adoko.htm KEY PageChanges 4 July. 2009
||Adoko - 'The Most Corrupt British Judges' *
Page released march 2005 *
| JOIN a Netewotrk / COMMUNITY On
Line and work together for the Common Good & A Better World. Challenge & Expose
Fraud & Corruption
Social Fund BENEFIT FRAUD CORRUPT COURTS / LAW
MISCONDUCT in Public Office
The CAMILA Project
FRAUD VITIATES Judgement CONFIDENTIAL FRAUD
BENEFIT FREE FOR ALL
THE FACTS ON AFFIDAVIT
CON OF A VICTIM - LIPS Mob
CORRUPT COURTS - No Law
SOLICITOR LIES on Affidavit
Corrupt Judges THIS PAGE
Visitors / readers should NOTE that the above telephone and address
are not valid for some years now. We recommend use of a good search engine to anyone
wishing to contact Dr. Adoko. It is possible that some other person referred to in our
pages could provide contact details. For reasons that can be deduced from the facts stated
in the introduction to the page material, we have no and we do not maintain
contact with persons who act as covered in the introduction and as other apparent lovers,
promoters and USERS of the system of operations exposed.
Page and Site
Crime PAYS, and so says the Daily Mail
Andrew 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
Facebookers can connect with the creator of
this website IF victims of the abused court & police facilities from withn any
pseudodemocracy Access the creator at .com/yiandrew
IF proactive OR wishing to expose & challenge the offenders
use our duties & obligations; we publish the summary of a book buried / suppressed by
the author, a barrister.
August 17, 2012
|Site under reconstruction;
ongoing additions and improvements to pages and web-site
It is of utmost importance that visitors / readers /
researchers of 'the system in place, should acquaint themselves with the practices within
the legal system. MOST IMPORTANTLY the readers/visitors should read the whole of the
introduction to this page. USE OF THE COURTS for the imposition of undeclared policies, in
our and other pseudo-democracies, rests and is founded on the activities and defaults that
merit and COMMAND CONSIDERATION, as the following facts, the evidence we present in
respect of the 'modus operandi' by the legal circles and all of the supporters / lovers of
'the constructive frauds and corruption of societies, through the courts'. (*Link
to the conclusions of the founder of human-rights (NGO) over 33 years ago).
The activities in the background,
leading to our submissions with and to the material below. We request, therefore, that it
be treated accordingly. IT MUST BE LOOKED UPON as an offering in the interest of
DEMOCRACY. For that ideal, the founder of *human-rights* (NGO) first spoke to his students
in 1962-63. We request that you access Mr Yiannides'
DEFINITION FOR DEMOCRACY, true Democracy, that is, and NOT the pseudo-democracy that
Intellectual Prostitutes (*Link to origins
of definition) promote and sell to 'the serfs' who
are 'subject' to the whims of alleged public(!) servants(!), persons who are free (*Link
to foundation of conclusion) to indulge as the
facts stated AND BURIED by Dr. Adoko, as you will be reading in this page. The following
'elements and material facts cannot and should not be divorced from the overall picture'.
Suppression of material facts and the real intentions of 'persons' who are initiated in
the arts of fraud and deception aplenty and or persons who are recognised or seen to be
acting as indoctrinated non-thinkers, were covered in the most graphic of ways by John
Swainton an ex Chief of staff with / at the New York Times. (*Link)
- The founder of human-rights was in touch with Dr. Adoko at the time leading up to
release of the book. The associated Summary of the book, we reproduce below, FOR THE WORLD
JURY to consider, as part of THE CITIZENS DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES. (*Link to
Dr. Adoko's own statement and reference to Parliament's Law)
- Parliament's Law has been put in place for the development of an allegedly civilised
society. The reader is urged to consider the activities and practices NOT SIMPLY by the
abusive of public office criminals (who are
creating the societies of their own making, in accordance with the teachings they learned
from the most vile of works ever to see the light of day) BUT by the sold to 'the system as is' maintenance engineers and the corrupted
charlatans and stooges, the NON-THINKERS of whom researcher and visitors can read of in
- Researchers - readers should consider the words of John
Swainton an ex Chief of Staff with the New York Times for 'the confessions of that
insider' in the course of his retirement speech, were uttered ONLY WHEN MOVING OUT OF THE
FIRING LINE : one was no longer to be treated as a blackmailed subordinate of the
criminals who were pulling the strings from above, in an alleged democracy where
Intellectual Prostitutes abound!
- Mr A. Yiannides, visited and met with Dr. Adoko in order to discuss, at length, the need
to promote and publicise, draw attention to the book that was due for release in March
1999. At the time Dr. Adoko mentioned problems he had been facing, from/with his Internet
Service Provider, since he started publishing his views in postings to the newsgroups,
relative to his 'Sleazewar' in order to draw attention to the state of affairs - covered
extensively in his book.
- Dr. Adoko was pointed to the work of / book by Terence Frimsby:
'Outrageous Fortune'. The facts and realities stated in the book, by Terence Frimsby,
produced additional evidence in support of Mr Yiannides' conclusions well over two decades
earlier. In the course of the extensive meeting, Dr. Adoko was assured of support and
assistance IN RESPECT OF THE EXPOSURES WARRANTED on all issues covered in the book.
Assistance was on offer also in respect of the problems Dr Adoko was experiencing in the
matter of freedom of access to / through the Internet and the distribution of unadulterated information - which matters
are assured in international law.(*Link to relevant provisions under the European
Convention for Human rights)
- At the end of that first and only meeting Dr. Adoko handed to Mr Yiannides a floppy disk
and requested for assistance to have the material converted to an appropriate page for
publication at an Internet site. On his part Mr Yiannides promised to assist as requested
and, should Dr. Adoko be further obstructed with his rights for access and distribution of
his well founded views on the Internet, also should the material prove to be useful for
members of the *human-rights.org Community on Line* AND should Dr.Adoko choose to join the
Community he would be assisted to publish his views and work on the Internet. He was also
assured of no interference with his rights and freedoms, ESPECIALLY IF HE WAS TO CHOOSE TO
REPORT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES HE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO in the public domain for the world
jury to access and surmise / conclude accordingly as to whether the well being of the
citizens (pardon 'subjects to the whims of the corrupt and the corrupters) was resting on
the rule of law and order.
- THREE DAYS LATER, Dr. Adoko telephoned Mr Yiannides in order to announce that the entire
batch of the first print of the book and relevant summary had been taken to some bookstore
in Central London (Holborn) by the President of the Litigants In Person Society (referred to by the founder of human-rights in these pages as the
LIPS crowd/mob for reasons that are too clear for anyone who bothers to access relevant
pages covering their activities and perpetual convenient defaults and omissions to ACT AS
THEIR RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE LAW, commanded and command). The announcement was duly noted in view of the fact that behind Mr Geoffrey
Harold Scriven there loomed agents of the managers of CIUKU Enterprises*. [*Link from here to clarification
- A FEW DAYS LATER Mr Yiannides benefited from another telephone call.
Dr Adoko simply announced that 'apparently ALL of the books had been sold or so was the
information reaching him and distributed by the bookshop(!). Mr. Yiannides was asked to
telephone the given telephone number and to inquire about the position AND NOT TO PROMOTE
THE BOOK either in the newsgroups or in the home pages at human-rights. As the telephone
call was in the evening, Mr Yiannides telephoned, the number he was given, the following
morning; sure enough the person who answered the telephone repeated the developments
'announced' the previous evening by Dr. Adoko. Dr. Adoko could not be reached on the
telephone until after he returned to his residence in the evening.
- WHAT TRANSPIRED in the course of the telephone exchanges that followed should be of
interest to ALL VICTIMS (who are contacted by or
pointed to 'victim-challengers of the system) and
researchers of the rampant fraud and corruption through the legal system AND THE COURTS.
Upon hearing of 'the confirmation in respect of the miraculous wholesale shift of the
entire first print of the books', Dr. Adoko asked of Mr Yiannides to telephone again the
bookstore (telephone number ONLY = anonymous) to record the exchanges and to prepare a
statement for passing on to Dr. Adoko for his records, etc.
- To the above request, and suggestions as to how to secure / create such a statement of a
scenario, Mr Yiannides told Dr. Adoko that what he (Mr Yiannides) required as a
pre-requisite towards further use of his time in respect of any issues or matters such as
Dr. Adoko had been party to(!) / was subjected(!) to, COMMANDED for a letter to be
written by Dr. Adoko and sent to the bookstore owners/manager REQUESTING FOR A CHEQUE -
payment- FOR WHATEVER THE AGREED WHOLESALE VALUE OF THE SOLD BATCH WAS & TO REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION AS TO WHAT QUANTITY -REPRINT- WOULD THE BOOKSTORE LIKE for such a runaway
sell out. Naturally a certified copy of such a communication from Dr Adoko to 'the
bookstore' was requested, the suggested letter to be sent to Mr. Yiannides FOR HIS
- Response to the above request and counter instructions OR
co-operation from Dr. Adoko?
