RESPONSE : contempt]
- "At a hearing in November 1997,
before Lord Justice Evans and Mr Justice Curtis, Mr Scriven undertook not to make
allegations that any of Her Majesty's judges are corrupt, biased or part of a Mafia,
whether Jewish or otherwise. Notwithstanding that undertaking, Mr Scriven continued to
make allegations about Her Majesty's judges and the former Attorney General and under the
administration took further proceedings against him, both for breach of the undertaking
given to the court in 1997 and also for the contempt of Scandalising the court. Lord
William of Mostyn, the current Attorney General, has recently reviewed the case and has
decided that should only proceed in respect of the allegation of breach of the
undertaking given to the court. Mr Scriven has been notified of this."
Interested parties should access 'the case of the week'
article published by 'The Guardian' in respect of the case and consider the issue of
'misinformation'. [*Link to]
Victims of the legal circles and the courts MUST access and
read the explicit letter to Mr Scriven from
his affiliate J M R Foenander & note the real implications that arose as of the moment
the letter was written by the person who was not content to suppress everything he wrote
A friend and
affiliated of Mr G. H Scriven, Mr Nick Haralabidis of Manchester, himself a victim of the
divorce industry contacted Mr Andrew Yiannides in order to speak of the existence and the
elements covered in the letter we publish above. Amazingly the letter, from Lord Irvine
himself, introduced an element we never heard of before in conjunction with the
allegations Mr G. H. Scriven had been asserting, promoting and alleging when challenging
the abusers of judicial chair occupation and the facilities of the courts.
The introduction of racist / racial issues commanded that we should not
publish the letter and request for clarification, first. Explanations from Mr. G H
Scrivens were sought. Interestingly he ignored an explicit FAX we transmitted after
speaking to him on the telephone and explaining our concerns with the fact that such
elements were introduced by the Lord Chancellor, in the letter to the MP.
In the circumstances when we published the letter (much later because of
ongoing investigations into the activities of the LIPS crowd, mob, fraudsters) we ensured
that the implication and attempt to implicate us in such naive and uncalled for areas,
while one and all were engaging in blunt abuse of the courts' facilities for the frauds
and corruption we expose in this and the exclusive page, one and all shoved in the dark
corners of their corrupted mindsets, WE POINTED OUT the unacceptable and idiotic attempt.
|The above realities
can no longer be shoved in the family closet 'of the club' Mr Scriven, his affiliates and
his associates joined. [*Link to the exclusive page where all is revealed]. The issues arising out of the
arrogant SUPPRESSION OF THE ACTIVITIES & THE PRACTICES IN THE COURTS CONSTITUTE
CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in view of the fact that the courts are
used for arrogant fraud on the tax payers as covered in our exclusive page. Endorsement of
the activities, by any other who was made, or becomes, aware of the criminal activities,
renders such persons to ACCESSORIES & ABETTORS whether they operate as alleged legal
gurus or they just grub the reward for keeping quite and exiting from the theatres of
operations where abducted Justice is raped daily by abusers of the courts facilities.
Converts: victim-come-lovers of the arrangements in place for rampant
fraud on the taxpayers and corruption of morons, in action. All as professed in forgotten
/ discarded plans by the Masters of it all, to which we point in the explicit pages /protocol.htm & /intropro.htm + /convicti.htm#Star
We had been in regular contact with Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven, as
others were. Another victim of the Divorce Industry considered(!) that IF an
attempt for a Section 42 (gagging order) to declare Mr Scriven a vexatious
litigant, *IF made*, it should be challenged. The person, Mr Johan
Michael Richard Foenander, collated appropriate documented evidence and passed on an
Arch Lever file he had prepared WITH AN APPROPRIATE
letter to Mr Scriven. A copy of the letter was passed to Mr Andrew Yiannides by the
author for what were obvious reasons. We knew that such attempts, against Mr
Scriven, had been withdrawn or dropped in the past. We had an appropriate
precedent CoA case in mind in case such ATTEMPT was to be made again. We had heard that an
attempt to Summons Mr Scriven to Court for alleged breaches of an allegedly legitimate
Consent Order might be made. As a precaution we set about to trap abusers of the
courts' facilities for thefts of properties and fraudulent conversion of assets, as the
alternative scenario / script suggested. WE DID SUCCEED and the case is published on the Internet. On the
day of the hearing, (in the Court of appeal) two Lord Justices were sitting on A CASE FOR
A Section 42, a gagging order. However, THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS STATED relative to
the fraudster who engaged in rampant abuse of the courts facilities FOR FRAUDS APLENTY (as
the hypocrite Johan Michael Richard Foenander prepared) was shoved under the carpets / in
the family closet. Everything was relegated to the dark corners of the minds of all
the actors who were aware of the criminal activities by the abusers of the courts
facilities for years, which all were failing to report
such crimes to the taxpayers, just like the media barons and the Intellectual
Prostitutes they retain and maintain, do and of which John Swainton (ex Chief of Staff
at the New York Times) spoke when he was moving out of the firing line (retiring). Many
the victims (?) who were invited to watch the show at the RCJ! Most
intriguing, indeed, the show was, SO we did not mention the CoA precedent
case to any of the actors and hypocrites present. However, when the LIPS
crowd/mob, later, introduced another crafty stooge, an 'aspiring fraudsters club recruit'
who was party to the constructive frauds through the court, we set to work (*Link) and even passed a copy of the relevant CoA case TO
THAT fraud and lover of the system as is.
|The article in The Guardian was very clear. Indeed so were the victim's statements to us
and his comments / observations on the documents we received from the victim of the
Divorce Industry. Copy of the article, as received from the 'victim' Mr. Geoffrey Harold
Scriven, by FAX, below.
Taxpayers and law abiding citizens should read the article from 'The Guardian'
highlighting the 'Case of the week'. All about scandalising the judiciary,
ADDED to the FAX transmitted document we received from Mr. G. H. Scriven his output
on the issue of abuse of the courts' processes by the legal circles. ------>
judicial chair occupants conscious parties to 'the abuse of the courts facilities' and as
he was to be party to, the star performer in the scenario enacted before the directors of
'the usual type of pre-scripted shows'. Theatrical productions promoted by mainline
national newspapers while such 'information channels ignore the realities we expose in the
exclusive page, that even alleged victims (read of their parts in the exclusive page) fail
to address the issue of the rampant fraud through the court, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
and prognosis from one of the stars, Mr. Johan M. R. Foenander..... "IF Scriven is dragged before the
judges in order to declare him a Vexatious Litigant, we (the Litigants In Person
STARS.... oops, we meant Society) must be prepared".
|The victim, a convert come-lover,
of the arrangements in place for rampant fraud on the taxpayers and corruption of morons
of his mentality, writes to another victim, while aware of the fact that a theatrical
production was to be enacted at the Royal Courts of Justice, for the usual 'dust in your
eyes' presentations, with 'fraudsters club
recruits' engaging in the star roles. [*Link from here to the page where
we published the text in HTML format for search engine access to the content and for the
creation of links to and from the text]
Impressive the catalogue of criminal activities. All intended
for private use & the targeted for more.
Copy of the three-page
letter, from J.M.R Foenander to another victim of the Divorce Industry, Mr. Geoffrey
Harold Scriven, which he handed to Mr. Andrew Yiannides. It was an obvious attempt
intended to impress Mr. A Yiannides with the 'genuine concerns' of the author about 'the possible plans of the abusers of the
courts' facilities for Mr. Scriven'. The author, in the meantime, failed to recognise why Mr. A
Yiannides had taken on board the case of a building contractor. Also WHY Mr. Yiannides,
as the author and Mr. Norman Scarth among others got to know of, so arranged developments
in the building contractor's case for the outcome to rest on an order in much the same
scenario as the situation when Mr. Scriven was blackmailed into a 'a consent order',
BUT WITHOUT ANY BLACKMAIL UNDERTONES.
stars of the script we publish in this page, were fully aware of the fact that in the
media promotion of assertions that Mr. Scriven had been acting in contempt of his
consent, to the aforesaid order, through his persistent postings to the media, to
Ministers and to other victims.
The content of the letter
qualifies that the author, WAS FULLY AWARE of all that takes place in and through the
courts, in many cases.
