The visitor's attention is drawn to the words of Jesus Christ,
attributed to Him by the editors / creators of The Gospel according to St. Luke. Access
His words to the lawyers some 2000 years ago. Many the dignitaries over the two millennia
who shared His views (*Link). |
Appeal Page 1
Appeal Page 2
Appeal Page 3
Appeal Page 4
Read below a letter from
an illiterate in English senior member of staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Nothing but the usual waffle from an alleged servant of
the public who arrogantly set out to promote and assert a 'constitution' when he ought to
know that the citizens in the United Kingdom do not benefit from such a luxury.
Even worse, if he ever qualified in law, he ought to have known that for over 47
years, by then, successive governments FAILED / DEFAULTED to put on statute an Act of
Parliament, endorsing the state's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Visitors must access our comments in respect of the content of the above letter [*Link to] and an explicit case when the officers and staff at another County Court were
indulging in blunt abuse of the courts' facilities BUT, as in the case covered in this
page, they were caused to review their mentalities towards the targeted citizens. [*Link] Read the last Order sought on appeal and recognise the RIGHTS THAT
WERE BEING VIOLATED BY PERSONS the government, appoints and retains in public office,
through other Public(!) Servants(?), at the expense of the citizens' who are
systematically defrauded of their properties and rights in contempt of all law. COME back
to read again the letter from the illiterate in English Public(!) Servant(?) at the Lord
Chancellor's Department (*Link). |
MP Writes to Lord Chancellor
Date is of the essence in the case at hand. Needless to
say the news that there existed a recording to prove the abuse of judicial chair
occupation by the fraud of an alleged servant of Justice & the citizens was NOT
revealed until & after the system was tested all the way. The victim of the evil in
control of a pseudo-democracy was well aware of the organised fraud through the courts
care of judicial chair occupants. In the circumstances the disclosed recording in the
first instance, was an absolute essential.
The letter above is dedicated to
two-faced Norman Scarth. Although he did not fall to the evil mongering of hypocrite Johan Foenander (when the latter telephoned him) he failed to confirm that it was
Andrew, the founder of human-rights who set him on track and told him how to use his
rights and how to use two recorders in order to secure unadulterated records of any court
hearing without the imposed frauds and the high cost of transcripts by the chums of the
abductors and rapists of Justice. |
Image of the communication from Bow
County Court after the Defence & Counterclaim were delivered to the court with the
explicit letter above.
The arrogance of the
person who forwarded convenient bad tidings was beyond the pale. In any event such
acts are but everyday happenings in the thoroughly corrupted court services that CIUKU
Enterprises Organised for the Serfs, the shitizens in our allegedly civilised Democracy |
|
|
| BREEDING GROUNDS * Page
created February 1997* |
 |
Page Revised: August 23, 2008 |
| Site under reconstruction - ongoing
additions and improvements |
| Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions. |
VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no
choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY. Our
observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept
quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the
abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. You will find the addenda statement at
the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that you will share with us our concerns
and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt and promote activities
which they know are nothing but downright crimes. We refer to
our exclusive page where we expose (as conscientious law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that
exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET. |
| Visitors / readers please USE the SEARCH facility
for any element or word & combination of words for links to pages / list where access
to such material can be gained. |
As part of the reconstruction process our new pages
and pages where changes and additions have been implemented, the improved / amended pages
are endorsed with the link 'Page Changes and the date of the last changes. The link takes
visitors to a List of the changes implemented in the page. These include new material and
links from relevant paragraphs to other or new relevant material in other pages. For
further clarification email: webmaster@
|
| IN BOW COUNTY
COURT |
|
Case No. 9109976 |
STEPHEN NORMAN PERRY - PLAINTIFF
AND
ANDREW YIANNIDES - DEFENDANT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be
moved on ........day the ............. day of .......…….. 1992 at ........... to hear
an APPEAL on behalf of the DEFENDANT in this action against the ORDER of
...........................… dated 30th April 1992, posted on 6th
May 1992 and misdirected in the post notwithstanding previous correspondence with the
Court on the issue resting on the Plaintiff's deliberate and deceitful acts on the Court.
AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL are that the Registrar / Judge
did:-
At the onset of the hearing on 30th April
1992, after reading the names of the parties to the proceedings enquired of the Defendant
if the Defendant was a "Greek Cypriot", which indicated the frame of mind in
which he subsequently dealt with the issues raised before him. AND he ignored the
Defendant's reply, "Origins Sir, British Citizen since birth".
Upon reading the Defence and Counterclaim he
remarked that it was a long document and that the Defendant did not have to Plead all that
evidence and other matters. He ignored the Defendant's reply which was, "Nobody can
justify or say, later, that certain matters and issues were not raised or adduced before
this court".
AND that after reading the said Defence and
Counterclaim, which made him aware of the Defendant's intentions on matters pertaining to
Breaches of Public Duty by the Police, who were involved at the onset of the initial cause
of action, originally Pleaded by the Plaintiff in the alleged Claim against the Defendant,
and in Particular Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, the Registrar / Judge himself
proceeded to act In Breach of Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and in gross
violation of the Defendant's Human Rights, particularly Articles 6 and 14 of the The
European Convention of Human Rights, as well as Article 1 of the First Protocol to the
Convention.
AND further and in the alternative the Registrar / Judge was
wrong and or erred when he: -
(a) accepted the Plaintiff's denial alleging non service of
the Defence and Counterclaim on the Plaintiff, AND ignored the documented evidence from
the Royal Mail evincing that the Plaintiff and or his wife had signed for the Recorded
Delivery of the said document on 16th January 1992, which was effectively served on the
Plaintiff as of that date.
(b) ignored the Plaintiff's remark "I am not really
interested in that. To me that is really a lot of rubbish", in reference to the
Defence and Counterclaim document which the Plaintiff had been alleging he had not
received; PARTICULARLY since the Plaintiff was making that pronouncement when the
Registrar / Judge told the Plaintiff that the Registrar / Judge was 'going to give him the
Court's copy and the Registrar / Judge will indicate' (on the document he was proposing to
hand over) what parts the Plaintiff was to deal with and answer.