- However, well over two years later in an email group-posting
from 'the master promoter of the system as is' and king of the subliminal
indoctrination scenarios', one puke production machine, James Todd of VOMIT repute Mr
Yiannides was being informed that a hearing of an application by Dr. Adoko was to be heard
at the RCJ (before a Rampant Corruption Jockey: *Link to definition). Chapter closed, as far as we
were concerned Dr. Adoko was behaving exactly as other abusers of our goodwill and nature
without ANY INTENTIONS to report or expose the criminal activities that he was subjected
to BUT HE MUST HAVE KNOWN OF as a professional practising law within the RCJ while 'the
serfs' and shitizens were the victims. Visitors can use this link to go to Dr. Adoko's own logical conclusions in the text of
the Summary to his book. As stated above, we reproduce it all for the WORLD JURY to
consider while under threat for a UNIVERSAL PLANETARY DICTATORSHIP by the criminals who
are in control in many pseudo-democracies.
- Notable that among the recipients (on the list of 'the master promoter of the system as
is, through subliminal indoctrination) was one Ashok Mahadjin just after Ashok Mahadjan
contacted human-rights. The last soon enough established that he came along with other
plans; as with other 'lovers of the system as is' all eventually exposed themselves
as associates of his. His attempts to entice Mr Yiannides to engage in the use of the
system as is, SIMPLY FOR THE DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH THE COURTS, which he
discovered while on retainers by such ORGANISED USERS of the arrangements in place.
Plundering the budget funds, the taxpayers contributions that should be used in and for
the intended services FOR THE CITIZENS was never acceptable to Mr Yiannides who so
informed Mr Ashok Mahadjin; he was also informed of the plans of the LIPS crowd/mob and
the arrangements of one person who even created conditions to end behind bars in order to
set up Law Centres inside penal institutions - jails.
[*Linkfrom here to the exclusive page where the
parts of the last / previous stooge / tutored and an accomplished 'fraudsters club
recruit' are covered].
Only through due consideration of the above realities and realisations
(logical conclusions, where-ever pointed out or raised) the visitors / readers /
researchers of the corrupted legal and court services in our country (and other
pseudo-democracies) must look for the grounds and or reasons WHY such persons as the
victim who went as far as to publish 'his buried in the quick-sands' findings and sound
legal conclusions acted / behaved as he did and we cover above.
CHARGES OF CORRUPTION
This is a summary, of a book, that exceeds 300 pages, entitled: 'The
Most Corrupt British Judges'. According to the preface of the book, its content sounds
very much like a wild burlesque. And I wish it were. Unfortunately, it is a sinister
reality. Nor is it a unique sinister reality. It is about common place corruption, within
our courts of law. And, still much more within our legal system, i.e. the Law Society and
the Bar of England and Wales.
The book addressed to the Lord Chancellor. Is not an application for a
revolution. Nor for a Revenge. Only for a remedy. The only remedy I ask for, is that
necessary investigations be carried out, to verify whether my accusations are true or
false. If the accusations are found to be false, I ask to be punished for making a false
report to lawful authorities. And, for sedition if found to he true, I ask that the
corrupt officials and judges be punished for perverting the course of justice, and for
perjury, etc. I hasten to assure the authorities that each and every accusation is based
on documentary evidence whose genuineness is not disputed.
It has become necessary, in the interest of the 
commonwealth of justice, for all persons, especially those of us who are lawyers, to
publish the nature and particulars of corruption in our courts. Indeed, the provision of s 4(l) of the Criminal Law Act 1968 makes it
mandatory that the criminal offences of breaches of judicial oath, and conspiracies to
defeat the end of justice being committed by our corrupt judges should be reported to
authorities. It is now the practice in England, as is seen in the case of Jonathan
Atkin, and Hamilton and of other ministers, that a case alleging sleaze, in a public
office, is first reported in a media of public opinion. This book, is that media of
public opinion. Amongst others, the book charges the following judges of the offence of
breaches of judicial oath and conspiracies to defeat the end of justice:
- Chief Justice Lord Thomas Henry Bingham.
- Mr. Justice Sir John Michael Wright.
- Mr. Justice Sir Thomas Richard Atkin Morrison.
- Mr. Justice Sir Francis Humphrey Potts.
- Mr.Justice Maurice Kay.
- Industrial Tribunal Chairman Ms. E R Donnelly
- Industrial Tribunal Chairman David Booth.
- Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.
- Anonymous Judges of the Bar.
Well and truly serve our sovereign Lady
Queen Elizabeth the Second, in their various judicial offices.
The 3 oaths, which our corrupt judges regularly break are:
First, their Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign in which they swore that they would:
Second, their Judicial Oath in which they
Do right to all manner
of people after the laws and usage of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or
Third, they ended the swearing of their Judicial Oath, by calling upon Providence Each
So help me God.
Yet, all of them, in the course of their duty as judges,
have maliciously committed atrocious breaches of the oaths to the Sovereign, the Court and
THE OFFENCE OF
DEFEATING JUSTICE BY IGNORING ISSUES:
The law requires judges to deal with the issues 
raised in the case before them, by giving their reasons for determining those issues, in
one way, or the other. In the eases that 1 have brought
against the Law Society, the judges invariably ignored to deal with the issues that I
The reason is quite clear. If they dealt with those issues, they would
have had no alternative, but to make a ruling in my favour. However, since, they had already conspired to defeat justice, they had no
alternative but to avoid dealing with the issues raised by me! Their conduct could not
merely be explained in terms of judicial bias (*F2). It was the very
definition of the offence of a conspiracy to defeat the end of justice!
Just as a judge would have to be insane to deny that the object of
the eye, is not to see and, of the hear, is not to hear, so would he be insane (*F3), to deny that the object of judgement, is not to determine the issues in the
dispute between the parties. There can therefore, be no defence, in law or in fact, to a
judgement, which ignores to deal with the issues that constitute, the cause of action, or
the grounds of appeal. Just as no judge dares say that he believes in the
self-contradiction, or in the existence of the impossible, so, no judge dares say that he
believes that the purpose of pleading causes of action, or grounds of appeal, is for him
to ignore  them!
THE OFFENCE OF
DEFEATING JUSTICE BY SECRET BRIEFINGS:
The offence of giving judgement, not on the basis of the evidence, but
according to secret briefings, is now the predominant feature of judicial process of our
corrupt judges. In the book, the Most Corrupt British Judges, I have given details of the
secret written briefings which constituted the basis of judgements in my case as well as
in one other case! Amongst them are:
Secret written briefing from the solicitor of the
Law Society to Industrial Tribunal Chairman E R Donnelly! It hinted to the Chairman to
re-write the content of a judgement, already delivered in an open court, in such a way as
to help the Law Society. And she did just that! The judgement omitted to record the order
given in the open court, dismissing the application of the Law Society! It then altered
another order, given in the open court to the effect that I had, with the consent of the
Law Society, withdrawn my application for direct racial discrimination. It substituted, in
its place, the order that my case was dismissed! Etc!
Secret written briefings from the solicitor of 
the Law Society to Industrial Tribunal Chairman David Booth. It asked him to exercise a
jurisdiction that he did not have! And Booth, the most corrupt judge, did just that!
Secret briefing from the Industrial Chairman E R Donnelly to
the Employment Appeal Tribunal! She had good cause for it. She did not want the issue of
her accepting a bribe made public. And it was muzzled!
Secret briefing from the Industrial Chairman David Booth to
the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He too had a good cause for a secret plea. His judgement
could only be described as treasonable. Without a secret plea, he could not survive as a
judge! His plea was acted upon and his crime was muzzled!
The anonymous judges of the Inns of Court told the Chairman
of the Industrial Tribunal that if they were forced to disclose the secret briefings they
had received, the consequences would be disastrous! As usual, the Chairman expressed full
In the case of Geoffrey Harold Scriven, there was a secret
briefing, which clearly stated that "the Court should be warned" that Scriven
was anti-authorities and the Court was taking steps to have him duly punished!
I was born on 01/01/1931 in Uganda in Fast Africa. On 09/02/1960, 1 was
awarded the degree of the Utter Bar, also known as Barrister-at-Law Degree, by the
Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, London.
From 1960 to 1962 I practised law in the British Colony of Uganda. And,
from 1962 to 1986 I practised law in the independent states of Uganda and Tanzania.