The references to the
activities of the Hussein
chap who set the author on track for the cash under the table scenario, were very
clear. [*Link to a letter from the police in respect of
Mr. Hussein's activities and 'complaints'(!) by the convert who was introduced to
the system of operations by Mr Hussein; an ardent promoter of the 'double-talk'
hypocrites, created the document for use simply to impress the targeted for conversion
victims such as Roz Kellett].
that the author was indirectly covering the scenarios leading also to the rewards for
persons who approve of the arrangements in place for the rampant fraud on the taxpayers,
as covered in the exclusive page /confraud.htm
also very clear.
author's own part in the suppression of such facts and realities, from the taxpayers, most
impressive. His silence, and that of his partner's, Mrs. Eva Adshead, on the day when
the evidence they put together (in support of their concerns) was 'buried - not used' when
in fact Mr. G. H. Scriven was at court, having been summonsed before two Court of Appeal
(?) judges in order to benefit from a gagging order (the usual facility for persons who convert to lovers and users /
maintenance engineers of the system as is).... the scenario MORE THAN CLEAR and the
most blatant of give-away 'happenings'.
aforesaid realities and REALISATIONS LEADING TO: Hence the parts played by many
victims-come-lovers of the system as is, and their persistent failures to ensure the
taxpayers are informed of the arrogant abuse of the facilities of the courts, by the legal
[*Link to the
full text of the above letter in HTML + *Link to extracts from the
letter below also in HTML format]
|[*Link to the page where we published the
content of the above letter in text form. We do so in order that search engines shall
have access to the text itself and for the creation of bookmarks to link to the content of
the letter and for links from the text to other pages & web-sites]
|Below the FAX cover sheet used on 5th June 2001 when copy of the
letter from the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng to Mr Andrew Yiannides was enclosed for delivery to
Mr Norman Scarth, and friends from Bradford took Mr Yiannides to visit him in Prison. The
content / text is published below too.
- The concerned should read the stipulations
contained in the content of the communication.
- The full text is published further down,
in HTML format for links to and from the text.
- Mr Scarth, elected to act in breach of his
agreement with Mr Yiannides and in contempt of the clear stipulations under which he
secured the copy - under false pretences, therefore.
- While in prison Mr Scarth instigated legal
action because he was blocked from standing against the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng at the
General election. In fact he evidently instigated the legal proceedings against the prison
authorities for failing / obstructing him to submit his applications to stand as an
Independent Parliamentary Candidate against the Prime Minister in Sedgfield, against Paul
Boateng in Brent Cross North London and against his local MP in Bradford. (NOTE: In a fax to a supporter of Mr Scarth, in the USA we commented
that Mr Scarth assumed a new entity as a modern version of the Trinity, apparently).
- Within a few weeks Mr Scarth used other
victims of the legal system, Roz Kellett (no relation to Maurice Kellett. the
alleged Freemason basher / expert on anything and everything the Freemasons engage and are
involved in) and Mr William Spring to promote a childish (as far as we
were concerned) idea of his to start a 'fun club he proposed in support of the
person he wanted to kick out of office, a few weeks earlier, the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng!!!
- Of such persons the make-up and
constitution of the alleged Democracy resting and founded on the creation of such states
and persons who fail to consider the roots of the problems.
|Image, Fax to Norman.
we publish below a FAX we were obliged to sent to St Luke's Hospital when we were informed
of the plans to certify Mr Scarth as a mental case for reasons that were too obvious to Mr
Andrew Yiannides. (*F
|NOTE: The content of the above communication and the introduction
on the left MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH the elements and evidence attached to and
arising out of the other scripts and scenarios the members and associates of the LIPS
crowd/mob engaged and engage in, relentlessly as of 1992. It was in 1992, when the
managers / controllers of LIPS, Mr Peter Hayward and Mrs Philomena Cullen contacted Mr
Andrew Yiannides shortly after an explicit appeal was lodged at Bow County Court by Mr
Andrew Yiannides. [*Link from here
to the other scripts ABOVE; also to the APPEAL that hatched the LIPS false front to life]
|Published below is the FAX in (HTML) text (image) FOR bookmark links to the issues it covers.
facsimile transmittal sheet
||Mr. Norman Scarth
||Mr. Andrew Yiannides
||HMP Marshgate –
Doncaster – DN5 8UX
||TWO – (2)
||Promises by New Labour –
Covering abuses in and of the legal system
þ Urgent ¨ For Review ¨ Please Comment ¨ Please Reply ¨ Please Recycle
Dear Mr Scarth
I enclose copy of the letter from the Rt.
Honourable Paul Boateng dated 3rd July 1995.
You may use the copy with any applications
to the authorities in connection with your situation as it developed after the assault by
the police and the events at your place of residence in August 1999. No copies should be
handed and or be made available to any other as I stated over the telephone. No other had
ever been granted permission to use the communication.
As you were made aware, on Thursday morning
the 26th of April 2001, I was caused to deliver to the Clerk of the Crown Court
in Sheffield a copy of the first page of your fax of 20th September 1999. It
was but one of the numerous faxes you had been sending out after the assault on your
privacy the previous month. With that copy I also handed to the clerk of the Court copy of
my letter to Ms Rosie Boycott, editor of the Daily Express. That communication was one of
the submissions that I instigated from *human-rights (NGO)* and caused to be delivered to
the press and other parties, including the private office of the Prime Minister at 10
I qualified to the clerk of the
court on 26th April that the submissions were made by way of an
intervention by and on behalf of members of the *human-rights.org Community On Line*.
I explained at the time that I was acting so because of blunt failures to comply
with the Jury’s request (of Tuesday 24 April) for sight of any of the faxes you
had been sending out to one and all. Persons who were in Court on 24th as
observers stated they were willing to offer testimony to the aforesaid events/facts.
MOST IMPORTANT NOTE: added to
this web-page, in February 2007. There ought to be no need to point out that further /
ADDITIONAL CONVENIENT DEFAULTS & OMISSIONS by the allegedly concerned Norman Scarth
AND HIS ASSOCIATES / AFFILIATES from within the LIPS crowd/mob were but the usual contempt
for the truth of the matter and the principle that JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED & SHOULD
BE SEEN TO BE DONE. All, simply shoved the issue of SUPPRESSING MATERIAL FACTS in the
family closet of the club they joined [*Link to another LIPS crowd/mob typical performance in
1997]. ALL, simply carried on promoting the usual
concocted scripts intended to impress the new victims they were pointed to, in order TO
LULL ONE & ALL INTO SUBMISSION & SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORGANISED CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY WHICH SUCH EVIL PERSONS, as converts to and lovers of the system of
operations, SIMPLY PROMOTE & USE FOR PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE, in tandem with the
criminals they set out to complain about in the first instance. [*Link to the
reasons why, such persons fell in love with the organised frauds through the courts]
|IN THE BACKGROUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS
FURNISHING the copy of the explicit letter, from the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng (AS ABOVE
QUALIFIED) to Norman Scarth the actor, it was stipulated and clearly understood that he
was to use copies of the letter as stipulated in Andrew's communication:
- Norman had arranged for Mr. Patrick
Cullinane, a 'victim'(!) of the system, to collect Andrew and to take him from London to
Bradford. On arrival, Norman played back, for them both to hear, some tape recordings of
telephone exchanges between Norman and Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven. References to evidence
that Norman, at that point in time, was desperate for, were of great interest to Andrew. Apparently
at that late hour, Norman who had conveniently ignored 'the evidence'(?) for over a year,
had come out of the trance he had been in. Both visitors also listened to a revealing
argument between Norman and the president of the Litigants In Person Society (LIPS). The
recording was most interesting and covered/exposed the aims of the LIPS Crowd / mob. It
should be noted that Mr Peter Hayward and Philomena Cullen (the controller and front line
gurus respectively) had spoken of their plans, to Andrew, as of the early days when they
made contact with 'The CAMILA Project' some
9 years earlier. [NOTE please that the said contact was made soon after Andrew
lodged/filed at court the explicit appeal readers/researchers can access and after reading
the grounds for the appeal, each can draw their own conclusions as to how and WHY OUT OF
THE BLUE came the director and front person of the LIPS crowd/mob seeking contact with
- Part of the recorded telephone exchanges related to the
element of a 'tape recording, that allegedly was made during the siege and eviction of
Norman Scarth from the property he continued to occupy after the demise of his friend
while creating legal costs for the beneficiary via 'the usual avenues and ploys the
licensed legal boffins relish in' (*Link to Footnote).The recording, it had been and
was being alleged, established the manner and the actions of the police at the time of and
during the forceful eviction, some nine months earlier. At that late hour Norman who had
proclaimed the alleged recording irrelevant switched personality (as an accomplished
fraudsters club recruit actor) and was proclaiming the concocted recording most important
for his defence and allegations about the conduct of the police. No Oscar for such lousy
- The alleged recording (did it ever
exist?) had been shoved in the dark corners of the mind of Mr Norman Scarth, an irrelevant
and IMMATERIAL NOTHING. In fact, in the course of a hearing that Norman Scarth
arranged to attend, at the Royal Courts of Justice, Andrew had cause to raise an issue or
two in respect of 'activities and very convenient defaults and omissions subsequently. At
all material times everything (well almost) was being reported by the authors / activists
/ defaulters to us. Everything organised and arranged with and between the team that had
been guiding / leading / heading the Litigants In Person Society. And Norman Scarth, their
Honorary Secretary well into the swing of things; at that point in time promoting and
asserting that he was 'the victim of the very group he had been a leading light of and
for', for almost two years (1999-2001).
