| crimesin.htm
KEY PageChanges 1/05/2008 |
|
Crimes Incorporated * Page
created December 2006 * |
 |
HOW & by WHOM are victims of Crime protected in the
Republic of Haringey?
We invite other victims of criminal assaults by school thugs,
in North London, the Borough.. oops the Republic of Haringey, in particular, to contact us
and to consider first the facts stated in the explicit affidavit they can link to from the
top of most pages.
A senior citizen, boards a 329 Arriva bus, standing, reading letters
intended for copying and posting. He is punched on the back again and again by three
secondary school thugs, in school uniform.
Apart from an elderly lady who was noted to be telling off the second thug who engaged in
such vile activities, the rest of the passengers simply ignored it all.
Such apathy is not generated out of anything else but the evil ways with which the
citizens are treated by those who are in authority.
From Senior police officers to politicians nothing but impositions of such a society CARE
OF RECKLESS & BLUNT FAILURES TO APPLY THE LAW as each situation commands.
The creation of false records and reports in the order of the day as long as it all serves
the plans of the evil-mongering organisers who ARE in control of an allegedly civilised
democracy.
Visitors, readers & researchers are urged to access and read [*Link to] an explicit letter which the founder of human-rights submitted to the editor of
'The Times' in 1996.
At the time EDUCATION & MORALS were part of ongoing debates and promotions by
Ministers.
No prizes for working out why the letter was not published. [*Link to an explicit letter on the right, 4 pages of it
to Chief Inspector Thorpe who simply shoved his head in the sand as all abusers of public
office do]. |
The
victim will be seeking / demanding a true copy of the statement taken by the police from
the victim. It covered HOW the assault was instigated and carried out by thugs from a
school in Wood Green, Haringey. The school not far from Wood Green Police Station. The
assault WAS RECORDED on Video in accordance with the bus company's practice because of the
regular assaults on bus drivers, by the NEW GENERATION OF CRIMINALS who are created
by those who ARE in authority. It remains to be seen if the alleged guardians of the Law
& the Citizens will comply and provide the warranted statement for publication in this
page where it can be accessed by the World Jury, 'the targeted New Serfs of / for the
expanding empire - by stealth - of the followers of the teachings by example stated in the
most vile of works ever to have been presented to the sons of men, on planet earth'. |
| IN THIS PANEL WE PROPOSE TO ADD LINKS POINTING TO OTHER
SITES THAT LINK TO THIS WEB-SITE |
| IN THIS PANEL WE PROPOSE TO ADD LINKS POINTING TO OTHER
SITES THAT LINK TO THIS WEB-SITE |
| IN THIS PANEL WE PROPOSE TO ADD LINKS POINTING TO OTHER
SITES THAT LINK TO THIS WEB-SITE |
| IN THIS PANEL WE PROPOSE TO ADD LINKS POINTING TO OTHER
SITES THAT LINK TO THIS WEB-SITE |
| IN THIS PANEL WE PROPOSE TO ADD LINKS POINTING TO OTHER
SITES THAT LINK TO THIS WEB-SITE |
|
|
 |
Last Revised September 07, 2008 :
links to page and from page to relevant material & evidence in other pages |
| Site reconstruction
with ongoing improvements and additions to pages / site |
The
material and evidence in this page is released in the public domain
because the Metropolitan Police, especially in North London, for the umpteenth time,
failed to execute their public duties as the Law provides and as the fat retainers they
receive from taxpayers' contributions stipulate. In so far as we are aware those who
default to act, while in receipt of public funds, they are not simply acting in contempt
of the rights of the citizens to protection from crime and criminals, they are receiving
their fat salaries under false pretences by failing to perform as their retainers
stipulate. (NOTE: Arrogant contempt for Article 29
of the Combined Treaties of the European Union)
Visitors, readers & researchers are pointed to the elements spoken
of by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, when he returned to the United Kingdom,
from the meeting of the European leaders in June 2005.(*Link to the page where we cover other elements of which the
victims of the legal circles and the abused courts facilities are fully aware).