In 1969-1971 I was elected President of the Uganda Law Society. In 1986 I sought and
was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom. I was subsequently given permanent
residence in the United Kingdom.
Though an English Barrister, I have been, for 10 years refused
admission as a solicitor on the ground that I had accused the Law Society of racism. The 4
Law Society officials, known as the Gang of Four, or the Four Mafia, whom, on the basis of
undisputed documentary evidence, I accused of perjury, fraud, racism, and treachery  to the laws of this country, and of having committed serious criminal
offences, which they have been trying to cover up, by series of conspiracies to defeat the
end of justice, are:
The Law Society Director Mr. John Rendall.
The Law Society Head of Department Mr. Nicholas
The Law Society Manager Mr. Mark Hone.
And the Law Society Solicitor Mrs. Anne Coles.
By one excuse after the other, they refused,
for some 10 years now, to admit me into the Roll of Solicitors. The followings are some of
the unlawful excuses
15 OF THE MANY
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE LAW SOCIETY
* Although marks for exemption of an English Barrister to become an
English Solicitor was hardly 34%, I was refused exemption after I had obtained 43% marks!
* Although English Barristers with 8 years experience in legal
practice, were automatically exempted to become solicitors, yet, the legal requirement for
exemption was concealed from me for years!
- When I learnt about it, I was still refused exemption in spite of over 30 years of legal
- Although the practice of the Law Society was, as it still is, for English Barristers who
have practised law in the firms of English solicitors for 2 years, to be given automatic
exemption for admission as solicitors, yet, I was refused exemption after practising law
in the offices of English Solicitors for two years! I was still refused exemption after
doing so for 3 years!
- The Law Society official Mark Hone, on the advice of Lord Lester Q.C perjured himself by
swearing a false affidavit for the purpose of misleading the court to believe that I had,
compared to English Barristers exempted, provided less proof of knowledge of accounts! In
fact, he knew that I had provided more proof than any English barrister ever exempted!
- When I won the case of indirect racial discrimination, that I had brought against the
Law Society, for its refusal to exempt me, the Law Society declared, for the purpose of
defeating the end of justice, that it had suspended the law that allowed exemption of
English Barristers! Hence, that I would not be exempted! In the first place, the Law
Society had no locus standi to  suspend the implementation of a
national law! In the second place, although the industrial Tribunal and I were officially
told that the law had been suspended the implementation of the law, yet, the White English
Barristers actually continued to be exempted under it! The Law Society had lied!.
Although the law requires the rule of conflict of interest to be
observed by the quasi judicial exemption committees of the Law Society, yet, for the
purpose of defeating the end of justice, it was not observed in my case:
- (a) Mrs. Coles who was acting as a defence solicitor in a case that I
brought against the Law Society, appointed herself the clerk to the committee considering
- (b) She also appointed the adjudicators who were to act as judges in
- (c) She then used confidential documents that I submitted, for my
exemption, as a ground to apply to the tribunal to make a ruling against me!
- (d) She deliberately, in spite of my demands for disclosure, concealed
from me the policy which entitled me to automatic exemption, by virtue of 
having worked in the firms of English Solicitors for 2 years!
- (e) For the purpose of ensuring that I failed the test for exemption,
she devised a Catch-22 Test which I, and only I, was to pass! It was an antagonistic test
calculated to inspire resentment! I was to ask my judges questions with the object of
proving that they knew less law, than I did! And, they were to ask me questions, with the
intention of proving that they knew more law, than I did!
* Although the law requires the adjudicators to act on the evidence presented to
them, the evidence I presented was simply deliberately falsified! I submitted to the Law
Society the Solicitors Rules of accounts which I practised in Uganda. They were word by
word, identical to that in England except that the legal practitioner in Uganda was
called, an advocate. In England he is called, a solicitor. As a result of the influence of
Mrs. Coles, on her appointees, the Law Society ruled that the two sets of law were neither
identical, nor similar!
* Although Professor Read had written a book showing that the rules
that governed legal practice in my country, Uganda, was identical to that in England, and
although a photocopy of that conclusion was sent to the  Law Society,
yet, for the purpose of delaying my exemption, Professor Read was commissioned, at
unnecessary public expenses, to carry out research to find out whether the two sets of law
were indeed identical! When, after months of research, he submitted a report that the 2
sets of law were indeed identical, his finding was never acted upon! I was then told, in
essence, that his report was never necessary! They stated that, as a matter of fact, the
only thing which had delayed my exemption for years, was that the Law Society wanted a
letter from an English solicitor certifying that I knew the rules governing solicitors
accounts in England! On its production, I was then exempted!
* After some five years of its failure to exempt me, the Law Society
finally exempted me in 1995. However, in order to refuse to admit me as a solicitor, it
accused me of contempt of court! It stated that I had published, in a press conference,
confidential documents, obtained by virtue of the order for discovery, made by the
Industrial Tribunal. In order to defeat the end of justice, the Law Society did not bring
committal proceedings, for contempt of court against me in the High Court, in accordance
- Their own notice of intention to institute committal
proceedings for contempt in the High Court! 
- The advice given to them by the Industrial Tribunal!
- And the law as well as the legal precedents!
I had given them notice that if they brought the proceedings in the High Court I would
rely on the provision of s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1986. The law entitles me to prove
the criminal offences committed by the staff of the Law Society as a legal authority for
publishing the confidential documents. There is no confidence in iniquity. In law, the
fact that the staff of the Law Society feared to bring the case against me in the High
Court, is an admission on their part, that they have committed the criminal offences with
which I have charged them.
* Although the law specifically prohibited
publication of confidential documents to any other body except the High Court, the Law
Society in the person of its solicitor, Mrs. Coles published confidential documents to the
Bar. She confessed, under oath, that she had done so unlawfully! Yet, because she was
White, she was not to be punished. Because I was black, I was to be punished!
* For the purpose of avoiding discovery,
the Law Society, in the person of its solicitor, Mrs. Coles, deliberately swore a false
oath  about not knowing the names of solicitors who had been punished
for contempt of court. She knew the name of Hon. Harriet Herman M.P and had formerly
* Again for the purpose of defeating the
end of justice, although the Law Society had promised to consider my application for
admission after the Bar had completed the investigation of their complaint against me,
yet, after the Bar had completed its determination, the Law Society continued for years,
to refuse to consider my application for admission! They also refused to answer all
letters begging them to consider my application!
* Although as a legal practitioner, I owe a
duty to act in the best interest of my client, and I do not owe a duty to the opponent of
my client, yet, the Law Society gave me notice of its intention to refuse me admission as
a solicitor, because, in the interest of my client, an Asian lady, Mrs. Da Cunha, I
published on the internet, the way she was racially discriminated against, by Mr. Michael
Lygo, the Chief Accountant of the Great Ormond Street Hospital! Mr. Lygo is one of the
most corrupt accountants in the country. When he learnt that Mrs. Da Cunha was enquiring
about his embezzlement of public funds, he decided to dismiss her from the Hospital. I was
obliged to publish about  his embezzlement of sick children's fund.
* The Law Society even interfered with my
application for legal aid to bring a case against them! The ground, which legal aid gave
for refusing my application, namely that I had retired, was the ground that I had given,
not to the Legal Aid Board, but to the Law Society! The Law Society ensured that I was
denied the right to be represented by a White counsel, on the ground that if so
represented, my voice might, at long last, be heard!
A SUMMARY OF PARTICULARS OF THE CHARGES OF CORRUPTION AGAINST THE
CHIEF JUSTICE LORD THOMAS HENRY BINGHAM:
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham
deliberately committed gross breaches of his judicial oath and deliberately perverted the
course of Justice.
It all started with a letter of complaint,
against the  Law Society, that I wrote to him, in his capacity then,
as the Master of the Rolls. In his reply, Lord Bingham advised me that he could not assist
me with the complaint because, in case I decided to appeal, against what I saw as a gross
misconduct on the part of some officials of the Law Society, my appeal would be heard by
So, I prepared my appeal against the
racially discriminatory decision of the Law Society, refusing to exempt me for admission
as a solicitor.
1. LEGAL AMBUSH:
Lord Bingham's reply was in the form of a
direction to me and to the Law Society, to attend the hearing of my appeal! It was a legal
ambush. It was contrary to the rule of natural justice, for the case heard before the
defence was lodged:
The Law Society knew the grounds of
I did not know the grounds
of their defence!
The threefold consequences of my attending the
nearing without a defence being lodged were:
The supremacy of the law was betrayed. The
case was not heard in accordance with the procedure of the law. It was heard in accordance
with the arbitrary decision of Lord 
The parties were not equal, either before
the law, or before the court! The Law Society had been supplied with my pleadings. I had
been denied their pleading. In law, the Law Society had been favourably treated. I had
been unfavourably treated!