(c) failed to accept the Defendant's suggestion that the Court's copy of the Defence and
Counterclaim should be copied first and given to the Plaintiff (upon which suggestion the
Registrar / Judge remarked "they will charge you") and that in leaving the
Defendant with no alternative, which in essence was not short of an order of Court, but
for the Defendant to retrieve from his word-processor and print again the Defence and
Counterclaim and to deliver same on the Court, afresh was nothing else but a violation of
Article 1 of the First Protocol to The European Convent of Human Rights; a violation which
he ought to have been aware of was also committed by P.c. Gale when he was ordering the
Defendant and telling him that the only way the Defendant would obtain the Plaintiff's
address (in front of witnesses) was for the Defendant to incur legal expenses.
AND that the Registrar / Judge in refusing
to Order the Plaintiff to furnish to the Defendant the name of the woman, the Plaintiff's
accomplice, was seeking and attempting to suppress the Pleaded Causes of action whilst at
the same time he was overlooking the fact that under the law all citizens are treated
equal. And that in attempting to justify his refusal by saying "I am not going to
allow this action to escalate out of all proportions" the Registrar / Judge was
blatantly overlooking the Pleadings which establish a bona facie case that it was the
Plaintiff with his unreasonable behaviour and his dishonesty that brought about the
escalation; even worse the Registrar / Judge having read the Defence and Counterclaim
pleadings was fully aware that the police, by acting in Breach of their Public Duties, and
in particular Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, were thereby escalating the
matter.
AND FURTHERMORE that in seeking to push the matter to a trial
before the close of pleadings and without a proper Pre-trial Review, the Registrar / Judge
was attempting to railroad the action. Also by instructing the Plaintiff as to how to
Reply to the Defence and to Defend the Counterclaim (notes on the Court's copy handed to
the Plaintiff) he had acted in Breach of Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and in
violation of Articles 6 and 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
FURTHERMORE by ignoring and failing to make provisions for the
video evidence, in the Order Appealed Against, the Registrar / Judge has indicated
fundamental failings and unwillingness to deal with the evidence properly. Also in seeking
to, and directing the action be set down for a half day hearing the Registrar / Judge has
indicated that the County Court is proposing to conduct the Court's business in the way it
has attempted to do, so far.
AND THE DEFENDANT WILL SEEK THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: -
I. An ORDER SETTING ASIDE the Order of 30th April.
II. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to deal with, and Respond
to A Notice to Admit Facts which will be served on the Plaintiff under Order 20 after the
Defendant receives the Plaintiff's Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim.
III. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to Make a copy of the Defence and
Counterclaim (handed to him by the Registrar / Judge) and to return the original with the
notes endorsed thereon, to the County Court and
IV. An ORDER Ordering the Chief Clerk of the County Court to make two
copies of the Defence and Counterclaim document upon delivery of same to the Court and to
forward a copy to the Defendant and a copy to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Also to
retain the original with all notes and endorsements thereon in a safe place and to ensure
that no attempts are made to make any amendments to the notes thereon prior to or
subsequent to photocopying same.
V. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to file at Court and to serve on the
Defendant copies of the calculations upon which the Plaintiff relied to substantiate the
alleged claim of £5OO pounds.
VI. An ORDER Ordering the Chief Clerk of the County Court to vacate the
proposed half day hearing and not to attempt to set down before the close of pleadings and
not before there has been a proper Pre-Trial Review.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT IF THE COURT FAILS TO CONDUCT A PROPER
HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE DEFENDANT WILL APPEAL AND APPLY TO THE HIGH COURT ON EACH AND
EVERY POINT OF LAW, FACT AND PROCEDURE AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
Dated this the 12th day of May 1992
………………............
A. Yiannides
DEPENDANT in Person,
of 65 Abbott's Park Road
London E1O 6HU
TWO COPIES delivered by Hand to the Court. Extra copy to be served by
the Court on the Plaintiff in whatever manner it chooses. |
Events confirmed
by Local Mayor who attended court with the targeted victim of the criminals in control of
the Courts. The invitation for the purported hearing of the appeal (published above) was but a typical fraud through the best
of scenarios created by the managers of CIUKU Enterprises. NOTE :
when the Court returned the completed application to 'the targeted serf', the defendant'.
[*Link to
demand] |
Mrs Denise Luinberg
247 Hainault Road
Leytonstone
London E11
My Ref.:- CAAL92
Your Ref.:-
4th June 1992
Madam Mayor
Thank you for attending with me Bow County Court on Tuesday morning the 2nd
June. Your interest and presence was of immense value to me.
As I stated to you on the telephone in the late
afternoon, after I returned home on the day, I would appreciate it if you will kindly
acknowledge and confirm the following facts:-
1. We arrived together shortly after 10.30 in the morning of
2nd June for the sole (purpose of) hearing of my Appeal at that Court.
2. My first act was to go to the Court counter where I asked
one of the clerks, a young lady, to ensure that the Notice of Appeal which the Court had
completed and forwarded by post to me should be duly endorsed with the Court's Seal.
3. I asked of the same young lady to also seal with the
Court's Seal, a copy of my Affidavit and the Exhibit attached to that Affidavit.
4. The young lady did seal the Notice of Appeal, which the
court office had posted to me without sealing same with the Court's Seal. However, she
refused to seal the copy of my Affidavit and the attached Exhibit marked "A.Y"
saying to me:- "We do not Seal Affidavits and Exhibits"; and I asked you to
remember these facts.
5. The hearing of my Appeal had been listed for 10.30 a.m.
at Court No.1 and we proceeded to the first floor where we met Mr Danny McCormack a
journalist who was also at Court for the same purpose.
6. I proceeded to show to Mr McCormack, who I had never met
(P2) before, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, a copy of my Affidavit and the attached
Exhibit marked "A.Y".
7. I also showed Mr McCormack copies of letters I had
written to the Court's clerk which related to the Appeal. One dated 12th May 1992, when I
attended Court to file and lodge my Appeal, and another dated 28th May 1992 when I went to
the Court in the late afternoon of that day in order to deposit in the Court's letter box
(at the Front door) the large A4 envelope which contained that letter, the attached
Affidavit and the bundle of documents that constituted the Exhibit marked "A.Y".
8. Copies of those letters amongst other letters and the
said Affidavit and Exhibit I had also shown to you the previous day.
9. On the day in question (in the course of the long wait)
you read my Affidavit dated 28th May 1992 and perused at length the documents which formed
the Exhibit marked "A.Y". This you did in the course of our having to wait for
my turn to go into Court.
