contract.htm KEY PageChanges
8 May 2006
 JOIN others On Line and work with them for and in the necessary challenges and
exposures for the common good. Link to Information Page
| NOTE: WE WILL BE RELEASING LISTS OF ALL PERSONS WHO SET ABOUT ABUSING OUR
TIME, ANDREW'S ASSISTANCE & TRUST WHEN IN FACT ALL THEY WERE ENGAGING IN WAS TO ACT AS
LOVERS OF THE DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS AND AS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS
JUST USING OTHER VICTIMS FOR THE REWARDS TO IDIOTS WHO FAIL TO RECOGNISE THAT SUCH PERSONS
ACT AS LOVERS OF THE FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS AND NOT AS IDIOTS WHO SIMPLY CAPITULATE TO
BLACKMAIL WHILE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT BY KEEPING QUIET THEY SIMPLY ARE SEEN TO BE
ACCESSORIES & ABETTORS TO THE DOUBLE FRAUDS WE COVER IN THE EXCLUSIVE
PAGE, ALL TO BE NAMED FAILED TO ADDRESS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. |
A letter to
Lord the Chancellor |
Letter below was sent to Lord Mackay in 1995. It points and
relates to improprieties and UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICES born of and attached to
fraudulent in intent activities at & from within the courts.
Page1
Page2
Page3
Failure to respond was no surprise. The issues covered were too close for comfort and the
truth of the matters stated his office elected to bury in the sand with the head of the
department. When genuine, diligent & truly honourable servants of the law and the
citizens were to apply the law as Parliament intended, the need for such letters &
challenges would not arise. Failure to respond and attend to the issues raised goes
HALFWAY TO ADMITTING the very issues the leader of the opposition, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
& the Spokes Person on legal affairs, for the opposition, in the House of Commons, the
Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng acknowledged in 1995.
Postal service confirmed the Recorded
Delivery of the letter to the Lord Chancellor.
A reminder warranted after the postal services
confirmation. 
Automata from the Court Service promote the
usual waffle, as tutored and instructed illiterates in law.
Nothing but the usual assertions about the alleged
independence of the Judiciary to ACT IN CONTEMPT OF ALL LAW, whenever and as they choose
or agree with other fraudsters and abusers of trust. |
Lord Irvine
the Lord Chancellor writes in 1999 to Baroness Fookes of Plymouth. |
| The
image below & the content is dedicated to the sucker-victims of the divorce industry
that is organised by alleged servants of the law & the citizens. |
| We
invite victims of the legal circles & judicial chair occupants to read and consider /
apply the content of the third paragraph to their own circumstances and to contact the
webmaster The 3rd paragraph: "When considering financial
provisions on divorce the courts in England and Wales must consider all the circumstances
of the case, and in particular a number of factors, such as the income and capital
resources of both parties, the age of the parties and the length of the marriage. The
contributions, both financial and other made by each of the parties to looking after the
home and family are also taken into account. In addition, the court must look at the needs
and obligations of the parties for the foreseeable future, so far as they can ascertain
them". |
|
|
Some Contract - Some Attempt *Page created 27 April 2006*
 |
*Page
Revised: September 07, 2008* |
| Site under
reconstruction. Please report any problems to the webmaster (email below) |
| 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. |
| Guidelines
on Navigating through the extensive material: access
instructions. The first step for visitors to acquaint themselves with the
extensive material should be to use the SEARCH FOR facility. Just
type in any word or combination of words / issues that are of concern / interest - need
information and our views about. Remember that our views rest on factual experiences and
research with evidence in support. We urge visitors and in particular victims of the legal
circles and the Law Enforcement Agencies to access the introduction page to the Community
on Line (*Link). |
| 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@ |
THE BACKGROUND to the shooting of a documentary |
In January 2005 Mr Dave Mortimer,
the founder of the UKFathers@yahoo group for victims
of the family courts, was contacted by 'the producer', as we are referring in this page to
a University student whose chosen subject was the media, the 'producer' promoted. He was
referred to Mr Andrew Yiannides whose work and research over the previous 33 years, in
part, relates to and covers most of the work at this web site. The 'producer' apparently,
having visited the website of a number of occasions, he wished to use the website and the
creator's work for his Masters' Degree Project, a documentary.