- One of the issues, raised and
pointed to, by Andrew during the lunch break of the hearing in London (the previous year)
was the attempt to have Norman Scarth sectioned / certified as a mental case.
Architects and protagonists (as reported to Andrew at *human-rights*) were the leaders of
the LIPS crowd/mob and the person who had arranged and offered 'sanctuary' to destitute /
evicted Norman, Mrs Eva Adshead. He had been charged because of serious allegations made
by/to 'the authorities' against him, arising out of the events that allegedly had been
recorded by HIS MATES, during / at the time of the eviction.
- Although it had been alleged that he had been badly injured
in the course of the struggles that took place during the eviction, NO ONE (that we
know of) INCLUDING HIS MATES (from within the LIPS crowd/mob) RECORDED OR PRODUCED
EVIDENCE OF THE INJURIES that Norman had sustained while resisting a lawful eviction. Highly
questionable was and remained the convenient defaults, including Norman's blunt
'indifference and luck of intent to secure a copy of 'the alleged recording' and other
evidence that allegedly existed. We were informed later, that subsequent to the
events on the day of the eviction friends from Bradford were assisting him to recover his
properties, that had been collected from the property from which he was evicted. The
properties had been taken to Bradford where new contacts / friends advised and assisted
him to seek hospital treatment in Bradford, because of the worsening condition of the
injuries he had sustained during the eviction process / activities.
- While in hospital, Norman contacted
Andrew at *human-rights* who ensured that all essential assistance for 'promotion of the
information that was being prepared by Norman was passed on to one and all, including the
media. Andrew and *human-rights* had done so in the past because of the need to ensure
that the public at large is duly informed 'of the assertions/allegations by both sides, in
any given situation/dispute. (NOTE: It is a well known fact that the media barons, their
editors and the stooges who promote 'free press assertions', WITH INTENT IGNORE &
SUPPRESS THE TRUE FACTS in most, if not ALL CASES WHERE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ARE INDULGED
INTO BY & FROM WITHIN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. We draw your attention to the very
elements that ALL LIPS crowd/mob MEMBERS are made aware of, as soon as each contacts (and
contacted in the past) *human-rights* or The CAMILA Project. Needless to say the leaders
of that pack, had been made aware of THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, pointed to by Andrew as of
1989 to victims, and to LIPS as of 1992 when Mr Peter Hayward, and a friend of P.H,
Mr.George Kay, with Mrs. Philomena Cullen, first made contact with Andrew Yiannides.
Needless to say the LIPS crowd/mob leaders sought out and made contact, with Andrew,
because of the elements and projections by 'The CAMILA Project'. (*Link to statutory provisions). It should be noted that
at no time did any member, or the leaders, of the LIPS crowd/mob ever co-operate and or
submit any information for the DATA the leaders HAD expressed interest and readiness to
co-operate in, for the collection of such.
- Apparently while Norman's wounds were being treated, a psychiatrist visited Norman to discuss with him the circumstances
under which he had been 'rough-handed and injured' and the background to it all.
Immediately thereafter, so Norman stated, he telephoned *human-rights* and told Andrew
that he was in no doubt that attempts were afoot to have him certified / declared insane.
Andrew simply told Norman that if a second 'specialist' was 'to concur with such views by
the first visitor it would simply lead to such a record'.
- Next day, Johan Foenander ('J' the caller in this
page) telephoned *human-rights* and told Andrew in no uncertain terms that Norman had
flipped, gone loco; he apparently walked out of the hospital and he had put
himself at risk of arrest. Johan was asked to clarify. Within Andrew's knowledge Norman
was in hospital for the treatment of the injuries he had sustained AND HAD BEEN IGNORED BY
ONE AND ALL, including his mates from within LIPS and the person who offered him sanctuary
while on bail, nothing else. Johan came back with something like: "Well he had been
offered, and it was recorded at the court, a place to stay at, while on bail. That
hospitality, however has been withdrawn by the friend, Mrs. Eva Adshead". Johan M
Foenander then proceeded to elaborate why that change of heart; he implicated third
parties for the causes and reasons allegedly, given to and promoted by Johan Foenander.
Andrew told Johan that the crucial issue and element was a simple one, and he enquired of
Johan: "Did anyone bother to inform Norman of the change of heart and the
withdrawal of the hospitality by the friend and colleague in arms? Apparently, the police
had been? In accordance with your statements, now, Johan, the development leads to NO
PLACE OF ABODE as recorded by and at the court; thus Norman is destitute and in need of an
application to the police / court for change of address, as soon as alternative
accommodation / place of abode is arranged". We do not think that we need to
clarify to our readers what Norman's mates had been up to at that stage through the
arrangements, with others in respect of an alleged mental state and or for the intended
AND PROMOTED IMMINENT ARREST, because of the alleged breach of bail conditions. In so
far as *human-rights* had been made aware of 'it was never stipulated that Norman should
ONLY stay with Mrs. Eva Adshead and her family at the address given to court and the
- It was obvious, and all too clear, that Mr Johan M Foenander
was too eager to circulate and promote the opinions he expressed to Andrew when he
telephoned *human-rights*. The fact was that Norman had no option but to walk out of the
hospital, because of his concerns at the attempts which the visits by the 'uninvited
psychiatrist' gave rise to. Andrew simply sent A FAX TO THE HOSPITAL in
the context we publish in this page (*Link) in
order to put such activities and or concocted scenarios on record. The following
day Johan M Foenander telephoned Andrew to announce 'the imminent arrest' and as soon as
he was told of the fact that a fax had been sent to the hospital he came up with "Why
did you do that, you f.....g Greek shit? Apparently he objected to anyone challenging the
planned scenarios and the throwing of the spanner in the works, by *human-rights*. Ruining
the plans of 'the fraudsters club recruits' was
not anticipated by the charlatans, hence his vile reaction.
- The very fraudsters club recruit, Mr Johan Michael
Foenander, never reported PROPERLY the criminal activities of the legal circles, AS HE HAD
AGREED / STIPULATED to Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of *human-rights*. However, while
he was abusing and USING Mr Yiannides' assistance, as a typical stooge who was of opinion
that 'he had not been recognised and classified as just another lover of the double
constructive frauds through the courts', his every action, default, omission, EVERY
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION and all fraudulent invitations to Mr Yiannides and the sister
of Mr Yiannides, were being noted. One of Mr Johan Foenander's attempts was the invitation
to Mr Yiannides and his sister to be introduced by him to 'the great solicitors' he had
retained to challenge it all. Both told the dreamer that when he could produce evidence to
the effect he was promoting, they will consider his suggestions.