10. Whilst waiting a young lady clerk from the Court
approached me in order to enquire of me if there was any way the Court could get in touch
with Mr Perry (the other party to the proceedings) who had not turned up. And I pointed
out to you that the court had Mr Perry's telephone number because it was clearly endorsed
on the Summons which had been issued at that very Court.
11. Later the young lady came over to us to state that the
Court was still trying to contact Mr Perry and at that juncture I enquired of the young
lady if the Court was going to hear my Appeal and nothing else as I had been invited; she
could not confirm---.
12. When I enquired of her what sort of a hearing it was
going to be, she said it was to be "in chambers" whereupon I stated that if it
was going to be before Judge Hales, who had already disqualified himself from further
dealing in the action I was walking out to proceed with lodging my petition to Strasbourg.
Mr McCormack and you saw how I reacted and both told me to calm down. (My reaction was
spontaneous because she turned round to you Madam and to Mr McCormack to inform you (after
she announced "in chambers") that you (both) could not attend the hearing and
also made a remark about Mr McCormack being a reporter.
13. Mr McCormack and you stayed with me and perused my
documents and papers until almost 1 o'clock when you went outside, together, for a
cigarette. Later, soon after 1.15 p.m. I found both of you in the cafe across the road
from the Court where I informed you that I was told I would be called in at 2 o'clock.
After we all had coffees and tea and I had a toast you Madam Mayor and Mr McCormack left
as you could see no useful purpose in staying (P3) there.
14. Late that afternoon I telephoned you to inform you that
I was not called in until 3.05 p.m. and that the Court perused the Affidavit and Exhibit
marked "A.Y" and that I wished to write to you in order to thank you for the
interest you showed but also to confirm for me the events to which you were witness on the
day. This I am doing now in the form of this letter, which I will deliver to you
personally with a duplicate printout.
When I call to see you today I would very much appreciate it if you will
kindly keep one of the original printouts for your records. And, if possible, to make
three photocopies of the printout you will keep for my records, which I would appreciate
if you could initial them and for you to sign and endorse each paragraph and or page and
the original which I will keep for my records in order that there can be no doubt that all
documents are of one and the same text.
I apologise for being so demanding of you but my integrity was insulted both
on 30th April and on 2nd June. When the Court Order arrives or I am handed a copy of it
when I call at the Court with Mr McCormack I hope I will be in a position to prove this
fundamental point. As a practising Christian and an active member of my Church I have been
offended twice and I am most concerned why this should be so. On the first instance it was
blatant; on the second it was subtle but nonetheless it will be exhibited in the content
of the Court's Order of 2nd June 1992.
For ever grateful
Yours Sincerely
Mr Andrew Yiannides
65 Abbott's Park Road
Leyton London E1O 6HU |
| Letter below countersigned by the Mayor - confirming truth of
events witnessed |
| Clearly stated the fact that a wrong address was given to the
court by the builder, YET SUCH REALITIES IGNORED BY A PUBLIC SERVANT
retained to serve Justice. He obliged 'the targeted serf', by promoting unsupported
rubbish, in what was an attempt to create a concluded case. [*Link to image of the reckless promotion] |
- Image of the explicit letter that was delivered to the court
with the warranted Defence & Counterclaim Pleadings upon receipt of the fraudulent
claim by the criminal who DID benefit from the recklessly inexcusable failures by the
police who defaulted to act. I so far as the great Metropolitan Police it was a case of
business as usual.
- They fail to act, selectively, and thus they create
situations / work for the criminals who are in control of the legal system and the courts.
They do so in order to afford the legal circles opportunities to 'fleece the serfs', as
they please.
- The police with fraudulent intentions (as part of
the TRIAD : TRINITY = 1. Judiciary, 2. Legal Circles, 3. Police) negated
in the execution of their public duties, in contempt of the law and not as commanded of
them under the terms of their retainers (appointment and maintenance in public office) at
the expense of the public, Mr & Mrs Average, the taxpayers.
- AS with the other members of the TRIAD simply
treating the victims of crime, as 'serfs'; the serfs treated as feed for the fodder
(fat cats of the legal circles) when the police are called upon to attend as stated where
you are linked to from here.
|
 |
| Most important that the court be informed of the deliberate WRONG
POST CODE given to the Court, BUT of no use, when other agendas are being served by the
alleged servants of the law, Justice and 'the serfs'. [Refer below to the convenient
failure to correct the fraudulent intentions of the fraudster, that were adopted by the
court staff also when posting the ] |
| The image of the envelope on the
right establishes beyond any doubt the intentions of one and all. |
|
- The endorsements relevant to the postal area /
address of the targeted 'serf' need not be pointed out to the genuine victims and to
genuine challengers everywhere.
- We need to point such
realities, however, to the mentally blind, deaf and dumb who operate out of the police and
the courts, in an allegedly civilised state and society, a typical example of a
pseudo-democracy, one that allegedly rests and is founded on principles of law and order. [On the left, image of the note/letter asserting
judgement entered, on reliance caused by the misdirected court documents]
|
The entries evincing wrongly addressed / post codes IN CONTEMPT of the fact that the Chief
Clerk was informed of THE OBVIOUS, but court staff INDULGED YET AGAIN.
|
| Reference to ALL, above, includes the fraudsters operating out of
Bow County Court at the time, and later too in other matters. We shall release more
evidence, in the public domain, on the issue of Institutionalised, Organised Fraud on 'the
serfs', in general, and more specifically the targeted, as covered in the extract from the
published research which visitors, readers and researchers can access from here. [ *Link to
extract] |
| Undated letter rushed out by the police
AFTER the appeal, above, was lodged at Bow County Court. |
<>
<>
|
The
right to reply, to justify behaviour and activities covered in our pages, is assured to
any one we name and write about. We will publish excuses & whatever is submitted to us
by persons named in our pages. We will use our rights and publish also any legal argument
that may arise out of any submissions we receive.