We request that visitors also access the
page (*Link to it) where
we released evidence in respect of the activities and the convenient defaults of
arrogant and deceitful lovers of the system of operations and the activities we cover in
an exclusive page. In the latter we relate the arrangements in place which ALL OF THE
FRAUDSTERS WE ARE EXPOSING, IN OUR PAGES, FAILED TO ADDRESS WHILE PROMOTING THEIR FALSE
POSITIONS & STANCE ON THE VERY ISSUE OF ORGANISED CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH
ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES. Needless to say the states exist because of and WITH THE
BLESSINGS OF THE POLICE, as the explicit affidavit and the evidence we publish in this
page establish without any doubt.
You will be reading in this page of THE
POLICE THREATENING THE VICTIMS OF CRIMES. You will be reading of the police inviting
one of the villains to attend hospital in order to create and secure false records for the
scratches the villain caused to his arm when the villain and his brother-in-law smashed
the window of a car in order to assault their victim while the victim sat in his car,
& the victim's sister was making her way to the police station in order to report
CRIMINAL DAMAGES TO PROPERTY, such as dents to the car the villains were kicking and to
ask the police to attend the scene of the criminal activities. (*Link to transcript from a recording, the police intimidating, harassing,
threatening other victims of criminal activities).
Read the affidavit below and learn of the background to the
assault and what other alleged servants of the public had been up to as creators
and users of criminals for their preferred kind of society. Read of how staff &
officers from within the Local Authority had been and carried on engaging, as parties to
false statements and creators of false records. Read of how the villains, the Local
Authority staff / officers and the local police relied on solicitors, the local county
court and the Magistrates Courts to act in contempt of the evidence and the law.
Nothing but the best that CIUKU Enterprises offers.
Read of how Local Authority staff and officers were party to fraudulent
misrepresentations. Read of HOW THEY RUSHED TO PROVIDE COUNCIL ACCOMMODATION TO THE
STOOGES THEY WERE USING WITH OTHERS IN ORDER TO DEFRAUD A TARGETED LANDLADY OF RENTS
DUE & PAYABLE FOR ACCOMMODATION TO THE USED. The used & ENCOURAGED IN DISHONEST
& FRAUDULENT PROMOTION OF FALSE STATES, TENANTS, relying all along for protection by
the local police who indulged in more than the threats to the victims of crime you read
above. The activities of Council Staff & Officers for & in the creation of the
false states, simply in contempt of the law. And their readiness to provide Council
Accommodation to the encouraged and used in deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations
tenants, ONLY IN CONTEMPT OF THE RULES that stipulate : "Persons who make
themselves homeless are NOT ENTITLED TO LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING".
IN THE INSTANCE AT
HAND, the said tenants happened to be the stooges who were being used by others with the
reckless co-operation of Council Staff & Officers, for and in respect of the FALSE
STATES PROMOTED BY THE TENANTS & LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFF & OFFICERS. ALL
ACTING SO WITH INTENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE FALSE STATES and the elements that Stephen
Knight wrote of in his work, 'The Brotherhood'. The information relative to the
elements & matters the author wrote of, he attributed to a public servant.(*Link to the
explicit extract).
ALL ACTING SO
BECAUSE OF THE RECKLESS ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE from within the Local Authority, the Local
Police, the Local Magistrates Court and the local County Court.
Needless to
say the solicitors engaged in 'the usual activities and defaults for the creation of their
own False States with co-operation from within the Local Law Enforcement Agencies
INCLUDING STAFF & OFFICERS AT THE LOCAL COURTS, intended to lead to the conversion of
targeted assets to legal costs.
Victims of similar
activities, practices and wilful defaults by public servants who are reporting /
publishing such matters in the public domain can place links in their pages pointing to
this page and any other page they consider of value and relevance to the exposures they
have published / are publishing. They should get in touch with us in order to inform us of
such action and at the same time forward details of the URL's / web-sites and pages they
would like for us to place links to such, in the left margin panel / window in this and
other appropriate pages at this site.