Evidently,
the student : 'producer', as part of his final year work, wished to 'shoot a documentary'
about the work of Mr Andrew Yiannides and the material in the pages at this website, in
general. The student's approach to the subject-matter was commendable, to say the least.
In brief, he stated that he wished to create a documentary about the material and this
website and about the person who put it all together. What was most interesting, however,
was the fact that the student / 'producer' intended to 'create a documentary, whereby one
half of the final cut / edit would be exalting the work and the other half would be
ridiculing the work and its creator'.
Mr
Yiannides informed the student that he would be most happy to co-operate in both respect
and in every way called for, because he was very familiar with the practices from within
the media and he pointed the student to the words of John Swainton, who was the Chief of
Staff at 'The New York Times' in the 1860's (*F1). The
student was also informed of the fact that at that very point in time, in Greece, half a
dozen courageous reporters were exposing in live broadcasts, on Satellite Television,
fraud and corruption within the Justice System and the Church too.
When Mr
Yiannides travelled to Stockport, for the shooting of the documentary, he copied 8 hours
of the live broadcasts from Greece and took the copy to the producer who was going to view
the two recorded programmes with Greek students at the University and discuss the elements
being aired openly in Greece, without interference from any quarters. |
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE SHOOTING
OF 'THE' DOCUMENTARY |
The first image below is of the
contract that 'eventually' was posted to Mr Andrew
Yiannides, for endorsement by him. It should be noted that ONLY ONE PRINTED &
SIGNED DOCUMENT WAS SENT by
the producer's mother.
It should also be noted that the document was signed / endorsed by the producer / on
behalf of the production company. Preceding the delivery of the received document the
events stated below should be of interest to all readers and researchers.
The
producer informed Mr A. Yiannides that he had been advised by the University (his tutors)
that the need arose for a release contract, in order for the producer to be able to use
the video and the material that was 'shot for the producer's (student's) needs'.
Mr
Yiannides was thereafter informed, by the mother of the student / producer, that a
contract had been posted first class, and such failing to reach him, Mr Yiannides
telephoned 'the producer / production company' and informed the mother of the student that
the postal service failed to deliver the anticipated and imminent delivery.
THE
SAME SCENARIO was repeated three times.
In the
meantime the producer contacted Mr. Yiannides and stated that the need arose for some
footage to be shot of Mr Yiannides leaving home and travelling to the Royal Courts of
Justice with shots evincing visits (entry to) and leaving (exiting) the Royal Courts of
Justice.
The
Producer drove to London with an assistant and the essential equipment. He arrived at the
residential address where Mr Yiannides awaited for the producer's arrival who should have
brought along the printed and signed DUPLICATES of the contract. The producer / student
arrived WITHOUT the 'essential contracts' which the student's tutors stipulated.
The
additional shooting, for which the producer drove to London, done, Mr Yiannides suggested
a similar sequence with a visit (entry and exit) to the Law Society's head office in
Chancery Lane round the corner from the Royal Courts of Justice.
On
departing from London, the producer assured Mr Yiannides that he would ensure he
personally would post 'the essential contracts'.
There
followed two more non-deliveries, with the third posting reaching its destination.
On
receiving the contract, the first element that arose and was duly noted by Mr
Yiannides raised the question: "WHY ONLY ONE"? Surely any one who was
applying common sense to the need for such a contract, should not have ignored the fact
that the second party to the agreement / contract OUGHT TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL : DUPLICATE OF
THE AGREEMENT. In other words, TWO CONTRACTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED to Mr.
Yiannides; both signed by the other party. Mr Yiannides would simply sign both, retain one
for his records (and needs) and forward / post the second copy to the production company.
On
receipt of the contract, as posted and received, Mr Yiannides telephoned to state his
disappointment at the implications. The student's father answered the telephone and
addressed the caller (from London) with the words "Yes Johan".
It was
obvious that either a call was expected from 'Johan' or the telephone system used by the
producer was fitted with an LED display showing the number calling the producer and the
father simply read the first three/four digits 0208 hence the rush to assume the caller
was Johan, Michael Richard Foenander who lived (and probably still lives in South London).