|
|
This page and
the above documented realities are dedicated to all abusers of our
time, and in particular to the evil-mongering fraudster,
Johan Michael Richard Foenander; also to his soul mates from within the LIPS crowd-mob and
to all charlatans who allegedly care or are concerned about the men they draw in their
nets. Among them agents / managers / controllers / organisers of the * UKMM * - the United
Kingdom Men's Movement. Leading lights of the UKMM, attempted in 1998, to suck into their
fold, Mr Andrew Yiannides, by sending an unsolicited letter with enclosures to the founder
of human-rights.org (NGO). They acted so, because they assumed that they were addressing
an idiot at the time. Their unsolicited invitation to Andrew, caused our founder to
contact their leaders and they were asked to furnish specific information; letters to that
effect were forwarded but typically, they failed to comply, like all charlatans and
ostriches, when confronted with legitimate demands. IMPORTANT: Only the craft-y operators
'managing' the LIPS crowd/mob could have furnished to the UKMM Andrew's address, and,
between them, the fraudsters exposed their parts in the Organised Assaults On The Serfs
and the families of 'targeted serfs'. The passing on of information between two recognised
set-ups, one of which (LIPS) was in possession of the targeted serf's address, must have
benefited from 'advance information as to the plans of CIUKU Enterprises for the targeted
founder of human-rights.org. Readers and researchers should access from here the FAX communication from Andrew Yiannides to
Mr. Paul Talbot-Jenkins. Paul T-J, an alleged victim-challenger, was recognised to
have been a * fraudsters club recruit *, one who made it his business to project and
promote the usual subliminal indoctrination scripts aimed at hooking new victims to the
promotions such maintenance engineers engage in. They do so, in order to suck in new
victims of the system and thereafter coerce and use them for the cash under the table
facility as stipulated in the exclusive page, all visitors can access from here. Every recognised
'fraudsters-club-recruit' who was pointed to the arrangements and the facility for rampant
fraud on the taxpayers, through abuse of the courts' facilities, followed by the
corruption of conditioned morons / programmed robots, failed to ever refer to, point to
and even worse avoided to address the issues we cover and point to in the page, as if the
cholera / black death. |
The case that disclosed nothing wrong to the experts within the Lord Chancellor's office and Department.
Read the briefly stated facts and judge for yourself after accessing a typical response from the experts*.
With extracts
and references to other Cases
This is the case with a
cowboy building contractor. I was, and to this day I remain, the victim of that
contractor; also the victim of Public(!) Servants(?) who saw fit to, and persistently
abused and attempted to abuse Public office. All were acting so, in order to assist other
Public Servants who had acted in Breach of their Public Duties; all were indulging in
gross Violations of Human Rights. Rights to which our Government subscribes to, some
of which even made it (eventually) to the statute books and are enshrined in National
Laws. The case was before a County Court, the Court 'very conveniently' featured in an
article of 'The Times' newspaper at an opportune moment (*Link to the article image and note the date). Pronouncements made in that article in no way
reflect reality Because Practice was (and remained for years) Far Removed From Preaching.
That builder, contracted to do specific repair works but defaulted to act as had
been agreed. After securing more than the specified moneys in advances (because of
promises to finish in two days) he threatened and even attempted to incite two of his
workers to use physical violence in order to extract more funds from me; this after their
workmanship had proved to be poor and the contractor had been told to make good the bad
works. The contractor elected instead "to steal, by taking away" (to an unknown
destination without consent) properties of mine. Those acts of theft
the police permitted and acquiesced; (they had been seen and called earlier because of the
threats to life and property:- "I will blow you and your properties to
pieces"). AND the young police constable, who was attending, also refused to
order the contractor (whose calling card was lacking) to give any address
where he could be contacted and for legal proceedings to be served, if he was to
carry on as he had demonstrated. The constable, took the contractor away
and spoke to him in private, then declared, "You want his address? Get your solicitor
to write to me! These events were witnessed.
The contractor thus
encouraged, in the evening of the same day, accompanied by two others came to my residence
where, ones again, he threatened me and in the presence of my wife and two children
attempted to attack me with a roundels bat. I avoided being embroiled in acts of physical
violence (I do not subscribe to the use of any force) and I was telephoning the police
when he threatened my wife and children with the words:- "We will petrol bomb you and
burn you alive". Those threats were followed by damages to our house and the smashing
of a ground floor window pane. Earlier I had taken steps to make the contractor/thief
realise that he was not going to get away with what he had embarked upon, with or without
help as I had warned him. By the time the police arrived, that evening, he and his mates
had gone away. Full particulars from my wife, our children, and myself were
given to the police.
A few days later the
contractor had no option but to return the properties he stole. Even at that stage he
refused to give any address and went as far as to threaten me with legal proceedings he
was proposing to institute in respect of alleged non-payment for the works he and his
mates had carried out. His allegations did not reflect facts and such threats /
intimidation after he had become aware that he could not treat me as he would have liked
(and had been encouraged, by the police). Amongst the steps I had taken were photographic
and video evidence of the bad works carried out by the contractor and his workers / mates.
The police evidently had defaulted to arrest and or charge him for any of the acts he had
indulged upon against myself, against my family and my properties, in furtherance of their
colleagues' failures and their exhibited mentality towards me and my family (those who had
been briefed and called upon, from the onset, in my efforts to contain matters within the
law). I had, in the meantime, contacted and briefed solicitors. Later I received a letter
from the contractor giving me notice of an intended County Court action, by him! Yet
again he failed to disclose any address where I could send my response to his
allegations. His persistence necessitated further investigations by me and
reference, yet again, to the police because of the threats to my wife and children.
He did issue, weeks later,
a County Court Summons, claiming the maximum he could allege under the Small Claims
Procedures indicating that he was relying on an automatic arbitration, ruling. When the
Summons reached me it was blatant that he was seeking to act fraudulently in the course of
the proceedings which, as he had stated in his letter earlier, the County Court staff Had
Advised Him To Institute. The Summons was endorsed with a wrong postal area for my
address, despite the fact that he had correctly addressed his letter, to me, earlier.
Because of 'the wrong post-code factor' I received the Court Summons late; I therefore
elected to enter and serve my own Defence and Counter-Claim. Therein I specifically
pleaded the belated serving of the Summons (essential pleading in the circumstances; most solicitors would dismiss
that factor as irrelevant and immaterial and would not plead it in the court proceedings
(*Link to such provisions)). I delivered the documents personally to the County Court, well
within time from the date of service. The following day I telephoned to ensure these had
reached the right Court officer. In a covering letter I specifically drew the
Court's attention to the late arrival (misdirection in the post) because of the wrong
postal area given to the Court by the building contractor. |
Image of the covering letter
referred to in the text on the right, in the first paragraph.
|
|
When the Summons reached me it was blatant that he (the builder) was
seeking to act fraudulently in the course of the proceedings which, as he had stated in
his letter earlier, the County Court staff Had Advised Him To Institute.