Visitors who contact us
after reading of the material facts and the elements we point to in this and other
associated pages, who may wish to benefit from additional information can email the webmaster |
The
Police promote falsehoods to the CICA
NOTE, for non-UK residents / citizens. CICA
is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority |
- Letter to a Chief Inspector whose name was given by the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority as the senior officer who informed them that the
victim of criminal activities and a violent assault (note plural) was responsible for it
all.
- A demand of the CICA officers / staff to confirm in a letter
what was promoted & asserted, to them, by the police in Haringey was ignored. However
the criminals in public office went one better and asserted that the exchanges between
them and the police were confidential matters.
- The moron who promoted such rubbish, was / is presumed to
have been / be oblivious to the provisions of the DATA PROTECTION ACTS and
recklessly illiterate in law, if not wilfully Acting In Contempt of the Provisions of
Articles 6 (& other Articles) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Fraudulent in intent representations and abuse of public
office in the order of the day. Gross dereliction in public office and all relying on one
another. (Common factor)
- Challenges and invitations - ALL IGNORED.
|
Page1 |
Page2 |
- Contempt for the evidence.
- Contempt for the Law.
- Contempt for the right of the citizens to Protection from
Crimes & Criminals.
- Arrogant invisible services to fraudsters, and through
defaults and omissions in the execution of public duties / office the initiation, of USED
stooges, to crime; also the encouragement of recognised / known criminals.
- Arrogant impositions on & abduction of the lives of the
victim-citizens who are caused to research relevant law at the expense of their own plans
for their lives and well being.
- Blunt violations of the provisions of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5
and of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.(Last pleaded in appeals lodged)
- ALL thanks to the mentalities of Fraudsters club Recruits
who are running around professing their fights 'for the rights of the serfs they target
and use WHILE IGNORING THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE TAXPAYERS, under Article6
|
Page3 |
Page4 |
The
above letter with compliments to the following fraudsters club recruits. All, with
the exception of Mr N. Scarth, arrogantly set about spreading malicious about the work
& aims of Mr Andrew Yiannides' work; however, all without exception and with intent
went about obstructing the work of Mr Andrew Yiannides for obvious reasons when one reads
the exclusive page, at this website, which page ALL without exception failed to address
the issues the activities raise and WE POINT to. One need only to know that ALL FELL IN
LOVE with the arrangements in place FOR FRAUD APLENTY ON THE TAXPAYERS & THE
CORRUPTION OF MORONS OF THEIR MENTALITY TO OTHERS & THE LAW. Their own practice of
targeting victims of the legal circles and the courts FOR MORE OF THE SAME can be
recognised by accessing material published in our pages and by looking into the practices
of each one of the named. [1 Norman Scarth]
[2 Maurice Kellett] [3 Johan Michael Richard Foenander] [4 Paul Talbot-Jenkins] [5 Veronica
Beryl Foden] [6 Helen Patey] [7 Ashok Mahajan] [ ] |
- The issues raised with the Lord Chancellor nothing but the
usual activities by and from the legal circles.
- All with arrogant approval and endorsement of the criminal,
in intent, activities by court staff and officers of the court.
- The letter to the solicitors, below, covering such
activities and, worse, an attempt to cause the client to endorse an affidavit that was
laced with an element that did not reflect the truth of the matter or the real states of
which the solicitor, who submitted such a document to the client was very much aware of.
- Needless to say such activities are but the usual
manifestations by abusers of trust and followers of the teachings, by examples stated in
'the most vile of works ever to have been presented to the sons of men'. [*Link to an extract from the
work and to a comparison from another, which we invite visitors to this web-site, and
researchers / investigators to consider ].