Mr
Yiannides simply asked if the son was in and his call was transferred to the
producer/student. It was only natural that Mr Yiannides should enquire as to WHY the
salutation and the error of assuming that the call was from Mr Johan Foenander.
The
producer referred to earlier conversations with Mr Yiannides, when he spoke of shooting a
second documentary when FIVE CASES (the problems faced by five victims of the legal
circles and the courts, as the producer himself had been too and Mr Johan Foenander had
been, also) WOULD BE BRIEFLY COVERED and thereafter FIVE SEPARATE & EXPANDED
DOCUMENTARIES (one for each of the five cases covered briefly) would be shot.
The
student / producer was pointed to the fact that in the pages at uk-human-rights
substantial facts, realities and REALISATIONS were published about a number of victims of
the legal circles and the courts, as Mr Johan Foenander had been and was projecting /
promoting relentlessly without any reference to the material facts stated and covered at
this website relative to the activities and convenient defaults and failures to deal with
/ address the issues noted while the alleged victim was abusing Andrew's time and the
trust he was granted as an alleged victim of the legal circles, who was noted to have been
engaging in too many questionable activities, operating in tandem with teh legal circles
and other known converts to the New World Order Code of Ethics.
Mr
Yiannides had spoken of the core elements in many cases to the student when expanding on
the common factors, in many of the cases referred to in the pages at the website. In the
circumstances the student was told that any diligent researcher would have to apply
himself, by way of introduction, to the practices by the legal circles and from within the
courts, in order to identify and cover the most common elements of which Mr Yiannides had
spoken extensively and pointed to, in the course of the visit for the shooting of the
documentary in Stockport.
The
above references to the proposed other SIX documentaries, naturally were intended for
general screening and distribution in order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC (*F2) and make 'the serfs
aware of what is in store for them whAcces en they end up in the clutches of the legal
circles and alleged Public Servants whose one and only DUTY IS TO SERVE THE LAW AND THE
CITIZENS, as the law provides.
Mr
Yiannides acknowledged the earlier exchanges in respect of the proposed SIX OTHER
DOCUMENTARIES (after the student was to secure / benefit from the degree he had been
studying for) and informed the producer, that he was not happy with the content and
stipulations in the contract he received.
Mr
Yiannides informed the student / producer that he was to apply himself to some of the
elements he was not happy with and submit an amended contract. Mr Yiannides then
explained that he was going to submit TWO PRINTED & SIGNED by him contracts which he
would be posting to the producer. He emphasised that the amendments in no way would
interfere with the needs of the producer, the student's project. Mr Yiannides also
qualified that his rights to use his work for his own intended purposes, which were to
inform and educate Mr & Mrs Average could not possibly have been ignored by the
producer, whose initial statement of intent implied also that such was to be 'the
producers' ultimate aim.
The
producer accepted Mr Yiannides' submissions and stated that he was looking forward to
receiving the 2 signed amended contracts (one of which he would be returning, after
signing it, to Mr Yiannides) in order that he could proceed with presentation of the
produced end product to the University. Mr Yiannides, on his part, reminded the producer
that part of their initial exchanges and at the conclusion of the shooting, Mr Yiannides
was to receive a copy of all the shot material for his personal use only and for possible
suggestions for voice-overs towards the editing of the intended edits of the documentary.
The
posting of the amended and signed contracts was delayed with intent and the producer
did not contact Mr Yiannides in order to report non-delivery or to enquire about the
situation, as Mr Yiannides had been doing whenever the posted contracts, by the mother of
the producer failed to arrive. Mr Dave Mortimer was accordingly informed and the apparent
luck of interest to even look at the amended contract was intriguing.
The two
signed contracts wee posted 3 weeks late and when Mr Yiannides enquired as to the one that
should have been signed returned to him, a week after posting, the producer stated that no
delivery had been affected by the postal services. In the circumstances two new printed
and signed contracts were posted. SIX WEEKS LATER, when Mr Yiannides telephoned to enquire
about the fact that he had not received his copy of the contract, he was informed that
there had been no delivery of the posted contracts.