- Remarkable it was not that within three months the craft-y
one contacted Mr Yiannides with new scenarios and reports about the great solicitors he
was recommending. The appeal published in the page .org/corruptcourts.htm arose AFTER the great solicitors.
allegedly failed to attend to the matters he, Johan Michael Richard Foenander had retained
and instructed them for. Worse, was the issue of 'promotions, by the victim', that
apparently / allegedly the very firm of solicitors were recorded at Lambeth Country Court
as the firm that allegedly was acting for and representing 'the victim of the legal
circles' for well over a year. The craft-y one who had agreed a settlement under the table
(as stipulated under Article 38 provisions)
and THROUGH HIS PROMOTIONS was indicating his blunt participation in the money laundering
of funds secured through the Article 38 provisions.
- We refer above to the PLUNDERING OF FUNDS (from the national
budget) STOLEN FOR DISTRIBUTION to the criminals who abused the courts' facilities. We
refer to what HAD BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ALLEGED VICTIM, by way of alleged legitimate 'legal
costs awards against the 'targeted and used victim' (!). The legal costs simply charged
against targeted assets', as was the case in the scenarios covered in the appeal we
published in the explicit page after the abuser of our time and goodwill flew to Australia
for other activities than what he had been promoting to the naive and gullible.
letter below the introduction of elements we never heard of before.
The letter, from the Lord Chancellor to the Rt. Hon. Graham Brady MP, in
1999, was sent in response to the MP's interests and concerns in the matters that attached
to and arose out of the abused facilities of the courts in the Geoffrey Harold Scriven
- "I should explain that since becoming
Lord Chancellor, I have established a dedicated team of officials in my department who
make thorough enquiries on my behalf into all complaints about judicial conduct." [*Access from here the explicit letter / challenge to the Lord
Chancellor, one of many on the very issues - RESPONSE : contempt]
- "At a hearing in November 1997,
before Lord Justice Evans and Mr Justice Curtis, Mr Scriven undertook not to make
allegations that any of Her Majesty's judges are corrupt, biased or part of a Mafia,
whether Jewish or otherwise. Notwithstanding that undertaking, Mr Scriven continued to
make allegations about Her Majesty's judges and the former Attorney General and under the
administration took further proceedings against him, both for breach of the undertaking
given to the court in 1997 and also for the contempt of Scandalising the court. Lord
William of Mostyn, the current Attorney General, has recently reviewed the case and has
decided that should only proceed in respect of the allegation of breach of the
undertaking given to the court. Mr Scriven has been notified of this."
parties should access 'the case of the week' article published by 'The Guardian' in
respect of the case and consider the issue of 'misinformation'. [*Link to]
Page2Victims of the
legal circles and the courts MUST access and read the explicit letter to Mr Scriven from his
affiliate J M R Foenander & note the real implications that arose as of the moment the
letter was written by the person who was not content to suppress everything he wrote of.
Mr Nick Haralabidis of Manchester, an
affiliate/associate of Mr Geoffrey Harold Scrivens, a victim of the divorce industry
contacted Mr Andrew Yiannides in order to introduce the letter we publish on the right. Amazingly
the letter, from Lord Irvine introduced an element we never heard of before in
connection with the allegations the victim, was asserting and promoting when
challenging the abusers of judicial chair occupation and the facilities of the courts.
The introduction of racist / racial issues commanded that we should not
publish the letter and request for clarification and explanations from Mr. G H Scrivens.
Interestingly he ignored the FAX we transmitted after speaking to him and explaining our
concerns at the fact that such elements were introduced by the Lord Chancellor.
In the circumstances when we published the letter we ensured that the
implication, attempt to implicate us in such naive and uncalled for areas, while one and
all were engaging in blunt abuse of the courts' facilities for the frauds and corruption
we expose in this page, WE POINTED OUT the unacceptable and idiotic attempt.
|The above realities
can no longer be shoved in the family closet 'of the club' Mr Scriven, his affiliates and
his associates joined. [*Link to the exclusive page where all is revealed].
The issues arising out of the
arrogant SUPPRESSION OF THE ACTIVITIES & THE PRACTICES IN THE COURTS CONSTITUTE
CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in view of the fact that the courts are
used for arrogant fraud on the tax payers as covered in our exclusive page. Endorsement of
the activities, by any other who was made, or becomes, aware of the criminal activities,
renders such persons to ACCESSORIES & ABETTORS whether they operate as alleged legal
gurus or they just grub the reward for keeping quite and exiting from the theatres of
operations where abducted Justice is raped daily by abusers of the courts facilities.
|Fax from http://www.human-rights.demon.co.uk <<< Site closed in March 2006 - new URL embedded
FAX - MESSAGE:
||St. Luke's Hospital -
||01274 - 364 718
(ward-365 - 722 )
||Norman Scarth - Ward
¨ Please Comment
ATTENTION: ADMINISTRATION / Management
Re: patient Mr Norman Scarth
- ward C2
We have been receiving
conflicting reports about the above patient who, we are given to understand, was
discharged yesterday from hospital and or, of his own volition, having discharged himself
with his wounds still not properly healed, left hospital.
Kindly furnish and fax back
the relevant information and the true position as recorded at the hospital, regarding the
above patient and his condition.
Your co-operation and
assistance will be appreciated. We need to know of the facts and to determine how best to
deal with the situation when we speak with Mr Scarth again.
We are concerned about his
well being and welfare and your prompt response will assist us greatly.
Andrew Yiannides NDD., ACFI.,
(human-rights.org - Registered In the USA)
|ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION by one and all
average reader, all Members of Parliament, 'the serfs' representatives and the media
barons along with the Intellectual Prostitutes [*Link
from here to definition] they retain and maintain as alleged reporters of the facts of life
in all of the allegedly civilised pseudo-democracies, in the modern world, are invited to read
the above letter and to consider IF THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER COMPLIED WITH HIS OBLIGATIONS
TO REPORT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES as we point to in our pages. We ALSO URGE
visitors and readers to read of the very childish
attempts by another person, in the know, who was seen to be reckless in his approach
and attempts at abuse of Mr A. Yiannides' time. (*Link to the explicit revelations relative to a BARRISTER'S
attitude to 'duty to report crimes').
Johan :'J' was introduced to *human-rights*, in late August 1999, he was full of praise
for 'his solicitors'. Andrew was intrigued, the very firm of solicitors had engaged in the
attempts to convert Housing Benefit funds to alleged legal costs, in tandem with another
solicitor. And the staff and officers of the local county court playing their part from
the onset. Blunt abuse of Legal Aid Certificates and court facilities afforded to the
solicitors by the local county court. Court staff and officers assisting 'the gurus' who
were retained and tutored by the Local Council in the art of deceptions, dishonest
handling of funds belonging to others, and in the issue of false instruments, attached to
the procurement and or promotion of blunt FORGERIES. Constructively engineered thefts and
misappropriation of the Housing Benefit funds. The funds secure from Central Government
after submission of Tenancy Agreements succinctly endorsed with the rents payable, that in
law happen to be 'pre-existing' (as contracted) liabilities(B.XXX).
Johan had been told of the
attempts and HE WAS SHOWN THE EVIDENCE from the onset. Later he was given copies of the
Affidavit and the attached exhibits, that were/are published, by and at *human-rights*.
'J' was shown evidence that the relevant issues were reported to Ministers, to the Legal
Aid Board, to the Lord Chancellor and his office and to the Fraud Investigation Department
of the Social Security, at Quarry House, Leeds.
Johan proudly had declared,
to *human-rights*, that his 'supportive solicitors' when he was jailed, allegedly for
contempt of and or failure to comply with a court order, cried but did not appeal because
they were blackmailed by the bench that the sentence would be doubled, if they dared
challenge the court's Order. The very solicitors abandoned him for the purposes of the
application to strike out the action against his previous solicitors. He had seen the
evidence covering the abuse of the Legal Aid Facilities in the attempts to convert the
Housing Benefit funds AND THE FACT that the solicitors never placed themselves on record
in the action that was struck out, was irrelevant to 'J'. For weeks he carried on exalting
the solicitors because they gave him a letter, he said, for the purposes of his
application to the European Commission/Court in Strasbourg.
Typical of all LIPS, 'J'
was asserting that the solicitors he was proud of, as he had spoken to *human-rights*, to
Mr Norman Scarth he was asserting that they were being 'punished' for the reasons he was
promoting to Mr Scarth. Imposed terms and blackmail activities from within the legal
circles, apparently are in order. Such practices in addition to the FALSE INSTRUMENTS that
allegedly are legitimately secured court orders, such as Andrew learnt of and noted as of
1972 when his solicitors procured and adduced a FORGERY through which to exert pressures
and to influence him to abandon a High Court action and or to pervert justice. Andrew
recognised as of then that the Great Metropolitan Police were simply conscious accessories
and abettors to the rampant fraud and corruption in our courts!