- One of the many elements and a typical fraudulent in intent
activity in which all engage in with blunt arrogance, use of the Legal Aid facility in
order to convert targeted assets to allegedly legitimate legal costs that invariably are
born of theatrical productions enacted before tenth rate directors of the shows.
|
Ignore it / 'the serf'
? |
| One of
many, to numbers of solicitors who indulged |
- The very solicitors were writing to another firm of solicitors to forget the offer the
other solicitors were making to their client for the damages they caused through breaches
of trust and participation in abuse of the courts facilities as covered and exposed
exclusively at this website. The reasons for their letter to the other solicitor? Simply
BECAUSE the solicitors were expecting of the taxpayers to make good the damages the other
solicitors caused to the client, care of the negotiations that were progressing at the
Court in Strasbourg.
[*Link to the other letter in the left margin of another page,
*Link also to facts / realities stated on affidavit (below) for an eye opener
].
The very solicitors also engaged in abuse of the Legal Aid facilities without ensuring
that their clients had a case in the first instance. The clients, simply the used stooges
who were assured protection for their parts in the constructive frauds on the targeted
landlady, through ABUSE OF THE FACILITIES available to the staff and officers of
Local Authorities as handlers of public funds for and in respect of Housing Benefit.(*Link to an explicit
letter to the Fraud Section at the Department of Social Security - Leeds, Yorkshire)
Intriguing and interesting that the court ordered the solicitors to meet themselves
the costs of what they engaged in without due process. And odd it was NOT that
the process server the solicitor's used asked for directions how to get to the Eastern
Avenue, Essex, the area where the procurer of invisible services resided(s).
In this page, below, a letter to another
solicitor who engaged in the attempts to convert Housing Benefit, rents owing to a private
landlady, to legal costs AS ORGANISED THROUGH criminals operating out of Haringey Council,
as alleged public servants. Needless to say, the police not merely endorsing it all, but
beneficiaries too; one need only consider the financial states of most Local Authorities
burdened with the arranged influx of refugees and asylum seekers to the land of milk and
honey, and fraud aplenty on the taxpaying 'serfs'. (*Link to the letter to the other solicitor
who also engaged in attempts to abuse the Legal Aid facilities)
|
Link to
the very solicitors' parts in organised fraud on the serfs & the blunt
corruption of morons through abuse of the courts' facilities. |
| Link from
here to Chapter 21 from the work of the late Stephen Knight, 'The Brotherhood', his
research on solicitors |
| Fraud,
Corruption & None above the law - headlines (2001). |
- Let the headline news be a lesson to all who are running
around proclaiming the type of rubbish others instil in them as if the law can be made an
ass of, by such morons.
- The headlines suffice and whether the police secured sound
evidence or engaged in some cover-up cannot be treated by morons, as grounds for
themselves acting in contempt of the law and the citizens' duty to report any criminal
activities they have been made / are aware of, or victims of fraudulent court
proceedings..
- Yet we have victims of the type of fraud through abuse of
judicial chair occupation as we expose in the page: http://www.uk-human-rights.org/solfraud.htm
shoving their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
- When the illiterate in law promote rubbish that implies
judicial chair occupants are not subject to the restraints of law and the same MORONS
IGNORE THEIR DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINALS & CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES to the taxpayers, using
idiotic excuses founded on failures by the police then the roles & the standing of
such persons in society MUST BE QUESTIONED BY THE LAW ABIDING.
|
The headlines suffice & whether the
police engaged in a cover-up subsequently or failed to secure prosecutions is irrelevant.
|
Victims
of the constructive frauds through abuse of the courts facilities are ignore by one and
all. It all leads to the states we cover in our pages, care of gross dereliction in public
office by the police. They systematically fail to execute their public duties as their
retainers stipulate because they serve undeclared agendas and other plans for the sons of
men, 'the serfs'. |
- Below the content of the letter in
HTML for links to and from.
- We will include communications that ensued as a result of
the submissions in the letter that was delivered prior to events that raise further
questions as to the attitude of the police in Haringey in respect of criminal activities
that secondary school children engage in as packs of wolves that are let loose on society,
in an allegedly civilised state and member of the European Union.