There was a conspiracy to defeat justice.
Though I was denied the grounds of defence of the Law Society, Lord Bingham was given the
defence of the Law Society! Had Lord Bingham not known the defence of the Law Society, he
would have insisted that the pleadings be completed! But, knowing it, he felt that it was
not necessary to complete the pleading! How did Lord Bingham come to know about the
defence of the Law Society? The only answer is that, he asked for it, behind my back. And
it was given to him, behind my back! And that is the issue. In law, he conspired to defeat
the end of justice.
2. PREJUDICE JUDGEMENT:
On learning what the defence of the Law
Society was, the Chief Justice made two vital decisions behind my back! These were:
- (a) That he did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case!
- (b) That, in the circumstances, the Law Society need not send me its 
- Mr. Justice Sir Thomas Richard Atkin Morrison.
In law, his pie-judged the case. His was a
prejudiced judgement of the case, before it was heard in open court, was:
3. CONFESSION OF A CONSPIRACY:
- A betrayal of the law!
- Mr. Double-crossing a litigant i.e. me!
At the hearing of the application, Lord Bingham
confessed as follows:
The Law Society told him about the decision of the Industrial Tribunal,
that the guidelines of the Law Society, for exempting English barristers was indirectly
racially discriminatory against me.
It had told him that, as a result of that decision, the Law Society had
decided not to enforce the law that empowered it to exempt English Barristers! It is to be
noted that the Tribunal had found no fault with the law! Only with the unnecessary
Further, the Chief Justice said that as a result of the suspension of
the implementation of the law, no English Barrister was going to be exempted.
A conspiracy to defeat the end of justice.
4. ACTING AS A PUPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY
Of course Lord Bingham knew that the Law Society had no legal authority to suspend
enforcement of a national law! He also knew that the sole excuse let alleged suspension
was to prevent me from being exempted' By endorsing the unlawful suspension, and by
endorsing the false excuse for refusing me exemption, he became a party to:
To add insult to injury. Lord
Bingham, asked me a question which the Law Society must have suggested to him! He said
that since I was an English Barrister and wanted to become a solicitor
was I prepared to sit for the test to become a
With a polite and generous dissimulation
Lord Bingham affected not to know the object for the alleged refusal to implement the law.
Clearly, he was no dupe of the Law Society. On the contrary. he had conspired to become a
willing instrument of the Law Society'. He wilfully broke his judicial oath in order to
- (a) That the Law Society succeeds in its racist discrimination against me!
- (b) That the end of justice is defeated!
- (c) Mr. Justice Sir John Michael
- (d) And that the implication of the order of the Industrial Tribunal decision was
disobeyed i.e. contempt of court. The implication of the order of the Tribunal was that
since I had been refused exemption on the basis of racially discriminatory policy, I
should be exempted forthwith!
One of the most distressing thing about Lord l3ingharn is that he
sometime indulges in lies! Although he told Inc that the law for exemption had been
suspended, he knew, all the time, that it was not suspended! White English Barristers had
continued to be exempted. He could not have failed to know it. He was then the Master of
the Rolls! He was wholly briefed about admissions!
MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL
Mr. Justice Michael Wright who gave
directions, for my trial for the concocted charges of  professional
misconduct, of publishing to the press. the content of confidential documents, which prove
the serious criminal offences. committed by Lord Lester and some Law Society officials,
deliberately committed breaches of his judicial oath, and perverted the course of justice
NO MATERIAL WITNESSES: He refused my application for material witnesses to be called to
give evidence of the crimes committed by Lord Lester and top Law Society officials!
BETRAYAL OF ORDER 52: He refused my application for a change of venue, for a trial for
contempt of court, from the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court, to the High Court,
in accordance with the law laid down by Supreme Court Order 52, rule 1! The purpose of
refusing the application was to defeat the end of justice, by denying me the opportunity
to prove to the High Court, the serious offences committed by some Law Society
Officials!Justice Lord Thomas Henry Bingham.
BETRAYAL OF CONTEMPT ACT: His refusal of my application for a change of venue, was also
contrary to the Contempt of Court Act 1981! Under the contempt law, none in this country
can be punished for reporting to the press what took place in open court, except when the
High Court has so ordered. I am the first person to be denied justice under that law!
Michael Wright never denied a White man trial according to that law. However, because I am
 black, he believed that he could successfully conspire to defeat
justice under that law!
BETRAYAL OF CRIMINAL ACT: Contrary to the provision of section 4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act
1967, he refused to allow me to plead, as my defence, my legal duty to report the crimes
committed by the 4 Law Society officials! His malicious and unlawful purpose for denying
me that defence, was to cover up the offences committed by those Law Society officials.
REFUSAL OF DISCOVERY: He refused discovery in a case in which, without discovery, justice
could neither be done, nor be seen as done!
REFUSAL OF REASONABLE TIME: He refused to give reasonable time for the trial. He reduced the
time for the trial from 2 months to 2 days! His sole object was to prevent the crimes
committed by top lawyers and some judges from being heard!
FALSIFICATION OF RECORD: He falsified the record of his direction hearing, by leaving out my
applications and submissions concerning the crimes committed by the 4 Law Society
officials and some judges! He deliberately tried to defeat the end of justice by covering
up the fact that the 4 officials were charged before him, in his capacity as a judge, of
very serious criminal offences.
MR. JUSTICE SIR FRANCIS
Mr Justice Potts, appointed to hear my
appeal, against the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court,
deliberately committed breaches of his judicial oath and perverted the course of justice
MR. JUSTICE SIR THIMBLES RICHARD ATKIN MORRISON
- DENIAL OF HEARING: Contrary to the provision of the law, he deliberately denied
me the right for oral hearing of my appeal.
- OBTAINING CONSENT BY LIES: He pretended, that the purpose of this denial was to
enable the case to be determined as soon as possible, in accordance with my request.
However, when the parties agreed to his offer, for the appeal to be determined on the
basis of written submissions, he took more than a year to determine the appeal! As the
appeal involved issues of fundamental right, the law made its expeditious determination a
- DENIAL OF HEARING JUDGEMENT: He maliciously avoided to give his judgement in an
open court where the parties could attend! He  decided to give the
judgement in Leeds and requested the parties not to attend! Knowing that his judgement was
a deliberate exercise to defeat justice, he opted not to face the victim of his bias
judgement. Nor did he want the press to get wind of it!
- IGNORING RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE: He wilfully ignored the ground of appeal that
the orders of Mr. Justice Wright, that names of material witnesses and copies of material
documentary evidence, be not given to me, was contrary to the rule of natural justice.
- ISSUE OF FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS: He deliberately failed to deal with the ground
of appeal that failure of the Disciplinary Tribunal, to give reasons for rejecting my
grounds of defence, was an error of law.
- BETRAYAL OF ORDER 52: He deliberately failed to deal with the ground of
appeal that by virtue of s. 1(2) of the Tribunal and Enquiry (Evidence) Act 1922, and of
Order 52 Rule I of the Supreme Court, no person in this country can be punished for a
breach of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, unless the High Court had made that
- BETRAYAL OF CRIMINAL LAW ACT: He maliciously failed to deal with the ground of
appeal that by virtue s. 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, the content of confidential
documents which discloses a criminal offence,  are not protected from
being published, for the purpose of criminal investigations.
- BETRAYAL OF CONFIDENTIALITY LAW: He intentionally ignored to deal with the ground
of appeal that under the law of this country, there is no confidentiality in iniquity.
Hence that attempt to punish me for publishing confidential documents disclosing the
iniquities of the Gang of Four, was itself a conspiracy to defeat justice.
- BETRAYAL OF CONTEMPT LAW: He deliberately ignored to deal with the ground of
appeal that by virtue the Contempt of Court Act 1981 no person, in this country, can be
punished for publishing evidence, of a case heard in open court.
- BETRAYAL OF RACE LAW: In order to defeat the end of justice, he maliciously
failed to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1967,
the punishment of a Black lawyer, namely, myself, for disclosure of a confidential
documents, which was also disclosed by a White lawyer, namely, Mrs. Anne Coles, who was
not punished for it, was racially discriminatory.
- FURTHER BETRAYAL OF RACE LAW: He maliciously ignored to deal with the ground of
appeal that by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976, the initiation, by the Bar, of a
complaint against me, by a letter, while refusing to initiate  a
complaint against Lord Lester Q.C by a letter, was racially discriminatory.
- COVERING UP THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF TRIBUNAL: He wilfully ignored to deal with the
ground of appeal that the proceedings against me, in the Inns of Court Tribunal, was null
and void in law! This is because the law totally prohibited the publication to the
Disciplinary Tribunal of Inns of Court, the confidential documents whose content
constituted the cause of action!