Mr
Yiannides simply pointed to the fact that whereas he was telephoning the production
company, each time there had been failures by the postal services to deliver to him the
original postings, he, the producer failed to act likewise. The producer then stated that
he had shot another documentary and his needs, as he had intended had been served, that
was why he did not bother to contact Mr Yiannides.
Mr
Yiannides simply enquired about the copies of the shot material he was meant to receive
and he 'informed that ALL HAD BEEN DELETED, GOT RID OF. There could only be one
spontaneous remark to such 'revelations' Mr Yiannides told the producer and the clue WAS
IN THE FAILURE TO SECURE A SIGNATURE TO THE CONTRACT AS SUBMITTED, TO HIM, BY THE PRODUCER
/ PRODUCTION COMPANY.
Mr D
Mortimer was then informed that an interesting proposition had been made to him, by Mr
Peter Hayward of the Litigants In Person Society after Mr Yiannides was contacted by the
LIPS crowd/mob, back in 1992, Mr D Mortimer had been told a couple of years earlier that
the LIPS mob controller/managers contacted him within weeks of him lodging the explicit
Appeal (*F3) at Bow County Court.
Following
the developments and the announcement by the producer of 'the documentary', Mr D Mortimer
was told that in the course of the early meetings and the exchanges with Mr P
Hayward, of the LIPS crowd/mob, when Mr Yiannides informed Mr P Hayward, that he had
engaged in the long research on the practices and the criminal in intent activities within
the courts, fully intending to publish his findings in a book in order to expose the
abusers of the courts facilities.
Mr P
Hayward offered to publish such a work, himself having been a victim and he too wished for
the public to be made aware of the criminal activities within the legal system and the
courts. Mr D Mortimer was THEN TOLD HOW Mr. Yiannides reacted to the offer and what he
told Mr. P Hayward at the time: -
"You
can contract with me to act as the publisher of the intended work. You should be prepared
to remit an advance of something around £25,000 (twenty-five thousand pounds sterling)
and you will be receiving the final draft months thereafter. You, Mr Hayward, will be
paying the advance subject to the condition that you will be the publisher with whom I am
prepared to contract for the publication of the work. However, you will not be contracting
with me only on the basis of any agreed percentage share of the net sales
income. You will also be contracting with me to HAVE THE PUBLISHED BOOK ON THE
SHELVES WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL CORRECTED AND PROOF READ COPY. FAIL
TO PERFORM AS THE SAID TERMS STIPULATE AND YOU CAN KISS YOUR 25,000 GOOD BYE. NOBODY
Mr . Hayward is to be afforded the chance to bury my work, if by any chance such a ploy be
contemplated by you in offering to act as a publisher of my work".
|
|
NEEDLESS TO SAY MR PETER HAYWARD NEVER SPOKE OF SUCH
MATTERS AGAIN. HOWEVER, HE KEPT IN REGULAR CONTACT, TWO THREE TIMES A WEEK, WITH LONG
TELEPHONE EXCHANGES DURING WEEKENDS.
THERE
FOLLOWED MANY INVITATIONS TO GATHERINGS THAT WERE ORGANISED BY MR. PETER HAYWARD, MRS
PHILOMENA CULLEN, (the former definitely the manager, organiser and controller of the LIPS
crowd/mob).
EARLY ON THEY
EXPOSED THEIR PLANS AND HOW THEY WERE TO CASH IN BY USING VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES AND
THE COURTS, FOR THEIR OWN UNDISCLOSED PLANS, AS WAS ESTABLISHED OVER THE NEXT SEVEN (7)
YEARS. |
IT IS UP TO RESEARCHERS & READERS WHO APPLY THEMSELVES
TO THE ABOVE SCENARIOS TO CONSIDER & PERUSE DILIGENTLY THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN
EVIDENCE.
THE TWO DOCUMENTS (versions of
the contract) ARE PUBLISHED IN SUPPORT OF MR YIANNIDES' SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ATTEMPT TO
USE THE DOCUMENTARY PLOY FOR OTHER THAN THE AGREED & DECLARED INTENTIONS OF THE
PRODUCER AS WITH THE OTHER ATTEMPT WE COVER HEREIN-ABOVE AND IN OTHER PAGES, EVINCE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE ABUSERS OF THE COURTS FACILITIES GO WHEN THEY RELY / RETAIN AND OR USE
SUCH PERSONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THEIR EVIL CONTROL OF THE LIVES OF 'THE SERFS' IN
PSEUDO-DEMOCRACIES.