ACTION, UNLESS ALL COSTS MET (wake up fraudsters)
Johan was informed that if
the Order, striking out the action against the solicitors, was not
appealed and successfully set aside, no fresh action resting and arising out of the same
cause or causes of action could be issued or instigated. There existed a proviso
/ precondition :- *All costs arising out of and ordered by the court to be paid to
parties in the original action, that was struck out, should be paid up first*. 'J' was
asked to look it up in the 'White Book'. No Appeal proper had been lodged at court, as 'J'
qualified to Mr Norman Scarth. It would therefore appear that the solicitors who secured
'costs judgements', albeit as a result of improper activities at and in the course of
court proceedings, were after their pound of flesh, and the question arose: Why
was Johan ('J') ignoring the provisions he was made aware of?
We assume that Norman at
the time, late October / early November 1999, was referring to the property in Leeds,
where he was staying and had been looking after his terminally ill friend. The 'win' he,
probably, was referring to, was the right not to have been forcefully evicted before
probate of the Will and the official appointment of the trustees and executors of the Will
of his deceased friend. There had been an attempt to remove Mr Norman Scarth, by force,
and more than likely he was referring to the improper attempts to remove / throw him out,
in the gutter as he put it to persons he contacted at the time. Norman benefited
from much support from us, on the basis of what he was declaring to one and all as factual
and truthful. We recognised, that otherwise was 'the scenario' in the course of his trial,
in April 2001; also from what transpired later when be breached his agreement with Andrew
who supported him for years. He took it upon himself to indulge in childish antics in
contempt of an authorisation granted to him by Andrew, the founder of
CLAIM MORE THAN
The suggested / planned
scenario somehow reflected the practices of the person who drafted, settled, issued and
'helped 'J' initially to institute the proceedings against the solicitors, who had the
case against them struck out. 'J' had informed *human-rights* and produced reports, from a
forensic(!) investigator who had been retained/appointed to look into 'the activities of
the person' who settled the Statement of Claim and instigated the proceedings. According
to the investigator that person 'allegedly' misled and deceived a number of solicitors,
some of which had 'done work for 'J' while the person was working with / for /or operating
from the solicitors offices / premises. Innocent(!) the solicitors who to all intents and
purposes had been acting for 'J', as 'J' believed because the person was and had been
operating out of the premises of the relevant solicitors, who also charged 'J' for alleged
services rendered. Some labyrinth of frauds and deceptions, WOW.
DISMISSED AND NO APPEAL! (*Link to the
The shenanigans by the
victim, 'J' (Mr Johan Michael Richard) Foenander, who was sent along to indulge in 'cat
& mouse' tactics, with Andrew's human rights, should be seen in the true light of
events (in chronological order) after reading the letter from his
solicitors to another solicitor, months earlier. The arrangements for, and the
directions to Mr Johan M. Foenander to attach himself to Andrew (the founder of
*human-rights*), from Mr. Peter Hayward of the LIPS crowd/mob. The first contact
(telephone calls, followed by fax transmissions) almost two months after the letter from
'J's' solicitors who wrote in the context of the letter we point to, above). Anyone can
work it all out, when taking in the implications arising out of 'HOW the use of the
courts' facilities FOR rampant fraud & corruption, in particular WHY the
'tactical carrot in place, for donkeys to go for'. The arrangements, by the legal boffins
who set it all up, are EXPOSED, by Andrew, in the exclusive page /confraud.htm, the name
deriving from CONfidentiality between FRAUDsters.
The 'thing', AN APPLICATION
as prepared and presented to the court by 'a vexatious litigant with rights of audience
and representation of another', most impressive! IT WAS dismissed as Andrew expected,
hence the recording you can read of and about in the margin on the left [*Link]. Note our fair comment about it all, and WHY the fraudster was
RELYING ON and asserting "IF' the Lord Chancellor wants...." a copy. Such waffle
from a person who APPROVED of the double frauds on the 'serfs', the taxpayers; approval
of, promotion and working towards the very 'rewards under the table' the main motivating
factor for such fraudsters, all too eager to work towards such goals.... especially with
the plans being formulated and presented to the House of Commons Select Committee by the
Lord Chancellor the very month when the theatrical presentation was enacted AS ARRANGED BY
THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT WITH RIGHTS OF REPRESENTATION for others in and before they courts.
The very vexatious litigant roaming the streets of central London, Birmingham, Manchester,
etc. with a van equipped with a loud hailer doing that which Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven
was doing by writing letters to persons in authority. Yet Mr Scriven was being Summonsed
to court [*Link] while the other was being granted rights of
audience IN ORDER TO IMPRESS Andrew, who knew of all the lousy acting techniques that
amateurs were adopting AFTER ENDORSEMENT & APPROVAL OF THE CARROT PLOY = "Award
under the table IF you keep quiet"). Billions STOLEN FROM TAX CONTRIBUTIONS while the
schools, the hospitals and the pensioners are denied essentials. And the media barons,
with their editors party to such arrangements in the pseudo-democracies they sell to the
public as the genuine article.
No Appeal was lodged and so
we were informed, BUT THE REASONS & MOTIVES are very clear. The sold soul who approved
of and endorsed the double fraud on the 'serfs', the 'shitizens', was also making sure
that the taxpayers SHOULD NOT GET TO KNOW OF THE ACTIVITIES & THE FACILITIES ABUSED.
He had been under the impression that the arranged theatrical production ('as
discussed between the two in the transcribed exchanges you are reading in this page) were
bought as sold, when in fact HIS PARTS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE 'SERFS' were to
be further and additional proof of the hopelessness the victim's (of the New World
Arrangements - in place) end in, with the carrot at the end of the tunnel for those who
endorse and adopt such moral codes. Simply put: "THE REWARD UNDER THE TABLE, FOR
THE DUMB MUMMIES (*List) and those who collaborate in such theatrical productions Andrew's
only interest". Such fraudsters (as the two stars in this page) simply run
around selling their fraudulent misrepresentation to countless victims they are pointed
to, just like the charlatans who sent an unsolicited invitation to Andrew (*Link). At the hearing of the application the
person who settled it spoke for and on behalf of 'J'. J's agent / representative /
litigation friend was dismissed and asked to leave the court. 'J' was left to act on his
own; the bench 'forbade' Andrew, who was attending as observer, to pass even a note to
'J'. Andrew decided to record the dismissal / ruling in order for the applicant, 'J', to
use the recording for the drafting of the court's Order for presentation to the Court in
order for the court to endorse / perfect it and thereafter, for 'J' and his agents /
representatives to proceed to an Appeal. The usher of the court proclaimed the act of
recording the judgement (for the succinct reasons given) 'contempt of the court(!). There
was even threat for arrest and a custodial sentence!
Johan, who was given the
tape for HIS NEEDS, did nothing of the kind. Within days he simply announced that a firm
of solicitors with clout (and would even take legal action against the Lord Chancellor's
Department) had been put in funds(*important) and were instructed on the issues(which?).
Johan even recommended to another victim of the legal circles to retain the same
solicitors. He was overlooking the fact that all other solicitors of his choice simply
helped themselves with assistance from others. He knew that the victim he was 'advising'
to 'use his new solicitors' had not been served by a number of solicitors ALL FAILING to
act as instructed and as the rules of procedure provided; he had also been informed that
one of the firms of solicitors who engaged in the attempts to convert Housing Benefit
funds to alleged legal costs, through abuse of the Legal Aid facilities, was none other
than the solicitors who represented him before the Court of Appeal, when he benefited from
a custodial sentence he spoke of. The very solicitors he was telling Norman had been
facing problems over the Legal Aid facilities, the other victim that Johan sought to
advise HAD challenged years earlier. The abuse of the Legal Aid facilities by the very
solicitors in collaboration with others were fully documented and additional evidence will
now be published by the targeted victim (Link).
RESPONSES to Fabrications
Stuttering Proves Lies. The
obvious was not missed by the target who was co-operating in accordance with 'OUR AIMS'
statement of intent, at the time (October/November 1999).