- VIOLATING THE RULE OF NATURE: Lastly, he maliciously refused my application,
without giving me the opportunity to be heard, to recommend to the Law Society, in
accordance with the Race Relations Act, and with the accepted practice, to consider
urgently, my application for admission as a solicitor.
Mr Justice, Sir Thomas Richard Atkin
Morrison, heard my appeal against the decision of the most corrupt judge, namely,
Industrial Tribunal Chairman, Mr. David Booth. In order to cover up the criminal conduct
of Chairman Booth, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously committed breaches of 
his judicial oath and perverted the course of justice.
- BASED DECISION ON EXTRANEOUS ISSUES: In order to dismiss my appeal against the
decision of Chairman David Booth, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously made extraneous issues
of contempt of court and of marks, his grounds for deciding the case! He knew that these
issues had already been decided in other courts! Further, he himself had ruled, in a
preliminary hearing, that those issues were irrelevant!
- DENYING LEGAL RIGHT FOR CASE TO BE HEARD ON ITS MERIT: He maliciously avoided to
deal with the most crucial ground of appeal, namely that Chairman David Booth of the
Industrial Tribunal was wrong in law, in refusing me my mandatory legal right to have my
case, of racial discrimination, heard on its merit!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO JURISDICTION ISSUE: He also wilfully avoided to deal with the
grounds of appeal on the issue of jurisdiction i.e. whether a Chairman against whose
decision an appeal has been made, can reopen the case and order costs against the
appellant! The more so as my grounds of appeal was that Booth was the most corrupt judge
in the country!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: In order to defeat the end of  justice, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously omitted to deal with the
ground of appeal, concerning the secret letter from Mr. Robin Lewis, that Blackmailer of
Judges, who, for that reason, is the Solicitor (FOR?) the Law Society. I had
submitted that the letter of blackmail, from the Law Society to Booth, rendered the
proceedings before Booth a nullity! Amongst other things, the secret letter, according to
Lewis, asked Booth to reopen the case that was already on appeal, and to make an order for
costs! And Booth did so!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO ILLEGAL AWARD OF COSTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY: Again Morrison
deliberately avoided to deal with the legal requirement that whatever costs awarded in a
preliminary hearing, was not payable, unless until the case is heard on its merit! In law,
only the trial court directs payment of such costs!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ILLEGAL QUANTUM OF COSTS AWARDED: Nor did Morrison deal
with the issue that the order for costs, exceeding £8000, was unlawful, since the maximum
costs the law allows, in a preliminary hearing, is only £150.
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY: He deliberately avoided to deal with
the ground of appeal concerning the legal requirement to order discovery in cases
involving racial discrimination! Nor did he deal with the issue of refusing my application
for discovery without giving me an opportunity to  be heard on the
matter. Nor did he deal with the discriminatory orders for discovery which, on the one
hand, denied me discovery, on the other hand, gave discovery to the Law Society!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO ROBIN LEWIS BLACKMAIL: In order to dismiss my appeal, he
deliberately avoided to deal with the failure of the Industrial Tribunal, to deal with my
application, as to whether it was lawful or not, for solicitor Robin Lewis to represent
the Law Society. Booth had been part and parcel of the officials of the Law Society
accused of perjury and fraud, etc. in the case!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO PREJUDICED JUDGEMENT: He also wilfully avoided to deal with
the issue as to whether the conduct of Chairman Booth, in challenging the propriety of my
Counsel to represent me, on the evidence secretly given to him from outside the court,
amounted, in law, to judicial bias and rendered the proceedings a nullity!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS ON THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL RACISM: He also deliberately avoided to
deal with the issue of my racial discrimination by the Tribunal Chairman Booth who had, on
racial grounds, treated me less favourably than the White Law Society officials! Booth had
invariably ignored my applications and invariably answered the applications by the Law
- WILFUL BLINDNESS ON THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL BIAS: He also deliberately ignored the
ground of bias raised. Chairman Booth was, again and again asked not to preside over the
hearing on the ground of bias! Again and again he refused to do so. He promised to write
down, in his judgement, the ground for his decision, but he did not do so! Instead, he
deliberately falsified his judgement, by omitting to point out that applications were made
for him, not to act as a judge in the case.
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ISSUE OF MISPRISION OF FELONY: He deliberately ignored to
deal with the ground of appeal that the Tribunal was wrong in refusing to deal with the
legal defence of misprision of felony i.e. s.4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Had he
dealt with that legal point, he would have allowed the appeal! He avoided to deal with it,
for the sole purpose of defeating the end of justice.
- MALICIOUS IGNORING OF HIS OWN RULING: In order to defeat the end of justice, Mr.
Morrison maliciously ignored his own ruling, and the reason he gave for that ruling,
namely that the Tribunal had mistaken the issue in the case!
- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BY UNDUE DELAY: He deliberately delayed for over a
year to give, a short judgement, in a case involving human rights! 
- REFUSAL TO DELIVER JUDGEMENT IN MY PRESENCE: Being conscious of his conspiracy to
defeat the end of justice, he purposely refused to deliver his judgement in open court! He
even avoided to send the judgement to me. I had to ask for it!
- WILFUL BLINDNESS TO JUDGEMENT BY HIM: Above all, he deliberately ignored ground
of appeal that the trial judge had refused to read my written evidence submitted to him in
the form of affidavit! Further, he refused to give copies of the affidavit to the
assessors! Thereafter, he proceeded to award costs against me without knowing the evidence
I submitted against award of costs! Even the most corrupt judge Kangaroo Court, would not
have ignored such evidence. The fact that Morrison ignored it, speaks for itself!
In order to prevent me from receiving legal aid, that would enable me
to be represented by a White Barrister, whose words would be listened to by the court, Mr.
Justice Maurice Kay maliciously committed breaches of his judicial oath, and perverted the
course of justice in the following ways:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE IRVINE MITCHELL
- CONTEMPT OF COURT: His decision to refuse  leave on the
ground that I could represent myself amounted to contempt of the courts, which had heard
the case on its merit. Both, His Honour Judge Altoona and the Legal Aid Board itself, had
formerly held that, in spite of my qualification and experience as a barrister, yet, the
nature of my complaint called for my being legally represented.
- MALICE AND JUDICIAL BIAS: It was proved to Mr. Justice Kay, on the basis of
documentary evidence, that the decisions of the Legal Aid Board, in my application, had
become a Catherine Wheel: too fickle to be tolerated in a public office! Every decision
gave reasons for refusing legal aid. Those reasons were then subsequently admitted to be
wrong! Thereafter, instead of giving legal aid by virtue of the admitted error of law, the
Legal Aid Board would, look for yet another reason, for refusing legal aid! Such a conduct
raised a point of great public interest which call for determination. Further, it called
for a precedent that would guide the courts in such cases! Such conduct appear to be
evidence of official bias and abuse of power of office! It thus constituted a mandatory
legal duty for the judge to give leave for judicial review. The fact that Mr Justice Kay
refused leave is proof that he deliberately broke his judicial oath and conspired to
defeat the end of justice.
- CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: The unchallenged proof that the Legal Aid Board  had unlawfully gone behind me, to ask the Law Society to furnish them
with the reason for refusing me legal aid, was also a mandatory ground for giving leave
for judicial review. The fact that Mr. Justice Kay refused leave, in the face of such a
compelling ground of bias, is proof of his conspiracy to defeat justice. It was proved to
his satisfaction that I had not told the Legal Aid Board about my retirement from legal
practice. I had told the Law Society. It was the Law Society that gave that ground to the
Legal Aid Board, to use it, to refuse me legal aid!
- FRAUDULENT DECISION: Lastly, I proved Mr. Justice Kay, by documentary evidence,
that the final decision, given by the Legal Aid Board for refusing me Legal Aid, was
manifestly fraudulent. Now, in law, fraud vitiates everything. It thus made it mandatory
for Mr. Justice Kay to order judicial review of the case. But, he did not. His failure to
do so was both, a breach of his oath of office, and a deliberate act, on his part, to
defeat the end of justice! The reason given by the Legal Aid Board was that "there
was no reasonable prospects for success in the proceedings, notwithstanding Counsel's
advice of 5/10/98" and that: "It was not shown that the decision complained of
was irrational, illegal, or procedurally improper". Yet, my application for legal aid
had explained, at great length, that the decision by the Law Society was:
(c) procedurally  improper and that it was
(d) a refusal to carry out a public function,
(e) a breach of official undertaking and was also
(f ) contrary to Regulation 6 of the Admission Regulation, and
(g) to Race Relations Act 1976, etc.!