The Summons was endorsed with a wrong postal area for my address, despite the fact that he
had correctly addressed his letter, to me, earlier. Because of 'the wrong post-code
factor' I received the Court Summons late; I therefore elected to enter and serve my own
Defence and Counter-Claim. Therein I specifically pleaded the belated serving of the
Summons (essential pleading in the
circumstances; most solicitors would dismiss that factor as irrelevant and immaterial and
would not plead it in the court proceedings [*Link from
here to such provisions]). I
delivered the documents personally to the County Court, well within time from the date of
service. The following day I telephoned to ensure these had reached the right Court
officer. In a covering letter I specifically drew the Court's attention to the
late arrival (misdirection in the post) because of the wrong postal area given to the
Court by the building contractor.
Months later
I received my documents, including my letter which was specifically addressed to the Chief
Clerk of the Court [*Link from here to evidence]. Attached to the returned documents was a Court Memorandum stating
that a Judgement had allegedly been entered for, and by, the contractor! Upon receipt I
telephoned the Court and demanded a meeting with the Chief Clerk; I stated that I
was to make my way to the Court and I expected him to specifically make time for me, |
before the day was over. Eventually, when I met
with him, he asserted that it was too late and that there was nothing he could do!
I told him that not all citizens are feed for the fodder ("you should have seen a
solicitor ..." he advised!) . I then pointed out to him that the Court
has powers to set aside any judgement secured fraudulently and or through deceit on the
Court itself (in fact the Court has powers to bar the offending party from further
proceedings). I warned him that unless he saw to it that the Court exercised its duties
properly I would act. I demanded that a copy of the declared Judgement/Order be
forwarded to me (no such document had to that date reached me!). I asked also for a
copy of the application for judgement, by the contractor, "alleging and resting on
default grounds" (this was important because of the wrong postcode and because of the
advise he had received from court staff); there are more revelations and documented
facts on the issue of "the application for Judgement on alleged Default
Grounds". I had, from the onset of the meeting, shown to the Chief Clerk both of the
envelopes in which the Court's staff had posted:- (a) initially the Summons and (b)
subsequently my letter, the Defence and Counter-Claim documents; (copy for service by the
Court to the building contractor). Both envelopes were endorsed with other postal areas to
which both had been routed and re-routed before eventually reaching me. I also pointed
out that it took the Court's staff a very long time indeed to return my documents and I
questioned the return of the letter addressed specifically to him. The documents, I
pointed out to him, were actually delivered by me to the Court only one day after the
alleged "judgement" had been entered!
In the meantime (FIVE
MONTHS ON) the police had failed to institute any proceedings against the fraudster for
the criminal damages to our home and the threats to our lives and home. The threats
caused us to live elsewhere for a few days and had introduced a tense atmosphere in our
lives, with arguments between me and my wife who was persistently demanding of me to
capitulate to the fraudster’s demands. (there are other DOCUMENTED REVELATIONS of what
happened after that meeting with the County Court chief Clerk)
Following our meeting the
Chief Clerk wrote to state that he had referred the matter to the
District Judge, at the close of business on the same day, and that the judgement against
me was set aside. (what of my succinct letter, when serving my Defence and Counter-claim
which should have indicated to the Court's staff they should and ought to conduct the
Court's business diligently? WHY post it back? TOO LATE? NOTHING!!!!
Image of the letter & the envelope as received from the Chief Clerk.
 |
|
This part, adjacent to the image on the left, was
not part of the original 'Breeding Grounds - case', the stated facts and realities many
received copy of, including the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng and the Legal Action Group, as
covered in the Stephen Lawrence page at this website, to which interested visitors can
link from here.
On the left, the letter
received from the Chief clerk as covered above. The chief clerk, Mr. P. D. Bolton,
interestingly was informing the targeted 'serf', Mr. Andrew Yiannides, that the Judge had
agreed to set aside the judgement : - on "the courts own motion".
Amazingly, the 'judge' determined that the 'serf should attend court
for an arbitration hearing, simply to defend a claim concocted by the rogue builder,
apparently approved by the judge, who 'discovered the court's own motion powers' (when
questionable activities are indulged into by parties to the proceedings, including
solicitors & barristers) also determined that 'the targeted serf's extensive
COUNTERCLAIM attached to the DEFENCE document submitted to and served on the court month's
earlier, was of no concern or interest to Justice or to the court as organised and managed
by Public Servants and presumed Servants of the Law & Justice. It was clear that
reliance on the *facility* for NO RIGHT TO APPEAL, any ruling and judgement from
arbitration hearings!
Even more amazing was the revelation added by hand, reading: - ' P.S. I had asked the Registry Section manager Miss Green to locate the
Plaintiff's N14 request for judgement, however, it transpires that those documents have
since been destroyed'. (With such promotions following every other
Organised Default and Obstruction thus far, what next?) |
FOR A FURTHER THREE MONTHS
the police were failing to come up with any answers to my demands for clarification and or
any information as to the position regarding the criminal proceedings they should and
ought to have instituted from the onset. The Detective assigned to the case delayed
taking a statement from me under various pretexts; he also defaulted to attend to my wife
and children in order to take statements from them, even though he, his colleagues, and
his superiors had been made aware of the stress in the family because of the threats to
petrol bomb us. That detective, in the course of some EIGHT MONTHS, had come up with a
number of assertions about the use of postal areas "as, how and when it suited the
cowboy contractor's intended purposes". The detective's statements and pronouncements
were inexcusable at the very least; one could also surmise as incompetent if not
deliberate excuses with intent for the creation and promotion of ulterior motives.
Officers of the Court had, in the meantime, issued directions proposing to deal with
the claim against me by way of arbitration (No Right Of Appeal) even though I had raised
my repeated objections. Coming up to that hearing I investigated further as to the
alleged:- "easy to make errors on postal areas to someone who only moved to London
recently!" (the promotions / assertions by the police). I even took photographs
establishing:-
(i) that the use of a wrong postal area, for the contractor's residence (which the contractor gave to owners
of equipment, when he was hiring such)
could only have been deliberate. I informed the police of such facts and produced the
photographic evidence which their idiotic assertions prompted / caused me to secure.
The photographic evidence qualified that there EXISTED street signs on the building where
the builder and his family were residing, other street signs also existed along the very
road; furthermore HE (the builder) HAD GIVEN, to the Court, the right postal area for the
purposes of his Court Action!!! and
(ii) the contractor was living at home contrary to police assertions such as "he no
longer lives there, he has left his wife".