- Nothing of concern to the persons whose priorities have been
to create the societies of their own making, and as dictated to their conscious through
the teachings the higher ranks among them have been following for decades, which creations
we experienced and know of.
|
 |
 |
- The solicitors and the firm are to be registered
at SolicitorsFromHell.
- Presently the individual solicitor and the firms
he was working for are to be included in a list of firms & named individuals who
failed to act on very clear instructions from their clients.
- The Law Society is to be called to account for
issuing annual Practise Certificates to abusers of trust, to persons who indulge at their
clients' expense and subsequently simply rely on one another PLUS the Law Society and its
clone, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to shove all complaints and evidence
in support of the contemptuous of the law activities of persons it licenses, in the trash
cans of the Law Society's Centres of operations.
- Each firm and individual named and to be named,
exposed, simply defaulted and indulged as each pleased, IN CONTEMPT OF CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS.
- Solicitors engaging in defaults, the usual
scenarios intended to lead to legal costs charges leading to the need to challenge the
Legal Aid Board [*Link
to Legal Aid letter]
- Of the very elements, the creators / editors of
the New Testament informed the sons of men, as of the time when they included the words
attributed to Jesus Christ in The Gospel According to St. Luke. (*Link to the quotes page)
- Visitors / readers should NOTE the challenges
in the letter on the right.
|
Reference to the extract from the work of the late Stephen
Knight, relative to the capabilities and practises by solicitors / legal circles, proof
that they follow teachings by examples stated in the Old Testament (*Link) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evening Standard - London  |
CORRUPT --> Detectives!
CORRUPT
--> Judges!
CORRUPT
--> Lawyers!
CORRUPT
--> Government Ministers!
It all
sounds familiar somehow
Where did we hear of such? |
One reads in our pages of the
common factors 'the serfs' are victims of in pseudodemocracies. The article refers
to 'a contender whose credentials and record of success somehow were by-passed by one who
was instructed to investigate such matters in the UK in 1998. |
Researchers, readers, visitors and victims
of the rampant Fraud & Corruption can access the page where we publish the text, in
HTML for links to and from, by using this *link. |
The capabilities and purposes of the
police are clearly depicted in 'The System' the operatives have been running for far too
long. One thing is for certain, however, the average citizen CAN
work things out, especially WHY AND WHAT FOR. [*Link to plans followed] |
Letter below addressing the
issue of ongoing denial of rights to protection from KNOWN CRIMINALS
& CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
the original text is
presented in italics; additional information, by way of links, etc., is in a smaller and
not in italics font. |
MR. ANDREW YIANNIDES
NDD., ACFI., ATI., FNAAAS
CREATOR OF THE HUMAN-RIGHTS (NGO) COMMUNITY ON LINE
Telephone (Intl.0044) (Local / United Kingdom) 020-8888-9275 email: -
yiandrew@bulldoghome.com
|
4 September 2006
Borough Commander - Haringey Police
London N17
STRICTLY FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION
BY HAND DELIVERY
To be signed for [Image of delivery signed for, later]
Our Ref.: BCHPYECD
Your Ref.: THE LAW & Public Duty.
OPEN LETTER
Dear Mr O’Brien
Re: Attached documents, present and past promotions asserting
reliance on the police.
I attach hereto self-explanatory communication covering criminal
damages to property WITH INTENT.
The reasons for referring the issues covered in the letter are
twofold.
In the first instance, the persons to whom the attached letter was
addressed indulged in a moonlight flight. They defaulted to make good the damages they
caused to the property and to deliver the keys to the flats they had been occupying, They also failed to offer a forwarding address where they could be
contacted. When I telephoned both on their mobile telephones they undertook to return the
keys and in the course of telephone exchanges with Mr. Yasa (Stuart) T-Brown, for the
first time, he asserted that he and his partner had no intention to make good the damages
they caused to the property. He also qualified that, ‘such were their intentions and
that was why they failed to comply with the terms of their contractual obligations and why
they ignored the reminders as covered in the letter, reprint of which is attached hereto.