NEEDLESS TO SAY THE MEDIA ARE BUT
THE CORNER STONES UPON WHICH THE ABDUCTORS & RAPISTS OF DEMOCRACY RELY TO CARRY ON
BUILDING THE CORRUPTED SOCIETIES OF THEIR OWN MAKING, AS FOLLOWERS OF THE TEACHINGS BY
EXAMPLES STATED IN THE MOST VILE OF WORKS EVER TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SONS OF MEN. |
 |
The image on the left is of the contract that was submitted to Mr. Andrew Yiannides for endorsement by
him subsequent to his participation in the shooting of a documentary (video) covering his
work and the material at: - http://www.uk-human-rights.org/,
this web-site. The reasons given for the
making of the documentary and the terms / conditions contained in the submitted contract
should assist readers to recognise why Mr Yiannides did not fall prey to the attempt to
silence him and bury his work.
Published below, the content, in HTML for links to
and from the text. |
PACT MODEL CONTRACTS 1999 Edition
Contributor’s consent letter (no fee)
PROGRAMME
TITLE......................................................................
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR............................................................
ADDRESS OF CONTRIBUTOR....................................................
TEL. NO OF CONTRIBUTOR........................................................
NAME OF PRODUCTION COMPANY.........................................
ADDRESS OF PRODUCTION COMPANY................................
DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTOR............................................
DATE OF RECORDING/CONTRIBUTION.................................. |
MEDIA
MR ANDREW YIANNIDES
c/o xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx LONDON xxx xxx
020 -xxxx - xxxx
RED DRAGON FILMS / UNIVERSITY PROJECT
xxxxxxx SOUTHPORT MERSEYSIDE xxxxxx
Human Rights Activist Founder of the Community on Line
25/02/05 & 26/02/05 |
|
Date:.............................
Dear
We write to confirm our agreement that in consideration of our
arranging to film and record the contribution to be given by you ("the contributor’).
- You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and
hereby grant us all consents necessary to enable us to make the fullest use of the
contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all
media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered, without liability (save as
specifically hereafter provided) or acknowledgement to you. You hereby grant us the right
to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme in which it may be
included and for such purpose to use your name and photograph and recordings and/or copies
of any description of the contribution.
- In recognition of the needs of the film and television production, we shall be entitled
to edit, copy, add take from, adapt or translate the contribution as we see fit and, in
respect of the contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert
any provision of law known as "moral rights" ( ) or any similar laws of any
jurisdiction. We do not undertake to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise exploit the
contribution.
- You warrant and undertake to us (a) that you are fully entitled to give the contribution
to us, (b) that nothing in the contribution (whether by way of infection or gesture or
otherwise) will infringe the copyright or any other right or any person, breach any
contract or duty of confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory or be
calculated to bring any broadcaster into disrepute and (c) that all facts expressed by you
in the contributions are, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and insofar as
the contribution contains any opinions, these opinions are your own and are genuinely and
truly held by you.
- You undertake to us that you will not prior to ….………….. give to any person any
interview or make, give or release any statement for publication by any means or medium
relating to [the subject matter of the contribution].
- You agree to indemnify us against all and any costs, claims, expenses and liabilities
(including without limitation legal fees and any sums paid on the advice of Counsel)
resulting from breach by you, of any of the agreements, warrantees and/or undertakings on
your part contained in this agreement.
- This agreement may be freely assigned or licensed by us. The agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with English Law.
|
| Yours
Sincerely...................................................... For and on behalf of ………………………………….....
[Production Company] |
Agreed
and Accepted by Contributor ….……………………..
.....................