The Court having failed to
serve the Defence and Counter-Claim document on him I was left with no option but to serve
it by post on him. |
Proof, The Defence and Counterclaim had been effectively
served on the builder as of the date delivery was signed for. |
|
YET the Court subsequently FAILED TO ENTERTAIN applications from
me for an Interim Judgement justified and resting on Default grounds after the
building contractor had failed to enter any defence to my Counter-Claim. I WAS OBLIGED (because I was left with no option) to issue and serve a Court Summons on Notice before
the date of the fixed "arbitration" hearing. It was essential for me to
secure peaceable service of that Summons SO I asked the police to attend in order to avoid
any violence and or physical encounters with the contractor. He was at home, as I had
first established. When I served the Summons on him he threw it and kicked it in the
presence of the attending policeman who, interestingly, stated to the contractor: -
"I don't know
what this is all about mate".
I called at his local police station where I raised the issues out of those events. AND
the issue of the allegedly long lost contractor (throughout asserted by my local police as information from his local
police station). Following a telephone
conversation between the two stations I was told that the contractor would be arrested and
taken to the Magistrates Court under a warrant of arrest, which was issued after he failed
to attend Court. BY THAT DATE I had never been informed of any proceedings,
applications, hearings, etc. I had simply been told that a warrant for his arrest had
been issued. Throughout that period my local police were failing to respond to my
telephone calls and letters and all persevered in their failures to take any statements
from my wife and my two children or neighbours. |
AND the Court
subsequently FAILED TO ENTERTAIN applications from me for an Interim Judgement justified
and resting on Default grounds after the building contractor had failed to enter any
defence to my Counter-Claim (*Fxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). I WAS OBLIGED (because I was left with no option) to issue and serve a Court
Summons on Notice before the date of the fixed "arbitration" hearing. It was
essential for me to secure peaceable service of that Summons SO I asked the police to
attend in order to avoid any violence and or physical encounters with the contractor.
He was at home, as I had first established. When I served the Summons on him he threw it
and kicked it in the presence of the attending policeman who, interestingly, stated to the
contractor: -
"I don't know what this
is all about mate".
I called at his local police station where I raised the issues out of those events. AND
the issue of the allegedly long lost contractor (throughout asserted by my local police as information from his local
police station). Following a telephone conversation between the two stations I was
told that the contractor would be arrested and taken to the Magistrates Court under a
warrant of arrest, which was issued after he failed to attend Court. BY THAT DATE I had
never been informed of any proceedings, applications, hearings, etc. I had simply been
told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. Throughout that period my local police
were failing to respond to my telephone calls and letters and all persevered in their
failures to take any statements from my wife and my two children or neighbours.
When attending the scheduled "arbitration"
hearing I went prepared with the photographic, video and other documented evidence. I was
also accompanied by the most pertinent witness to:-
(a) the works,
(b) the verbal agreement,
(c) the young police constable's behaviour and assertions / directions / order and
INTENTIONS evinced when he was COMMANDING ME To Spend MY Money With Solicitors!! A Small
claim against a fraudster!! Unrecoverable solicitors costs!!
That police constable's behaviour amounted to BLACKMAIL and gross violation of my human
rights. THE USE OF MY PROPERTIES (stolen/deprived) AND MONEYS, without impositions
(especially outside the law) by the state and its agents or servants, is a right I HAVE
(GUARANTEED UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION). In Court on that day the District Judge was
interested in my origins(!) and got the right reply: -
"British Citizen since
birth".
He elected to accept falsehoods from the fraudster who proclaimed he had not received the
Defence and Counter-Claim documents (Recorded
Delivery postal service - signed for) .
The District Judge THEREAFTER chose to disregard: -
(a) the Recorded Delivery slip issued by the post office;
(b) even worse he chose to disregard a letter from Royal Mail which was backed with a true
photocopy of the recipient’s signature.
And the District Judge proceeded to issue NEW directions indicating as and how he would
have liked for the action to proceed, RAILROADING IN EFFECT THE COURT ACTION to the
predetermined course staff and court officers had embarked upon from the onset. More on this last point because he even saw fit to
make notes on the Court's copy of the Defence and Counter Claim FOR THE FRAUDSTER HE HAD
TAKEN UNDER HIS WINGS before handing it to him). When I asked how soon it would be
before I received the Court's Order, in writing, he stated:-
"When they have dealt with
it" (the office).
At this point I refer to the "fraudulently
entered Judgement" which was DELIBERATELY POSTED LATE by staff at the Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court (covered in a letter
to Mr P Cozens; supported by the attached evidence, document No. 9; note the dates thereon
please). Other serious issues indeed
arose on that day at the County Court.
Upon receipt of the written Order I entered a
properly drafted Appeal STATING all causes and GROUNDS for Appeal including my rights in
International Law (European Convention on Human Rights) and the violations of same at and
by a Court of Law [*Link
from here to the content of the appeal and the first of the four
images in this page].
On the very day when I served / lodged my Appeal at the County Court,
my local police, who by then had been ignoring me for nearly TEN MONTHS, made several
attempts to telephone me (ansaphone calls registered that day 12, BUT NO MESSAGES LEFT!!.
This was while I was out attempting to get minority, local and community papers interested
in the case, armed with copy of the appeal, you can access above. I also visited our Local
Authority's race unit.
The following day I received a call from the Chief Inspector at my
local police station, who informed me of the previous day's attempts to contact me. He
then told me that the detective in charge of the case, had written to me. Some days later
I received a letter that was lacking dates and was in fact posted on the very day I lodged
my Appeal at the County Court.
I wrote to the detective seeking clarifications and he responded in a
letter by stating that he had arranged for the arrest of the contractor, after I went to
serve the Summons on Notice in the presence of the police (the day of the telephone calls between the police stations). Some
days later I received also an alleged Judgement from my local Magistrates Court
proclaiming a Judgement against the contractor (the
Judgement I refer to, in my letter to Mr P Cozens, the Chief Clerk at the local
Magistrates Court) and that Judgement / Order was endorsed with a date of the day
following the service of the Summons (in line with the detective's statement in his second letter). I then
wrote to the Magistrates' Court seeking clarifications. In a response I was informed that
the Judgement had allegedly been entered some TWO MONTHS BEFORE the date endorsed on the
judgement order which, in any event, was ALSO posted AFTER MY NOTICE OF APPEAL was served
and filed at the County Court!! (Convention
Rights, Violations, pleaded).