2. More lies and stuttering. 'J' is called to
account when and how the vile assertions were made to him. Seeking to stir up problems
between the parties who were co-operating in the essential exposures, at the time, give
away 'J's' intentions : Divide and rule were the instructions from the parties who sent
him to Andrew. His own attempts to introduce 'the solicitors who were put in funds(!) by
'J' that did nothing(?) for the stooge/fraudster club recruit, except attend to the
distribution of 'the funds' to those members of 'the legal circles' that 'J' had
determined should benefit THROUGH HIS DEFAULT TO APPEAL THE STRIKE OUT OF THE ACTION
AGAINST THE SOLICITORS. Nothing unusual from such stooges; all in accordance with 'the
established practices' AS APPROVED BY 'J' and such other victims who decided to 'join the fraudsters' club'.
3. Give you a place? What was the stirrer
dreaming up, when in the same breath he also says "You are owing them a
4. Who said they would be? Responsible for
what? What was ever changed and who / how was/is it implied other work is attributable to
the parties the stirrer was addressing with his vile opinions that were borne out of his
5. The letter will be published in these
pages with letters that Andrew wrote for 'J' while the hypocrite and sycophant was
indulging in calls intended to cause rifts and problems. Intended for publication in
our pages, other documented evidence that cover MANY A CRIME. It is in the public interest
and every citizen's duty to report CRIME, 'J'. As the silent accessory to the serious
crimes you covered up, while seeking to discredit us, we will simply invite ordinary
citizens to consider the Appeal you ignored; also, the subsequent one that we published in
our pages AFTER you set off on your special mission to Australia. It will be for you to
justify, IF YOU CAN, WHY, after going along the route you chose in October 1999 you then
sought of Andrew to settle a FALSE affidavit from which YOU DEMANDED that material facts
be suppressed! Congratulations for your childish attempts! Could anyone who gets to know
of such facts fail to conclude that only criminally indulge in attempts that are
nothing but wilful suppression of facts. We can only suggest that you compare your motives
with those of the legal circles that you cover in your own words in this page. ONE THING
YOU HATE, LIES ?
Libel? Big words!
Foundation please for the vile attempts 'J'!
Why assume Norman had not accessed human-rights? Did not the person who objected to
references to judicial chair occupants state he was going to challenge in much the same
vein as Geoffrey Scriven, the offenders and abusers of public office?
Still 'J' sought to create friction as
a typical mischief maker, or even as a tutored / planted 'guru' who nonetheless sought and
benefited from much assistance.
He saw to it that our valuable time
was wasted, for so he and his 'mentors' thought. All the while Andrew was simply looking
into such persons' vile (anagram of evil) activities and their very convenient defaults to
report and expose the criminals they simply desired and wish to rub shoulders with and or
dance with, cheek to cheek, in the quicksand of the places they dare promote and refer to
as halls of justice.
He 'deliberately set out to abuse our
trust in, and acceptance of, him as a genuine challenger who wished 'to expose the whole
mess and the money laundering facilities through the courts that he persistently talked
Like many before him, he ignored the
adage: "TALK IS CHEAP", and none come cheaper than big words from persons who
act not their 'assumed roles IN REAL LIFE!
It is evident that 'J' did elect to
ignore all reminders that qualify: "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!"
FOOTNOTE common to most
web-pages at this website
MOST IMPORTANT:- In October 2010, the coalition
Government's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' the mothly
legal banter magazine, specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves
from cases of (small-fry) fraud and he asserted that he
was making that element his department's priority*
*Link from here
to the evidence.
|IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, WHAT the coalition of the Con-LibDems, THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY WILL IN FACT ATTEND TO THE RAMPANT FRAUD, and IF IT WILL DEAL
with the criminals who abuse public office, especially when faced with
appropriate submissions and claims that will be delivered in due course.
Visitors/readers are urged to read the article published in the London Evening Standard,
as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in 2003
|*Link from here
to the article we reproduce in another webpage and consider "Why tolerate the arrogance of the legal circles who had
and have the audacity to assert to the lawmakers that they, the lawmakers have nothing to
do with the law"?
|While there, above it, the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon.
Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. ALL alleged victim-challengers who contacted
Andrew Yiannides, by the time the letter was sent to the Minister, received copy of the
letter just as they received copies of other letters submitted to government maintained
Ministers and other official appointees to public office. Accessing the material pointed
to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the
citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in truly democratic states. The above
in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such civilised and, within the law,
approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by governments, the explicit
challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of alleged victims of the legal
circles to have ever contacted us.
*Link from here to our explicit submissions to
(a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) and, the Home Secretary. We
acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged
victim whose only interests were (i)
the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE
OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her
parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to
mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides.
|Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw,
in December 1998
*Link from here
to the letter
|& note the results
evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching
its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the
job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do
*Link from here
to the evidence we point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system
fraudsters who were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers /
organisers of the LIPS crowd / mob..
1. Andrew was most disturbed to note that the
Lord Chancellor had introduced other elements than those we were familiar with. Andrew
wrote to Mr Scriven and sought clarification as to WHY the Lord Chancellor introduced
racial elements through use of the words "Jewish or otherwise". We never
heard of such elements before, in Mr Scriven's case. We received no response and did not
benefit from any explanation or clarification from Mr. G. Scriven. In the circumstances we
did not publish the Lord Chancellor's letter in the Scriven pages and, as we maintain to
this day, 'for good reasons'. We qualified that we were not going to afford anyone the
opportunity to accuse us of promoting racial prejudices and or indiscriminate and lax use
of such material. Now we publish, the letter, because of the other elements the letter
'introduced' at the time. We clarify that as Mr Scriven NEVER responded to our legitimate
requests, we considered it possible that the introduction of the letter (bearing in mind
the method and WHO was used to bring it to our attention, also because of other
questionable attempts to implicate Mr Andrew Yiannides in inexcusable and concocted
scenarios, exercise of caution was very well founded) was an attempt through which to
create false impressions as to our credibility and thoroughness. We rejected, and ALWAYS
reject, any unsubstantiated assertions and allegations. In the circumstances any person
who wishes the issue clarified and WHY the Lord Chancellor used / introduced such
elements, in his letter, the person / persons should seek clarification from His Lordship
and his office or from Mr Scriven, himself. In the meantime we emphasise that we did not
and we do not subscribe to the generalities the offensive words introduced. We merely
publish the letter for information (as to the ploys used by the managers of CIUKU
Enterprises and the stooges they entrap / suck into their evil world as clarified in the
exclusive page EVERY TAXPAYER SHOULD BE POINTED TO & READ) and for clarification on
the other issues the letter raises and covers.
[NOTE the arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor about complaints
re: JUDICIAL CONDUCT, in the closing lines of the last paragraph, were being promoted in a
different context than the implied 'undertakings' by the Lord Chancellor, who was sacked
in 2003 AFTER EXPLICIT SUBMISSIONS to government via a letter to the Rt. Hon. Frank Field,
ex-Minister, whose private office ignored our letters years earlier. [* Link to the relevant page
& PROOF OF OUR SUBMISSIONS]
Mr Nicolas Stamoulakatos was introduced to Andrew (the
founder of human-rights (NGO)) via suspect quarters. At the time (1994) Mr Stamoulakatos,
allegedly, was seeking contact with someone who could translate some of his works (books
'on matters legal') from Greek to English. He failed as of then and carried on failing
over the years (14 years by May 2008) to come up with one single book / work of his, for
the intended / promoted translation. However, he used many tricks and numerous deceptive
ploys through which many the attempts for the creation of scenarios he and others could
use for undeclared plans that could place him and others in positions to damage the work
of Andrew and Andrew's intended / ongoing exposures of the criminal activities at, in and
through the courts. All of Mr N Stamoulakatos' evil ploys were recognised and challenged
accordingly; we simply inform our visitors that he even set up a bank account soon after
the charlatan made contact with Andrew. The psychosis of this actor, about the free masons
could only be matched to that of 'The Master of The Subliminal Indoctrination Brigade', Mr
James Todd of VOMIT repute; also with that of Mr Maurice Kellett and Paul Talbot-Jenkins,
among others, who shared / share between them many a common personal opinion and view with
not one of them ever coming up with any evidence in support of their strongly expressed
WE HASTEN TO INFORM visitors that 'J', Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, was NOT
REFERRING TO THE APPEAL we publish in our pages. The appeal in our pages was settled and
lodged at Lambeth County Court after the creators of the CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH THE
ABUSED COURTS' FACILITIES SET ABOUT DEMANDING THEIR SHARE OF THE LOOT, the funds received
/ to be received (under the table) by the
co-operating in the scams fraud of an alleged victim FROM TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTIONS, as 'J' and his solicitors 'arranged', in his case. 'J' a
recognised 'lover of the system as is' and 'a fraudsters club recruit [*Link to relevant
letter] had been sent along by the manager /
director of all fraudsters / members of the LIPS crowd/mob, Mr. Peter Hayward, simply to
test our stance and resolve on the issue of 'FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM'. Among other
activities, he also engaged in various fraudulent misrepresentations to others and to us.