The Gang of Four of the Law Society
were afraid that if the complaint that they made against me, for
publishing to the press, the content of confidential documents, that prove their criminal
offences. was heard in the High Court, my defence that I had a legal duty to publish
evidence of criminal offences, would be upheld. So. they looked around for bias judges.
who would despicably commit breaches of their oath of office, and deliberately defeat the
end of justice by making a finding that I had unlawfully published confidential documents,
that disclose criminal offences!. They found those judges. They were anonymous judges of
the Bar, whose livelihood depended exclusively on instructions from solicitors. And who
thus dared not disappoint the Law Society! So overweighed with their guilt of defeating
the end of justice, that they even dared not disclose their names! The other, equally
pliant judge, was Honour (!) Judge  Fergus Irvine Mitchell:
E. R. DONNELLY
- VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF UNIFORMITY OR EQUALITY: The law is
that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Solicitor Anne Coles, of the Law
Society, who complained against me to the Bar, confessed to Judge Mitchell, that she had
not come with clean hands! Her complaint was that, I had published to unauthorised
persons, at a press conference, documents whose publication was prohibited by the
Industrial Tribunal. She confessed that she too, had published the same documents to
unauthorised persons! Yet, she was not punished! I was punished!
- VIOLATION OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT: Anne Coles was not punished because she is
White. I was punished because I am Black! Judge Mitchell thus turned himself into a
racist! He defeated the end of justice by turning his court, into a racist organisation!
- VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS: The law, as stated in the Contempt of
Court Act 1981, is that no person in this country should be punished for the exercise of
his freedom of speech, in reporting proceedings which have taken place in open court. The
only exception is when the High Court has found the person to be liable for contempt. As
Judge Fergus Irvine Mitchell,  is not a judge of the High Court, and
as, the Inns of Court Tribunal, is not the High Court, it followed that Judge Mitchell had
no jurisdiction to punish me, for the exercise of my human rights of free speech! In
punishing me, he became, in law, a tyrant. He differed from dictators Hitler and Amin only
in degree; not in kind. He also turned the court into a violator of human rights.
- CONTEMPT OF COURT: Further, his Honour Judge Fergus Irvine Mitchell knew that by
virtue of the provision of Order 52 rule 1 of the Supreme Court, his acceptance to act as
a judge in the complaint against me, would constitute, on his part, the offence of
contempt of court! The case was based on confidential documents, which could not legally
be disclosed to him! It could only be lawfully disclosed to the High Court, which had the
jurisdiction. By insisting on reading the documents unlawfully, he became a contemptnor!
He is thus not a fit and proper person to be a judge in any court.
- LACK OF JURISDICTION: He also knew that by virtue of Order 52 rule 1 of the Rules
of the Supreme Court, he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, he knew
that by virtue of the said provision of the law, a person cannot be punished, in England,
for contempt of court, unless and until the High Court had ruled that he had been guilty
of contempt. He thus knew that his purported trial was null and void in law.
- COVER UP OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES: He knew that the sole object for avoidance of the
trial of the case in the High Court, in accordance with the provision of the law, as well
as with the firm undertaking, by the Law Society, was to prevent the crimes of perjury,
fraud, and defeating the course of justice etc, committed by the Law Society officials,
from being disclosed in the High Court and proved! The first object was to turn the
tribunal into a harbour of criminals.
- AN ACCOMPLICE AFTER THE FACT OF A FELONY: The second object was to turn Judge
Mitchell into an accomplice after the fact of the felonies, committed by the Law Society
officials. His colleague, His Honour Judge Gelega King, who had been equally assigned that
task, had refused to be a party to such a criminal endeavour!
- A FRAUD: Judge Mitchell acted throughout the case as a fraud. He knew, all along,
that the sole case against me was that I had committed a breach of the order of the
Industrial Tribunal, by publishing confidential documents in a press conference. He thus
knew that in law the offence that I was charged of was, by definition, contempt of court.
Yet, he pretended, for the purpose of giving himself jurisdiction, that the charge against
me was not contempt! He was, in law, a fraud. It is against public interest to have a
fraud as a  judge.
- FRAUDULENT CONDUCT: Again, his conduct throughout the case was fraudulent. He
claims, for instance, that the case that I brought against him in the High Court, did not
make him in law, bias! Yet he knew that it made him, in law, bias! He also knew that in
law, it disqualified him from judging the case!
- BIAS JUDGE: His bias further exhibited itself by his refusal to allow me to go
through my defences, in open court! He claimed that the Panel had already read them!
Reading grounds of defence, and hearing them explained and argued in open court, are two
different things! Nor does the court mean the panel of judges only! It necessarily
includes the audience who should leave the court satisfied that the ca was properly tried!
- FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS: His other form of bias was failure to give reasons on
valid grounds of defence. He knew that if he gave reasons on my grounds of defence, as the
law stipulates, I would have won the case. Hence, he did not even deal with my core
defence in the case, namely, that I am entitled by virtue of the provision of s. 4 of the
Criminal Law Act 1968 to publish confidential documents which disclose criminal offences.
Nor would he give reasons why he did not accept the legal ground of defence, that there is
no  confidentiality in iniquity!
Chairman Donnelly of the Industrial
Tribunal who heard my application against the Law Society for racial discrimination,
deliberately committed breaches of her judicial oath and maliciously defeated the end of
justice, by amongst others, the following conduct:
CHAIRMAN DAVID BOOTH
- UNLAWFUL INSTRUCTION OF COUNSEL: Donnelly unlawfully ordered Counsel Mitchel
Aslangul to represent me against my will, and against the will of Counsel! The sole
purpose of her unlawful conduct was to enable justice to be seen as being done, when in
fact it was being defeated!
- UNLAWFUL REQUEST FOR A BRIBE: She unlawfully asked for a bribe. And the Lord
Lester gave it to her! The effect of her corruption became apparent in her judgement!
- UNLAWFUL ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE: Unlawfully allowed Lord Lester Q.C to make an
application, for the purpose of legal ambush, without the necessary legal notice.
- ILLEGAL OMISSION OF AN ORDER GIVEN IN  OPEN COURT: Although
she had, in the open court dismissed the application made by Lord Lester Q.C yet, in the
judgement that she wrote after she had received a letter of blackmail, from the Law
Society. Blackmailer Robin Lewis, she maliciously omitted to record that the application
by Lord Lester was dismissed!
- DISCRIMINATORY AWARD OF COSTS: Although in the open court, she dismissed, without
costs, Lord Lester's application which had resulted into 2 days of hearing, she ordered me
to pay costs for having pleaded late, the issue of costs! In fact, I had pleaded the issue
of cost in my original statement of claim!
- ILLEGAL CONCEALMENT OF THE TRUTH: In order to prevent the evidence that prove the
intention of the Law Society to discriminate against me, from being proved, she ruled that
the director of the Law Society had answered the question about the date on which the
racially discriminatory guidelines was published! The Director had evaded to answer the
question and Donnelly knew it! The proof of that point would have entitled me to damages
for direct racial discrimination! But Donnelly did not want that!
- ILLEGAL REVERSAL OF AN ORDER GIVEN IN OPEN COURT: In response to the appeal by
Lord Lester that the Chairman write a  judgement in such a way that
the issues determined by the tribunal would appear to be res judicata, whereas they were
not res judicata. Chairman Donnelly unlawfully agreed to do so! And did so! As a result of
her breach of judicial oath and of her defeating the end of justice, the High Court later
held that the issue of intentional discrimination, had become res judicata.
- CONCEALING & CONCEDING TO BLACKMAIL: Subsequently, Chairman Donnelly received
from Solicitor Robin Lewis, the Law Society Blackmailer, a letter blackmailing her and
giving her secret briefing! She conceded to the Law Society's blackmail! Hers became a
judgement by secret briefing. And by blackmail!
- ACTING AS A JUDGE IN HER OWN CAUSE: Thereafter, she wrote a review of her own
judgement which was a defence of her unlawful conduct. She had abdicated her duty as a
judge. She became a judge in her own case!
- SENDING SECRET BRIEFING: Even after that, to save herself from the consequences
of her breaches of judicial oath, and of defeating the end of justice, she wrote a secret
briefing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal! According to the Judgement of the Employment
Appeal Tribunal, the content of her secret briefing, was accepted in its entirety. None
dreamt that it should have  been shown to me! None dreamt that I
ought to have been given an opportunity to comment on it. It became the ground for
refusing leave to appeal against her judgement! Up to now, her secret briefing which is
the base of a court judgement, remains top secret! As the saying goes, she scratched some
body's back. And in turn, some body has scratched her back. Hers became a judgement that
has succeeded by back scratching!