The above facts, all of which are evinced in
letters and public records, disclosed and evince more than enough. IT WAS BLATANTLY CLEAR
THAT THE SCRATCH MY BACK SOCIETY WAS IN OPERATION (alleged Court hearing / order in line with the detective's assertions,
and all after the lodging of the Appeal with explicit pleadings). Worse was the
fact that the police had only charged the contractor for the smashed window pane only and
not for the damages to the brickwork. EVEN WORSE still, the police had failed to charge
him for the threats to our lives and property, nor for the demands with menaces, nor for
extortionate demands, nor for blackmail, etc., etc. AND that person, apparently, even got
an absolute discharge!!!! so that he can feel free to indulge so again and again; (Imagine that cowboy builder doing work for elderly
persons? A matter I raised with the County Court chief clerk in the course of our first
meeting). NO WONDER I WAS KEPT IN THE DARK BY THE POLICE, all those months.
Intriguing was the fact that although the alleged Magistrates Court Judgement was entered
some FOUR MONTHS earlier no such notice was sent to me and NO ENFORCEMENT had taken place
in respect of the value of the smashed window pane. I re-iterate 'for the window pane
ONLY', as if the contractor, the police, the Court and or some state agency had made
secure our property for the night and that it was they, the public servants who
subsequently obtained and fitted the replacement window pane. SUCH FAILURES DISCLOSE(D)
ENOUGH. [*Link from here to an explicit Judgement covering 'intentional
wrongdoing' and consequential damages].
On the date set for the hearing of my appeal (More
about County Court Failures on the issue of setting a hearing) I attended the County Court
accompanied by my local Mayor (statement secured) and a free-lance reporter. NEITHER of
those witnesses were allowed to attend the "hearing!" which was delayed well
into the late afternoon. I could have insisted that they be allowed to attend the
"private" (behind closed doors) hearing(!) by stating that one person was my
McKenzie advisor and the other was to keep notes of the proceedings for me. I chose not
to; because it was more important to me, at that stage, to have evidence of denials and
obstructions to Justice; it was immaterial if such acts were indulged into selectively and
or simply in order to create conditions leading to assisting other Public Servants; those
who had failed abysmally to conduct themselves within the guidelines of their respective
Public Duties and in accordance with the National Laws they are meant to serve and uphold;
also in contravention of International Law. In the course of the "Hearing"(?),
which the Judge conducted as and how he would have wished, the Judge attempted and sought
to suppress and ignore the PLEADED VIDEO EVIDENCE. He also sought to impose other terms
leading to unrecoverable costs and expenditure (small claim, BUT DIRECTIONS for expensive
Surveyors Reports; as if the CONTEMPORANEOUS photographs and video EVIDENCE were not
enough). At this stage I should add that there are Court provisions which were denied to
me all along, just as the interim Default Judgement had been. EVEN worse
the judge attempted on a number of occasions to misinterpret the agreement between the
contractor and myself because the contractor had used the words "I was employed
by" in his Particulars of Claim. I repeatedly had to point out to the Judge that the
builder HAD STATED ALSO fixed jobs and fixed sums!. (i.e. "Do Not Rely On That To
Deny To Me Justice") Upon receipt of the new Directions, after that
"hearing!" of my Appeal I followed up on work I had started with the Lord
Chancellor's Department. In a specific letter I stated:- "Can you imagine the state
of British Industry if one and all were free to indulge uncontrolled and
unsupervised?". This after the usual assertions of non interference in the Courts'
business by the Department; the much revered "independence of the Judiciary, and the
Courts". In response to my comment a special department came into existence. There
followed telephone conversations and letters. Specific letters from me were sent to that
department. One was sent as an OPEN LETTER; with it another, CONFIDENTIAL. The Department
was challenged and, I stated that I paralleled the case with that of a person who goes to
a hospital with a broken leg BUT the doctors there seek to induce a fatal heart attack. I
made it clear that whilst the County Court and its officers were in a position to review
their mentality to the small claim (broken leg) I was also determined to take the matter
of their attempts to deny justice through railroading attempts, and to obstruct me in the
quest of my rights (fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory judicial system) to Strasbourg;
hence my reference to heart attack for which I reserved and had the right to attend
another hospital (Strasbourg in their case). Only a fool would and should rely on the
likes of those who indulged, to be judges on themselves and the practices of their
colleagues.
- When attending
Court, on a subsequent date, to exchange documents (in accordance with the Appeal Judge's
directions) I went prepared with other legal documents I had prepared (more revelations).
- A new District Judge was on the bench. The new District Judge (had read all of my
communications; so I was informed) used the occasion to enter Judgement for me and took
into account the Counter-Claim, the evidence I had prepared, and considered also the time
lost in pursuit of my rightful claims through the Court, in respect of the initial and
subsequent causes of action that had been pleaded* and claimed by me, in the first
instance (part and parcel with the defence) [*Link from here to provisions - Rules of
Court - in respect of further and additional causes of action AFTER a Summons is issued
and served].
- When I was
asked, of the hours involved in the preparation of all the paperwork and the other
documented evidence, I stated that the paperwork was dictated and necessary because of my
interest in a Judicial System that ruined my business and almost destroyed me as a person,
years earlier.
- I explained that the 'legal experts freely adduced and used FORGERIES FOR THE PERVERSION
OF JUSTICE. Such criminal activities were indulged into by the legal circles,
"barristers" and "solicitors" with "the blessings and conscious
acquiescence, of their criminal activities", by High Court Judiciary, all the way to
the Court of Appeal: "The Jewel in the Crown - Case".
- I was asked if my work and research was likely to lead me to a career in law and I stated
that it was not my wish to rub shoulders with criminals, but to expose them. That
is why I spent years in researching and studying law and court procedures expending in the
process time and money since it had become apparent it was the only way to move forward in
a Democracy when something is wrong.
- IT IS THE ONLY WAY OPEN to force those responsible (in our
instance the Houses of Parliament) to act in order to protect the public, the victims of a
judicial system where individuals feel free to indulge in order to create income
generating conditions for themselves and their circles, through abuses of the Courts'
processes whilst denying and corrupting justice.
- I pointed out to the District Judge that the forgeries, I
had referred to, took place in the High Court before the 1981 Forgeries and Counterfeit
Act; (NOTE: Criminal activities are not subject to Limitations) in other words at a time
when the 1913 Forgeries Act was in force.