However, Mr Y (Stuart) T-Browne went further; he asserted that they broke the glass after
they went to the police to ask for assistance, in order to gain access to the ground floor
flat. IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PROMOTIONS the police officer they saw told them to break
the glass; he also stated emphatically that he had kept / noted the number of the officer
who so directed them.
In the second instance, this is not the first time when persons
who indulge themselves and cause ‘criminal damages, WITH INTENT, to the
properties of others’ appear to rely or assert reliance on the police to support
or acquiesce their criminal acts. On each other occasion, when similar
reliance was promoted by such persons, the ‘failures of the police to act as the law
stipulates’ were duly recorded. Reliance on the local police was and has been promoted
one’s too often, Mr O’Brien. I have, over the years, recorded and reported more than
enough in respect of such matters and it was not just issues that rested on breaches and
defaults by the police to execute their public duties in accordance with the evidence
delivered plus the law pointed to the police. Records were kept, when the police did not
just fail to execute their public duties, as the evidence and the law commanded, but
certain officers also went as far at to promote deliberate falsehoods to other government
departments and alleged servants of the public.
I request that you or your personal secretary acknowledge this
communication by return. It is imperative that you write back within 14 days, to inform me
whether or not ANY POLICE OFFICERS would or could instruct / direct persons (of apparent
low IQ, and or moral standing) to act as the ‘criminally motivated Mr. Y (Stuart)
T-Browne & Miss Emma-Louise Finlay appear to have been / be.
Note please that at this juncture my intentions are to either
eliminate the promotions by Y (Stuart) T-Browne as false assertions or to secure
confirmation that the police did / could have acted as he stated to me over the telephone.
The assertions, by Mr. Y (Stuart) T-Browne implied reliance on the police as instigators.
In the alternative the issue could be promotions on reliance for anticipated support by
the police. In the past such matters were part of ‘the law and order as practised by
public servants in Haringey’ and in other London areas, that I kept records of.
I hasten to add that criminal acts were part of the scenarios in
which officers and members of staff, at the Local Authority were more than just
implicated. They were playmates as of inception and planning of the offences; they
were parties in the very execution of the criminal in concept and execution acts.
Such matters are partly exposed in the public domain, on the Internet, where letters and
supporting evidence (as reported / delivered to the police) will presently be released
because enough is enough. [This PAGE and
other pages (*F2), NOW UNDER re-construction, simply using RIGHTS &
ABIDING TO THE CITIZENS' OBLIGATIONS to inform the suckers - the tax paying ill-informed
'serfs' as arranged through abuse of public office and the media barons. The last with
their Intellectual Prostitutes too busy informing the serfs 'where a high profile person,
a Lord, went for dinner because his appetite was not satisfied at home].
It is about time that the police in Haringey cleaned the slates I
have been keeping for far too long. In the circumstances a personal meeting with you will
be appreciated, prior to the submissions and claims I am preparing for delivery to The
Treasury, to the Home Office and to the Prime Minister’s private office. Needless to say
the issue of ‘contempt for the law’ is the overriding element as all (including your
predecessors at Haringey) received more than enough submissions and reports from my person
over a number of years. The issue of maintaining at the taxpayers expense, in public
office, persons who bluntly breach their duties to the public and ARROGANTLY ACT IN
CONTEMPT OF THE LAW THEY ARE MEANT TO SERVE, happen to be issues that are unacceptable and
offensive to ‘decent law abiding citizens’.
For an example of submissions and challenges as received by
Haringey Council (among other Councils) and Ministers, access the page, below, on the
Internet. There I published (among other pages) under what circumstances, how and why the
government was caused to announce the introduction of the Bill of Rights, in 1997.
http://www.government.uk-human-rights.org/workand.htm
Please note that I act also for and in respect of blunt and
arrogant defaults / breaches in public duty to afford to me personally, that which the law
provides to victims of crime.