At one point he attempted to promote a firm of solicitors that he retained to distribute
the proceeds from the second fraud on the citizens while he was a conscious party to the
to the relevant scheme and arrangements for carrot loving asses]. In his exchanges with 'N' Mr Norman Scarth, he had the audacity to
misrepresent and another set-up, as a new idea (from him) whereas' the project' he
was promoting existed long before he came on the scene. *Link to
evidence published in the left margin/window, evincing the simple fact that the LIPS
crowd/mob's 'managers' had been party to and 'supporters/affiliates' of a scheme
that we challenged as just a proposition for the planting of another rotten-apples tree in
a garden full of similar fruit producing trees'.
The problem of securing the return of bundles of documents is one
of the most objectionable obstructions to the rights to 'unhindered justice'. We were
caused to act on the occasion when the European Court of Human Rights wrote to the member
of the *human-rights.org - Community on Line* Jesus Rosalia Baldwin Del Castillo
that her case, 'had not been processed to extinction of Domestic Remedies'. We
were / are VERY FAMILIAR with the ploy used and we prepared for it accordingly,
(through the submissions / Petition to the ECtHR). Mr Yiannides simply told the member
that the submissions to the ECoHR had been presented in an appropriate manner and the
element HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. We wrote to the court an appropriate letter [*Link] and through the necessary challenges (to the proposed action by the
ECrtHR) Mr Yiannides secured the return of the documents lodged with the ECrtHR.
Thereafter we prepared an essential Power of Attorney in order for Mr Andrew Yiannides to
proceed with essential submissions to The Treasury [*Link to grounds]. The PoA as settled and delivered to the member for endorsement was
later published by us at the member's web-site (the
work and intellectual property of Mr. Andrew Yiannides), the member however, defaulted
to endorse and return the Original to Mr Andrew Yiannides and we invite grey matter users
to work out WHY 'the victim', failed to comply as called for HAD THE SCENARIO presented
through the letter of the ECrtHR been true and factual. In respect of the documents which
Miss Ormila Bhopaul sought assistance for, as A TYPICAL* LIPS* introduction (and
fraud of an alleged human) she engaged in many
scenarios and scripts with other affiliates of *the fraudsters club recruits* front;
visitors / researchers can link to a typical
scenario and look forward to more revelations about that lousy actress and her affiliates.
Others who contacted is with similar problems were encouraged (and some assisted) by us to
STATE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED in personal web-sites. We provide below such URLs:-
Visitors who have not accessed the explicit appeal which Mr Andrew Yiannides settled and
lodged at Bow County Court years earlier should do so. Readers and researchers should get
to know of the fact that the pleadings by Mr Yiannides included material and legal
argument which the alleged 'genius', the allegedly Honourable Secretary of the LIPS crows
mob, discovered years later when he accessed a Law Report (that was published in 'The
Times'). The explicit appeal had been referred to him and as with the others who
contacted Mr Yiannides, the elements pleaded and the challenges as ARGUED with a
mouthpiece at the Lord Chancellor's office had also been clearly stated to Mr Scarth, also
to the rest of the fraudsters club recruits from within the LIPS crowd/mob, those
who were in contact with Mr. Yiannides as of the time when Mr. Peter Hayward & Mrs
Philomena Cullen contacted him, in 1992 [*Link to the appeal].
The craft-y one is referring to the warranted APPEAL, which he discarded to the trash
cans, in order to lodge an application in respect of the action that HAD BEEN STRUCK OUT,
as if the action was still alive at court!!!. Readers, researchers and victims of the
courts / the legal system (as operated in the United Kingdom) should simply read an
earlier appeal, which we released in the exclusive page where we cover THE BILLIONS
PLUNDERED ANNUALLY, by the legal circles, through abuse of the courts' facilities. [*Link to the most
open secret the media elected to ignore but for the reason that one and all from within
are simply promoters of the CRIMES AGAINST THE TAXPAYERS in all of the pseudo-democracies
they proclaim to be the genuine states] In the page
we expose the fraudster and his parts in and for ©"The Self Perpetuating
Cancerous Growth Industry" (as Mr A Yiannides coined for the legal circles
to have been / be the only way to describe their activities & operations through the
courts / legal system). The arrogance of the fraudster to assert that the appeal as
settled was not founded or resting on what the legal circles and the courts HAD IMPOSED ON
THE TAXPAYERS THROUGH HIM [*Link to WHY imposed on the taxpayers] was and remains the most evil of assertions from a fraud of a human
and an alleged Christian, at that, one who allegedly attends regularly a Roman Catholic
church in his area because there exists no Dutch Reform Church in the area.
Persons who are in contact or are contacted by Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, the con
of a victim and maintenance engineer of the system (as is), the one who only SEEKS GAINS
FROM & THROUGH the CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES that have been ongoing in and through the
courts for centuries, should enquire of him as to which affidavit, by Mr Norman Scarth, he
was alluding to, in the course of the telephone conversation he recorded; also, why he
concocted falsehoods about changes in the statements of others b y Andrew (and upon which
foundations such lies and concocted fabrication). The really concerned 'taxpaying
citizens' should ALSO ask of him to explain WHY, since he had been shown the evidence
(intended for release in the public domain) about the targeted property for conversion to
legal costs, back in the 1970's (saved through appropriate challenges in those days) AND
the evidence in respect of the invitation to Mr Andrew Yiannides to join the Society of
Lawyers in England & Wales, WHY WAS HE PROMOTING VILE LIES to Mr Scarth? Readers,
researchers, victims and concerned / interested visitors should refer to: (a) Aeschylus, 6th Century B.C
classical Hellas (Greece), (b)
the Gospel according to St Luke -circa 4th century AD, (c) William Shakespeare, (d) Charles Dickens, (e) Charles Louis Montesquieu
in the quotes page art this web-site and use grey matter to draw their own conclusions as
to the true colours and character of the fraud of a human, and used / tutored stooge who
works with the agents and followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile
of works ever to have been presented to mankind back in the 3rd century BC.