- The earlier Act had provisions for forgeries at Court and on
Court documents as well as books of records (such indulgences did take place) and I had
such evidence.
- The Lord Chancellor's Department,
- the Police, (various police stations area Commanders)
- Scotland Yard Fraud Squad
- and their Complaints Department;
- also the Director of Public Prosecutions,
- ALL HAD TURNED A BLIND EYE AND DEAF EARS.
- ALL ACQUIESCE(D) THE CRIMINAL ABUSES OF THE COURTS'
PROCESSES.
- Abuses of the Courts processes had come to light, I informed
the District Judge, in the Mary Winch Affair and in my work I had come across a case
wherein those in charge of it had attempted to similarly indulge (dispossess a person from
his home, THROUGH ABUSE OF THE LEGAL AID FACILITIES. (see copy telegram attached).
- CONSCIOUS if not deliberate obstruction, denial and
perversion of Justice.
- Abuses of the Court’s processes had also come to light in
the Judith Ward case.
- FORGERIES had come to light in the I.R.A ‘bombers’ case
who were imprisoned because of scientifically proven FORGERIES (false / falsified records)
by the police.
In this instance, "The Breeding Grounds - Case", the
practices and aspects of how one and all (from young policemen and their officers, to
County Court staff and the Chief Clerk, through to Magistrates' Court staff and the Chief
Clerk) all are seen to be learning through observation and FAILURES TO CHALLENGE
malpractice and indulgences COVERED UP BY THEIR SUPERIORS. Thereby all begin to treat such
activities as acceptable and NORMAL. And thus they learn how to obstruct, deny, pervert
and corrupt Justice. In this case alone the police and Magistrates' Court staff and
officers have lent themselves to fabricated material, FORGERIES intended to mislead and to
support falsehoods. Such acts from trained persons retained by the state in the
investigative and administrative branches of Criminal Law. None can plead ignorance of the
criminal law and those documented activities, safe perhaps rely on their superiors and
colleagues to assert "case not proven" by ignoring the evidence just as the
District Judge blatantly indulged into on the day of the 'arbitration hearing'! It is
immaterial and irrelevant if when issuing directions on that date it was hoped that
solicitors might get their chance for a cut in the cake (as attempted and urged by the
chief clerk, the Judges and the Lord Chancellor's Department subsequently, hoping that I
would be naive enough to part with the evidence, never to see it again). The documents
advanced and indulged into by the police and the Magistrates' Court staff and its officers
ARE FORGERIES intended to deceive.
UPDATE
As can be noted from the letters sent to my Member of Parliament and to
the Chief Clerk at the Magistrates Court, where the builder was allegedly prosecuted for
criminal damage (the smashed window pane only) no enforcement of the alleged Judgement at
that or any other Court ever took place. This failure alone, indicates to highly suspect
circumstances and it is highly questionable if the police ever really wanted to prosecute
that criminal; the 'suspicion' is justified because of all the other collective failures
and acts entered into and indulged blatantly by the police, who were relying throughout on
the abuses at the County Court to create conditions to Justify their unwillingness to
exercise their Public Duties. The Magistrates Court officers may have attempted to assist
the police in the advancements of falsehoods, but the police never even attempted to
charge the builder for criminal damages UNTIL AFTER THE COUNTY COURT HAD BEEN FORCED TO
SET ASIDE THE ALLEGED DEFAULT JUDGEMENT (that alleged Judgement was nothing else but a
constructive fraud). It is indeed remarkable that the criminal is stated to have benefited
from an "absolute discharge". In other words the police computer records will
more than likely carry no records of any the indulgences the builder embarked upon with
the assistance and through encouragement by the police themselves.
Any attempt to justify the delayed posting of the Judgement from the
Magistrates Court for two months on grounds for a Means Application and or hearing is
suspect. In any event the alleged order granting him time and in particular the AMOUNT AND
THE FORTNIGHTLY periods, indicate to a person receiving funds on that basis. That issue
alone indicates to the police NEVER HAVING INFORMED THE COURT OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THE
DISPUTE between the CONTRACTOR and his victim. In other words the police suppressed
evidence pointing to a criminal who was claiming and receiving state benefits WHILST at
the same time he was proclaiming in the County Court proceedings other building contracts
and hiring of equipment by him. And the police HAD BEEN INFORMED that the criminal they
saw fit to protect and aid had been receiving, as he had demanded and insisted, payments
in cash. Payments that he acknowledged in the course of the County Court proceedings.
Fortnightly income statement to the Magistrates Court indicates to a
person receiving Social Security Benefit! A building Contractor! A person receiving more
than that from PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!!
Such is the deplorable state of affairs in our country. National and
International Laws are Freely Violated. And Public Servants use their public offices to
serve their own ulterior motives if not undeclared Government Policies. And the closing
comment observation has to be seen in the context of the SYSTEMATIC FAILURES by Senior
Government officials and Ministers' Offices, if not the Ministers themselves to address
the issues arising out of repeated complaints to their Offices.
Such Failures can only suggest reliance on the continuance of the
systematic, uncontrolled and unchecked ABUSES OF THE COURTS' PROCESSES BY AND THROUGH THE
MUCH REVERED INDEPENDENCE OF OUR JUDICIARY. [*Link from here to the facility
we reveal whereby the judiciary are used as the protection racket Godfathers by the State
/ Government and anyone who can afford their invisible services on tap, through the right
connections].
Andrew
London 1993.
COPYRIGHT.
Application for the use of material from "The Breeding Grounds - case" can be
secured only for the use of the material in respect of Court proceedings by ANY citizen
within the United Kingdom and or for the citizen's presentations to the authorities;
to public servants who NOW have no excuse but to deal with the widespread corruption and
the abuse of the legal system by "those who appear to
be licensed to act and operate outside the law".
PLEASE
NOTE that within weeks of a challenge and
additional information furnished to the Lord Chancellor's office, through my Member of
Parliament, the Lord Chancellor announced the Schooling of 1800 Circuit Judges on Racism*
and racial awareness inclusive of different cultures.
PLEASE
NOTE ALSO that within two weeks of an explicit
appeal, covering the usual indulgences at a county court, copy of which was delivered to
the Lord Chancellor's office, the government, through the Lord Chancellor. announced the
Bill of Rights, in 1997. In the meantime and for years on we have had charlatans and
'fraudsters' club recruits' (*Link) ranting about
alleged contributions and changes in the law; one such person was No | | |