Chairman David Booth of the
Industrial Tribunal is, in my view, the most corrupt judge in the world' lie has
shamelessly and openly committed breaches of his judicial oath! He has arrogantly defeated
the end of justice, by amongst others, the following conduct:
- DENYING THE PARTIES A RIGHT TO BE HEARD: On 23/19/1997, contrary to the rule of
natural justice, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on my application
for an order for discovery of documents, he ordered that the evidence required to prove
racial discrimination be not disclosed!
- UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF DISCOVERY: Contrary to the requirement of s. 1(1)(a) and s. 12
of the  Race Relations Act 1976 which make it mandatory for a
Respondent to produce evidence that compares the way in which it has treated persons of
one racial group, with that in which it has treated persons of another group, he refused
to order discovery!
- RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: Refusal of necessary discovery of documents that prove
racial discrimination, is itself, racial discrimination by the judge.
- DISCRIMINATORY ORDERS: Booth resorted to discriminatory orders: whereas he
refused my application for discovery without a hearing, he ordered discovery in favour of
the Law Society, without a hearing! To make matters worse, he threatened to order me to
pay cost of some £1000, if I did not obey the order for discovery made in my absence!
- BIAS IN ORDERING APPLICATION TO STRIKE A CASE: Booth displayed his bias when he
ordered the Law Society to apply to strike out my statement of claim before the pleadings
were completed! Both parties had just applied for the pleadings to be amended, so as to
provide further and better particulars!
- BIAS BY REFUSING TO DEAL WITH A FORMAL APPLICATION: Booth further displayed his
judicial bias by simply refusing to deal with my formal application, to the effect that
justice would not be done, or seen to be done, if he  allowed
Solicitor Robin Lewis, to represent the Law Society in that case. Solicitor had indulged
himself in writing a letter of blackmail in perjury and fraud etc!
- PREJUDICED JUDGEMENT AND BIAS IN DENYING ME REPRESENTATION: Furthermore, he
displayed his judicial bias by objecting to my being represented by Counsel Emmanuel
Oteng, on the basis of some secret briefing, not made before the court!
- UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO RE-INSTATE COUNSEL: He again proved his incompetence and
malice, as a judge, when he sought to re-instate Counsel Oteng as my counsel! To prevent
me from attacking his bias, which had caused my Counsel to withdraw from representing me,
Chairman Booth asked my Counsel to resume representing me!
- BIAS ORDER TO PRESIDE OVER THE HEARING OF THE CASE: Although he had made a
definite ruling that the Chairman who heard the application to strike out my statement of
claim, would not be the one to hear my case on its merit, and although the law itself
specifically stated that such a Chairman, should not preside over the trial of the case on
its merit, yet, for fear that another judge would determine the case fairly, on its merit,
Chairman Booth ruled that, after determining the preliminary point of law, he will again
be the one to hear the case on its merit! 
- BIAS AND ILLEGAL ORDER DENYING ME THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON ITS OWN MERIT. When
I objected to Booth hearing the case contrary to the provision of the law, and to his own
ruling, Booth decided that he would not allow the case to be heard on its merit! He made
his decision on the preliminary point of law, final! He denied my legal right to have my
case heard on its merit! He even went to the extent of hiding the case file! He
disregarded the mandatory provision of the law that a party may decide, as of right, to
have his case heard on its merit!
- JUDICIAL RACISM: Throughout the case, Booth acted discriminatorily. He hardly
gave any answers to my written applications. He gave replies to the written applications
by the Law Society!
- FRAUDULENT OMISSION TO RECORD APPLICATIONS ABOUT HIS BIAS! Although I had made a
formal application demanding that Booth should withdraw from presiding over the hearing of
the case, on the ground of judicial bias, and although I had demanded that he should
reduce in writing his reasons for refusing to withdraw from being a judge in the case, and
although he promised to do so, yet, he did not do it! He deliberately omitted to refer to
my application in a fraudulent attempt to falsify the record! He did not want the record
to reflect that applications were made for him to withdraw from hearing the case on ground
of his bias! 
- JUDICIAL BIAS BY ACTING AS THE PUPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY: Whereas, on the one
hand, he treated me unfavourably, because of his judicial bias, on the other hand, he
acted as a puppet of the Law Society! For instance, he denied me, again and again, my
entitlement to have the hearing of the case adjourned, to enable me look up the point of
law raised. The sole ground for refusing the adjournment was that the Law Society had
asked for the case to be determined on that day! I was simply unable to proceed with the
case as Booth had ruled that I should raise the point of law on which my defence for
publishing confidential documents depended! I had to look up that point of law. And said
so. He ultimately found it wise, in the best interest of the Law Society, to reverse his
decision refusing to give me adjournment. I took advantage of adjournment to submit my
defence of misprision of felony i.e. the legal requirement under the provision of s.4 of
the Criminal Law Act 1968. It was the duty under that law which forced me to disclose the
confidential documents that proved the offences committed by the Law Society officials.
- BIAS BY IGNORING TO DEAL WITH MY GORE DEFENCE: As was to be expected, Booth
deliberately ignored the legal authority of misprision of felony. To take account of it,
would have led to a decision in my favour! Secondly, it would have necessitated my calling
evidence proving the offences committed by  Lord Lester and the Law
Society officials. Booth was committed to cover up proof of such offences!
- CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: After I had launched the appeal against his
decision, Booth received a secret letter constituting a conspiracy to defeat the end of
justice! It was a conspiracy for Booth to order me to pay costs to the Law Society. He
unlawfully acted on it. This proof of a conspiracy to defeat justice, rendered the
proceedings a nullity.
- BIAS BY REFUSING TO ADMIT AND TO JUDGE BY EVIDENCE: When he ordered me to attend
a hearing for costs, without telling me that he had had a secret letter from the Law
Society to force me, contrary to the provision of the law, to pay costs for a preliminary
hearing, without any hearing on merit, I prepared an affidavit challenging the legality
and jurisdiction of Booth to make the order! Booth told my Counsel that he will not read
my affidavit! And that he will not give copies of my affidavit to assessors! No Kangaroo
Court in the whole world could defeat justice in such an outrageous manner! His bias
rendered the proceeding a nullity.
- TREACHERY TO THE LAW: Thereafter Booth defied the law which provides thus: (a)
The maximum costs awarded by the Industrial Tribunal in a preliminary hearing should not
exceed £150. (b) And that the amount awarded should not be payable unless and until the
case  is heard on its merit, and dismissed on the ground that it
showed no cause of action. (c) Booth gave an order meant to result and resulted into costs
of over £8000 to be paid without the case being heard on its merit!
OFFICE FOR THE
SUPERVISION OF SOLICITORS
The Solicitors Complaints Bureau,
the predecessor of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, was notorious as a wolf
in sheep's clothing. Its successor, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is worse.
It is the only Court in the whole world which has devised a formula for defeating the end
of justice. The formula is: 'OSS, "does not consider that there was anything in
the ground ... to persuade them to alter the decision reached"!'
As was to be expected, the Law Society was
sure to cause me to be reported to such a bogus judge! I was reported to the 0SS for
having written an article on the Internet! The article exposed the 
thefts and embezzlement of public funds by one of the most corrupt accountants in the
country, Mr. Michael Lygo, Chief Accountant of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for
Children! Lygo is an expert at using public money to bribe officials. None who reads the
judgement of the 0SS can fail to suspect that public money was used to bribe some very
influential official! There can be no other rational explanation for the conduct of the
OSS! I gave 16 reasons which prove conclusively that there was no cause of complaint
against me. In a country where the legal system is run by law abiding officials, I would
have been given a commendation for exposing corruption. In a country where the legal
system is based on corruption, it was to be expected that my efforts would be rewarded
with a maximum punishment. And it was! I was ordered never to work in the offices of
solicitors! My 16-point defence were:
- FALSE POINT OF FACT: The complaint was that much of the information that I
reported on the Internet came into my possession by virtue of being employed in an office
of a solicitor. I pointed out that as a matter of fact, I was briefed, in my personal
capacity, to bring a case in the Industrial Tribunal. I did not therefore obtain access to
the information by virtue of employment in the office of a solicitor. On the contrary, I
was the one who referred the case to a firm of solicitors. The OSS did not 
challenge the point! Yet, it concluded that it was not a ground for altering its decision.
Its conclusion was an admission, on its pad, that the ground for the complaint against me
was false! And that the OSS knew that it was false! It only used it for the purpose of
defeating the end of justice!
- FALSE POINT OF LAW: The complaint was made against me under the provision of law
applicable to persons employed by solicitors as clerks. The OSS admitted that I was never
employed as a clerk, but as a consultant. Yet, it concluded that the fact that I was
charged under a wrong law, could not make it change its decision! It was an admission that
the legal ground on which I was charged was false. And that the OSS knew that it was
false! It only used it for the purpose of defeating the end of justice!