CONTRIBUTOR (no fee) |
Below the two images of the contract as
amended and submitted to the Production Company |
|
Page1
 |
Page2
 |
The
reasons stated and the co-operation secured for the production of the documentary as
INTENDED FOR THE PRODUCER'S Media Studies project, (Master's Degree) suffice. The terms
and conditions attached to the amended contract, as submitted to the student / producer
(of the documentary) in no way could affect the student's needs. These had been discussed
with Mr Andrew Yiannides when he was contacted. It is for the researcher & reader to
determine what other forces were at work in the first instance. |
CONTRACT : Contributor’s consent letter (no fee) |
| PROGRAMME
TITLE............................................ |
MEDIA |
| NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR................................... |
MR ANDREW YIANNIDES |
| ADDRESS OF CONTRIBUTOR............................ |
c/o xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx LONDON |
| TEL. NO OF CONTRIBUTOR............................... |
020 - xxxx-xxxx |
| NAME OF PRODUCTION COMPANY................ |
RED DRAGON FILMS / UNIVERSITY
PROJECT |
| ADDRESS OF PRODUCTION COMPANY......... |
xxxx xxx SOUTHPORT MERSEYSIDE |
| DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTOR.................. |
INTERVIEW - Human Rights Activist |
| DATE OF RECORDING/CONTRIBUTION........ |
25/02/05 & 26/02/05 |
|
Date:............................
Dear Mr Yiannides
We write to confirm our agreement that in consideration of our
arranging to film and record the contribution to be given by you ("the contributor’).
- You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and
hereby grant us all consents necessary to make the fullest use of the contribution
throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether
now known or hereafter developed or discovered without liability (save as specifically and
below provided in connection of, with and for the purposes for which your contribution) or
acknowledgement by you save for any deviation from or other use of the contribution. You
hereby grant us the right to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme
in which it may be included and for such purpose to use your name and photograph and
recordings and/or copies of any description of the contribution.
- In recognition of the needs of the film and television production (for which the
contribution), we shall be entitled to edit, copy, add take from, adapt or translate the
contribution as we see fit and, in respect of the contribution, you irrevocably waive the
benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral rights"
( ) or any similar law of any jurisdiction so long as use of the contribution shall be
within the original intent and for the purposes for which the contribution. We do not
undertake to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise exploit the contribution.
- You warrant and undertake to us (a) that you are fully entitled to give the contribution
to us, (b) that nothing in the contribution (whether by way of infection or gesture or
otherwise) will infringe the copyright or any other right or any person, breach any
contract or duty of confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory or be
calculated to bring any broadcaster into disrepute and (c) that all facts expressed by you
in the contributions are, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and, insofar as
the contribution contains any opinions, these are your own and are genuinely and truly
held by you.
- You undertake to us that you will not prior to ….…./2005 give to any person any
interview or make, give any statement for publication by any means or medium relating to
the subject matter of the contribution, at all material times the undertaking contained
and applicable to the purpose for which the contribution by you and reserving your rights
to carry on with your long established work in respect of the issues covered in and by
your contribution towards and for specific use and purposes of the production company’s
/person’s explicit needs, at the time of the recording.
- You agree to indemnify us against all and any costs, claims, expenses and liabilities
(including without limitation legal fees and any sums paid on the advice of Counsel)
resulting from breach by you, if any, of the agreements, warrantees and/or undertakings on
your part contained in this agreement, subject always that both parties to this agreement
shall first adhere to all terms and conditions of this agreement.
- In the event that the production company/person shall/may be intending to use the
contribution for other purposes than the original purpose for which the contribution, any
version of the contribution that shall be the intended for use as provided for under
paragraph 1 above, the version that shall first be submitted to you (for viewing and for
your records) shall be approved by you (thus not hindering and or obstructing the rights
of the company/person from using the contribution in such version within its/his/her
rights to freedom of expression and trade) and in the event that the version may not meet
with your approval, the production company/person hereby commits and undertakes to release
to you all material recorded for the contribution, for use by you as you shall determine
in connection with your work and the purposes of your work to inform and educate the
public at large.
- This agreement may be freely assigned or licensed by us and at all material times all
terms and conditions, stipulated and agreed between the signatory parties shall remain in
force. The agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law, so
long as any part or use of the contribution shall not be in breach of this agreement
and/or violate the rights of the contributor’s intellectual property if for other use of
it than as covered by the causes and reasons for the contribution, which the contributor
shall use for his own work and purposes as covered under 5 above.
|
| Yours
Sincerely............................................................... For and on behalf of
……………………………..........