Link from here to the affidavit we publish
covering the Comprehensive Particulars Pleaded (by Andrew Yiannides) as had been the
case when Mr Andrew Yiannides settled the Defence & Counterclaim, in 1992, when use of
a rogue builder had been the core element for the scenarios through which the blunt
attempts to impose the plans of the criminals in control of the Law Enforcement Agencies
in the United Kingdom, on Mr Andrew Yiannides. Link from here to the Appeal that was
lodged at Bow County Court in 1992 after an abuser of judicial chair occupation set about
imposing his evil ways on 'the targeted serf'. The really concerned and interested readers
and researchers should read the briefly stated facts in that case, in order to get to
grips with the fact that 'the serfs' in the United Kingdom are faced with ORGANISED FRAUD
ON THE TAXPAYERS & CORRUPTION OF MORONS OF THE CALIBRE & MINDSET OF persons such
as Peter Hayward, Philomena Cullen, Peter Prankerd, Nicholas Stamoulakatos, Nick
Haralabidis, James Todd of VOMIT repute, Johan Michael Richard Foenander, Norman Scarth,
Paul Talbot-Jenkins, Veronica Beryl Foden, Marisa Sarda, Patrick Cullinane, to name but a
few who made it their business to abuse trust and worse to interfere in the
is imperative and of utmost importance that victims, readers and researchers access a
letter sent (in 1996) to Antons, the solicitors who were acting for Mr Johan Michael
Richard Foenander in July 1999. The letter we point to, from here*, relates to attempts by TWO
SOLICITORS, COURT STAFF and possibly Court Officers, all of whom engaged in highly
questionable activities, through which ALL intended to convert moneys owing for the
occupation of rented accommodation to legal costs. The other solicitor, Mr Pany Symeou,
had been retained to defend another court action; an inexcusable and unjustified Summons
& Claims by a tenant who was used by others (whom we are exposing on the Internet) and
encouraged to carry on defaulting to meet his contractual obligations, in respect of
rented accommodation. For months the used and encouraged tenant was blaming Public
Servants -the staff operating out of the Social Services maintained by Haringey Council-
for allegedly failing to process an alleged Housing Benefit Application, by the Defaulting
tenant. Staff & Officers (apparently) at Edmonton County Court participated in
arrogant & inexcusable attempts through which ALL INTENDED to convert the rents due
(and owing to the provider of the accommodation) to 'legal costs' through inexcusable, as
intended, theatrical productions at Court. The solicitor Pany Symeou and the firm of
solicitors he was operating out of, -Graham Whit & Co.- TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES to
issue INSTRUCTIONS to the COURT to ignore the property owner's application for judgement
on the grounds that there subsisted NO DEFENCE to the claim for the rents owing, also
because the used tenant failed to enter any appearance or Defence. IT IS ESSENTIAL that
readers and researchers take on board the element of *NO INSTRUCTIONS to & OR
RETAINER* existed for the property owner's solicitor to act as he did, in respect of
the DEFAULT SUMMONS, which the owner issued and served prior to the concocted and
fabricated claim by the USED TENANT, which the solicitors Antons issued out of Edmonton
County Court without any reference to the Summons that was served on the tenant who relied
on the staff of Haringey Council to promote the alleged unemployment state, and Housing
Benefit application which the fraudster (tenant) Mr Nihal Wijemuni had been relying upon
to provide him (and the others) the avenue through which to evade his contractual
liabilities to the property owner and provider of the accommodation he had been benefiting
from. Needless to say, THE USED & ENCOURAGED TENANT, was also relying on the local
police to ignore the law and the physical assaults on Mr Yiannides, also the damages to
properties caused by the used and encouraged tenant. Readers & researchers should
access the explicit affidavit we released in the public domain, read of the realities of
life in our allegedly civilised society and the parts played by the members of the Law
Enforcement Agencies (Police & Courts) an other alleged servants of the public and the
law. y of staff assistance and solicitors
who wrote the letter the We
10. *Link from here to a page where we expose the organised
constructive frauds on a victim (initially) when three properties were converted to
allegedly legitimate legal costs charges, all care of abusers of judicial chair occupation.
The link takes one directly to the paragraph where we point to an extract from the
transcript of a hearing when Andrew assisted the victim / prospective / aspiring
fraudsters-club-recruit, (NOTE: the 'victim' (!) was sent along /
introduced to Andrew through the the LIPS crowd/mob) in her appeal to restore back to the
court's list her case / claim against the solicitors who set her on the road to
destruction through the usual constructive and blunt fraudulent court proceedings. Read of
the arrogance of a judicial chair occupant who went as far as to assert in his
deliberations "WE FINISHED WITH YOUR CASE HERE - meaning the United Kingdom,
naturally - implying thus "now run along to the European Court for Human Rights for
your reward under the table..... as long as you carry on keeping it all in the family
closet.... the family you have elected to join and you have been working with and for,
while making a fool of the idiot who is assisting you. NOTE: The aspiring
fraudsters-club-recruit assumed that she was playing with a mouse, as a cat does, but she
never considered the simple fact that the presumed mouse was a tiger biting its time and
would bounce at the right time and deal with her and the circles she was rubbing shoulders
with by EXPOSING THEM ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is for the average victim of the
legal circles and the courts to consider the element of 'the divide and rule / control the
suckers' such as the destroyed through abuse of position / public office power who as
conditioned non-thinkers can then be used for more of the same through the rewards on
offer. Through such arrangements the element of divide and manage / controlled 'the serfs,
the stooges, the suckers, the non-thinking morons'. Many the victims and alleged victims
who run around asserting opinions and without any evidence blaming Freemasons for the
problems they encountered and are faced with. All were told by Andrew Yiannides that their
duty was to report and state the facts behind their tribulations in the public domain and
not to carry on complaining about the police, the media and their Member of Parliament.
All were pointed to the words of John Swainton to his colleagues when delivering his
departure speech ON RETIRING & MOVING OUT OF THE FIRING LINE, AS Chief of Staff at
'The New York Times'. One and all sooner or later ignored their rights to state the facts
and the realities, the criminal in essence activities they were subjected to and victims
of. Even persons who recognised the need and agreed to use their rights and published in
the public domain the facts of life from within an allegedly civilised Democracy, fell to
the ploy and in the scenarios reported to Andrew, always recognised and known front line
soldiers and maintenance engineers of the system of operations. *Link from here to a typical example when one such abuser
of trust and convert to the system of operations, one Ormila Bopaul set about blaming one
of the alleged experts on the usual promotions and assertions without any proof that the
Freemasons were / are responsible for everything.
11. *Link from here to the page where we point to VERY CLEAR
PROVISIONS IN LAW. All alleged victim-challengers who were introduced to
Andrew or contacted us directly, all recognised aspiring fraudsters-club-recruits and most
known lovers, front line soldiers and maintenance engineers of the established system of
operations were pointed to the provisions in law and to the brief where the link takes
visitors, readers and researchers. NONE ever addressed the issues they were
pointed to, as covered by the -brief- application of the law to facts and events all were
claiming to have been and be victims of, not to mention the fact that some were more than
conscious parties to and organisers for more of the same, as the star and caller, who
recorded his telephone exchanges with Mr Norman Scarth, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander
engaged in with a know fraudsters-club operative, one Lou Foley. *Link from here to the page where we point to the
activities the two engaged in, in order to afford an abusers of judicial chair occupation,
to create a false instrument, an allegedly legitimate Court Order FOR MORE LEGAL COSTS
AWARDS to the legal circles, as intended by all, care of contempt of the law and the
usual arrogance by alleged servants of the law and the citizens; the sucker-serfs, who are
kept in dark (by one and all) and called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of
fraudsters & criminals in public office].
12. *Link from here to the explicit appeal when violations in
contempt of the provisions assured under the European Convention on Human Rights were
pleaded by Mr Andrew Yiannides. When settling the appeal Andrew was aware of
the established promotions by the legal circles and copy of the Appeal was posted
to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, at the House of Lords. Confirmation of receipt at the
House of Lords was secured when Mr Yiannides was also informed that Lord Mackay directed
the staff to refer the papers received to the Department. A telephone call and exchanges
with the head of the Department lead to usual assertions by the Lord Chancellor's agent
promoting the habitual waffle and 'advice', in respect of 'the prescribed' need to
extinguish all avenues in the home Courts, implying 'all the way to the House of Lords'.
The assertions, as soon as the Lord's Chancellor's agent was told by Andrew that the
appeal was to be lodged, by way of a Petition to Strasbourg, the ECoHR. Thereat the
dreamer / fraudster was simply told that THE JUDICIARY, in the United Kingdom, HAD NO
JURISDICTION to apply themselves to the matters stated and the violations pleaded in the
appeal, SIMPLY BECAUSE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS -for 44 years- failed to make the necessary
provisions, such as the introduction of an Act of Parliament whereby the judiciary COULD
address such issues and violations as the caller, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, pleaded.
Thereafter the dreamers and abusers of the County Courts facilities arranged for the
scenario, briefly stated in the page linked to from
here, where the appeal was later published, in the public Domain. MOST RELEVANT
was, and remains, the fact that the managers, organisers and controllers of the LIPS
crowd/mob (Mr. Peter Hayward & Mrs Philomena Cullen) contacted Andrew within a couple
of weeks of the lodging of the appeal at Bow County Court, out of the blue, and promoted
an impossible scenario as to how they got to know of Andrew's proposals for 'The CAMILA
Project'. Gray matter users should not need any other to work out for them as to how the
organisers, managers and controllers of fraudsters-club-recruits got to know of Andrew's
existence, specifically & especially, at that point in time.