- BREACH OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: The complaint sought to have me punished, for
the exercise of my fundamental right to publish an article which "made allegations of
theft and false accounting against Mr. Lygo". It was therefore contrary to the
provision of Article 10 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998. The OSS does not deny that
I do have a freedom of expression. Nor does it deny that the complaint would breach my
fundamental freedom of expression. Yet it concluded that the ground is not sufficient to
enable it alter its decision! It was an admission that the powers of the OSS had been
usurped by criminal  elements! They are prepared to defeat the end of
justice by unlawfully committing a breach of my fundamental freedom of expression.
- HARBOURING CRIMINALS: The complaint sought to have me punished for reporting the
offences committed by Michael Lygo. It was therefore contrary to the provision of s.4 of
the Criminal Law Act 1967 which imposes upon all persons, the duty to report arrestable
offences committed. The OSS does not deny that legal duty. Yet its claims that it makes no
difference to its decision! Its conclusion is thus an admission that the power of the OSS
has been usurped by criminal elements. They are defeating the end of justice, by
harbouring criminals like Lygo. And are defeating the end of justice by punishing those of
us who obey the law, by reporting criminals!
- PUNISHMENT BY MALICE: The complaint of Lygo discloses only one cause of action,
namely, defamation. OSS has no jurisdiction in defamation cases. The OSS does not deny
that ground of defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding
against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by illegal
elements. They are prepared to punish the innocent because of malice.
- PUNISHMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION: Article 6 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998
provides that in the determination of civil rights, in this case, my right to freedom of  expression, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing. The
complaint calls for a court which would be able to determine whether Lygo has committed
the offences I complained of or not. The OSS does not have that jurisdiction . The OSS has
not challenged the validity of that defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any
difference to its finding against me! Its conclusion was an admission that the power of
the OSS has been usurped by illegal elements. They do not respect the fundamental human
rights of others!
- CIRCUMNAVIGATING THE LAW: The sole reason, given by Lygo, for his complaint to
the OSS, is that he was circumnavigating the law, because he cannot afford the cost of a
libel suit in the High Court! In spite of that admission, the OSS still held that it did
not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of
the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements who help people like Lygo to circumnavigate,
- NO RELIEF: It is clear from the complaint of Lygo that the OSS cannot provide him
with the relief that he sought: The relief of a public exoneration from the accusations of
theft. Only a libel action in the High Court can clear his name. Yet, the OSS held that
its inability to provide the relief sought is no ground for its altering its decision! It
was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements who act
on improper motive. Their object is not to give Lygo relief but to 
muzzle me from publishing criminal offences of persons like Lygo and the Law Society
- ANTI-TRUTH: The employer of Mr. Lygo, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for
Children, has admitted that I had good grounds to complain against the conduct of Mr.
Lygo! The OSS does not deny that! In short its conclusion is an admission that its power
has been usurped by illegal elements who are anti-Truth. They want to muzzle me from
telling the truth!
- NO DUTY: Even if the information that I used to make the accusations, were
obtained from "a client of Attanayake & Co", as the OSS claims, Lygo would
still have no cause of complaint! This is because under Principle 16.01 of the Guide to
Professional Conduct of Solicitors, I owed the duty of confidentiality to the Client of
Attanayake & Co. I never owed a duty to the opponents of my clients. I thus owed no
duty at all to Lygo. He therefore had no locus standi to complain against me, as he has
done, for a breach of confidentiality! Yet, the OSS held that, absence of duty made no
difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has
been usurped by unlawful elements who act on improper motive. They are prepared to punish,
where there is no legal ground for punishment.
- CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT: What was published was heard in open court. The complaint
thus amounts to a contempt of court. By virtue of the provision of Contempt of Court  Act 1981 OSS has no jurisdiction in the matter. Only the High Court has.
OSS does not deny this point. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its
finding against me! It was an admission that the ground for its finding was unlawful and
that the OSS knew that it was unlawful! It only used it for the purpose of defeating the
end of justice!
- NO CONFIDENCE: The law states that there is no confidence in disclosure of
iniquity as the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in confidence.
The OSS admits the law. Yet, it held that the law should not have been obeyed in this case
as the protection of Lygo's theft outweighs the public interest of disclosure Lygos
- PROFESSIONAL WITHOUT INTEGRITY: In any case, the publication, of the accusation
of theft and false accounting was in compliance with Rule 1(a) of Solicitors Practising
Rules 1990 which obliges solicitors and their staff to uphold "the solicitor's
independence and integrity". My integrity dictated that I continue to demand that the
flawed investigations into the offences of embezzlement of public funds by Lygo, should be
re-opened so that it receives material evidence that was never put to it. The OSS does not
dispute that point of law. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding
against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful
elements. They want solicitors to behave as themselves: men without integrity! 
- BETRAYAL OF INTEREST OF CLIENT: Publication of the accusations of theft and false
accounting was also in compliance with Rule of Solicitors Practising Rules 1990 which
obliges solicitors and their staff to "act in the best interest of client". The
best interest of the client was to have the truth of the allegations investigated. The OSS
does not dispute that point. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its
finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by
illegal elements. They do not want solicitors to act in the best interest of their clients
but to betray the best interests of the clients!
- BAD REPUTE: Publication of the accusations of theft and false accounting was also
in compliance with Rule 1(d) of Solicitors Practising Rule 1990 which obliges solicitors
and their staff to act in a way that promotes "the good repute of the solicitors'
profession". The good repute of the solicitors' profession dictates that solicitors
and their staff should not be accomplices after the fact of a felony. It demands, on the
contrary, that they must report the offences committed and the evidence which prove it.
And I did just that. The OSS does not deny the validity of that defence. Yet, it held that
it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the OSS
is committed to solicitors to have bad repute for harbouring criminals! 
- DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM: In the light of what is stated above, the recommendation
that I be punished for having exercised my freedom of expression, by publishing evidence
that prove that serious crimes committed by Lygo, is contrary to the provision of Article
17 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998. It is a decision that destroys my freedom of
expression. OSS does not deny the validity of the ground of defence. Yet, it held that it
did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the OSS is
committed to the destruction of the freedom of others
only valid conclusion, from what is stated above, is that the OSS remains one of the most
corrupt judicial body in the entire world. Indeed, it is past pretending that it acts as a
judicial body' It is anti social It acts openly on the basis of a hidden agenda! It is a
body exclusively dedicated to defeat the end of justice.
catch and keep for yourself
The fragrance of a night beauty 
Or the tints of a sailing cloud?
Can you forswear a part
Of a Judicial Oath!
An oath is like the tints Of that yonder sailing cloud:
Once broken, it cannot be joined.
There is need for a pen
To protect judicial oath
In the fiercest way
That poison protects a cobra.
Creatures, tame and wild
Dare to tread on a cobra's tail;
During its winter sleep
But once it is revived,
From its winter's sleep,
None, but the insane,
Would dare go near to it!
Judges just and felonious
Now tread on the sleeping giant:
The masses of this country!
Let the masses but wake up,
Then none but the insane,
Would dare break his judicial oath!
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..
With all due respect to the honour bestowed upon Dr. Adoko by the Vatican, the question
arises: WHICH God, does he think the creators of the oath refer? Is it at all possible
that it was just intended for the God who came down to create His own church [*Link to reasoning] because Jesus Christ and His followers made a mess of things? The
reader/researcher who accesses the historical facts which the criminals (who are
entrenched in pseudo-democracies and have been manipulating 'the sons of men' for over
2300 years), must consider the simple fact that those who are responsible and their agents
and those who are tutored, influenced or the blackmailed stooges : NON-THINKERS [*Link
to a perfect example of how the criminals catch, in their nets, such persons and
charlatans as the type of fraudsters we point to and name in our pages] rely on the misinformation tactics [*Link to a typical example] and seek gain for themselves and their masters /
associates through deception and fraudulent misrepresentations. [*Link to an example of the many typical charlatans who
contacted Mr Yiannides over the years for their own devious plans and those of their
masters: ALL on the paths created by the followers of the schemes devised by the God who
came down with His associates for the sole purpose that visitors can read from the vilest
work ever to see the light of day],
2. In our book it is NOT a
case of Judicial Bias BUT A CASE OF POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION in conformity with
the plans of their God, for 'the sons of men'. Servicing the different tongues (personal
interests) and creating / securing fraudulent conversion of assets was/is part of the
schemes for over 2300 years.xxx
Evidently no one has ever bothered to consider the
relevant factors that apply to such scenarios. xxx