[Production Company] |
Agreed
and Accepted by Contributor ….……………………..
.......................
CONTRIBUTOR (no fee) |
|
|
|
|
This
page is dedicated to all abusers of our time and in particular to
two women / female evil-mongering fraudsters, Mrs. Veronica Beryl Fodden and Mrs. Helen
Patey. Both contacted us as 'victims' who were faced with very serious problems. The
former complained that she had already been subjected to the most horrendous of
obstructions to her rights. The most contemptuous of violations and breaches of public
duty, attached to fraudulent activities in the courts were noted upon inspection of her
files. She needed assistance to challenge it all, all the way to the ECoHR (Strasbourg)
and she declared her intentions to expose it all with our assistance, as a member of the
human-rights.org Community in Line. However, it was not long before her actions and
defaults; established that she was part of a scam and that she had been and was a
participating fraudster in all that she was complaining of and about. She actually engaged
in criminally motivated activities that were intended to cause damages to Mr Andrew
Yiannides, the person she was sent along to mess about with. The latter, Mrs. H Patey, was
also sent along by persons who operate as 'lovers of the system as is, and as maintenance
engineers who object to the exposures the public accesses in our pages. Such persons
indulge and excel in the subliminal indoctrination, of 'victims they are pointed to and
contact'. Their relentless complaints and their perpetual references to and allegations
about the Free Masons most notable and arrogant. None ever produced any evidence in
support of their assertions. |
|
The
right to reply and to justify behaviour and type of activities we cover in our pages, is
assured to any person we named. We will publish any excuses & whatever is submitted to
us by such persons. Legal argument that shall arise out of their submissions will be used
as we apply ourselves to relevant issues in the cases they referred to us & we will
cover their acts and all their defaults . |
FOOTNOTES
Footnote eXtra: Visitors/readers are urged
to read first the article published in the London Evening Standard, as settled by the Rt.
Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in May 2003.(*Link) . While there, above it, the explicit letter
to ex-Minister the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier to the
MP. 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 a democratic state. 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. Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack
Straw, in December 1999 (*Link) and note the results as
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 that Andrew knows of; all acting as sold souls always do (*Link).
1. Readers
& researchers who are not familiar with the words of John Swainton, can access the
quote from here and we urge the interested and concerned to acquaint themselves with the
material in the page, especially the two articles we reproduce in the page (images too)
one from 'The Daily Express' and one from 'The Daily Mail'. In the same page an important
CHALLENGE to the editor of the London 'Evening Standard'. In the latter historical facts
and realities the media barons and the editors the6y retain WILFULLY SUPPRESS FROM THE ILL
EDUCATED SERFS who pay taxes for the maintenance of Public(?) Servants(!) who serve the
plans of their invisible controllers and masters.
2. Prior to Mr Yiannides' journey to
Stockport for the shooting of the documentary, the producer had spoken to Mr Yiannides and
to Mr Yiannides' sister extensively about problems he had been faced with because of his
and his parents involvement with Dr. K Badsha of the Environmental Law Centre. Apparently
the family had been and was / is involved in litigation over some property sales and
transfers. Because of the aforesaid statements, by the producer, Mr Yiannides had informed
the producer that before travelling to Stockport (for the shooting of the documentary) Mr
Yiannides RELEASED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (the pages at this web-site) relevant events,
facts and realities going back to the time when the producer's father travelled to Loughton, Essex, with Dr. K Badsha, for the gathering that
took place at Mr Len Miskulin's residence (*Link). The said
gathering was FOR THE PROPOSED CREATION OF A PRESS RELEASE CENTRE that would be supported
and used by ANY ORGANISATIONS, MOVEMENTS &
INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOSE / WOULD CHOOSE TO AFFILIATE AS
MEMBERS; affiliates naturally would be accepted only persons and organised groups
who were challenging the wrongs imposed on the citizens by abusers of public office and
more specifically the courts' facilities. Researchers and readers should link to the page
where we cover what was lurking in the background when the stated 'gathering at Mr
Miskulin's residence materialised. WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, who arrived late, and what
the late arrival proceeded to do, was most interesting. However, what transpired
afterwards was most intriguing. |
...
|