Andrew Yiannides
Agent For Mrs. D. Englezakis
ENCL. Reprint / copy of letter and attachment as per
text.
To whom It May Concern |
Covered above, the institutionalised -as organised by alleged
public servants- fraud on 'the serfs' & for corruption of morons. Nothing but
contemptuous of the law activities and defaults, care of reckless abuse of public office,
by the Law Enforcement Agencies : Police & Courts. |
Below, stating
on affidavit, the facts, the realities and the practices as organised by and through
alleged servants of the public, within the Republic of Haringey. The deponent, a
victim of ORGANISED CRIMES THROUGH THE LEGAL CIRCLES & SYSTEM, the Law Enforcement
Agencies : the Police & the Courts can testify to the fact that Haringey Borough
Council was & is NOT the only Local Authority from within which such practices and
activities ARE treated as acceptable & normal, as opposed to illegal & indictable.
The activities and events covered by the deponent are but the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to application of the Law by those who are retained and maintained by the State to
serve, allegedly, the law and the citizens. The citizens are simply subjected to such
imposed CRIMES, on the unsuspecting, the naive and the gullible: the serfs who are ALWAYS
directed & advised to go see a solicitor, as Members of Parliament invariably advise
their constituents. Of such advise was one of the targeted victims, Mrs. Despina
Englezakis, the sister of Mr Andrew Yiannides, the beneficiary. AFTER READING &
DIGESTING THE AFFIDAVIT BELOW, refer to the letter from the Legal Aid Board we released in
our pages [*Link from here to it and consider the arrogance of the blunt
abuse of facilities by alleged servants of the law and the citizens]. Thereafter we expect of thinkers to use grey matter and to
recognise that THE ACTIVITIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE in any allegedly civilised State, let alone
one that allegedly rests and is founded on principles of Law and Order. (*F3 : important footnote pointing to a
House of Lords Ruling & Deliberations on elements of law applicable in the states
covered) |
| Affidavit EXPOSING THEM ALL - CIUKU
Enterprises & New World Order Code of Ethics |
- The uninitiated
and victims of Crimes Incorporated, are requested to access and read the extract from the
work of Stephen Knight, 'The Brotherhood' for a grasp of the evil forces at work. [*Link from here to the extract]
- Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights was experiencing the very
elements and was the victim of the practices within the Law Enforcement Agencies and the
courts. For years he had to endure the arrogant contempt for the Law by the police, from
juniors to Senior police officers right up to the private office of Sir Robert Mark, and
his successors, as Metropolitan Police Commissioners of the time the licensed criminals
indulged within the Royal Courts of Justice (1972-76
).
- Many the alleged victim-challengers who promote the powers that be yet fail to
report the criminal activities they were victims of especially after going for and
converting to lovers of the facilities in place for the corruption of morons of their
mentality & adopted new moral code.
|
Page1
 |
Page2
 |
Page3
 |
Affidavit CHALLENGING the idiotic
proceedings instituted by the solicitors who, 'allegedly', had been representing the
tenant who 'allegedly' had been made redundant. For months on end the tenant was not
meeting his contractual obligations while blaming Haringey Council's Social Services for
failing to process an 'alleged' Housing Benefit application. The very Council Services
fully aware of the extensive liabilities just playing along and promoting all manner of
false assertions about the scam / conspiracy they were party to. They simply ARRANGED for
the tenants to benefit from A MOONLIGHT FLIGHT / move to a Council property AS SOON AS THE
DEFAULTER S WERE SERVED WITH a Default Summons. Needless to say the move was in contempt
of the rules that persons who render themselves homeless DO NOT
QUALIFY for Council Housing, & in contempt of sections of the law, the Theft Acts. Party to the whole scam, failed to bring about prosecution of the tenant and his
associates for the VIOLENCE & ASSAULT THAT CAUSED GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM to one
of the intended victims, as arranged by all who took part in ORGANISED ABUSE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE : . |
- We apologise to visitors
for our inability, for the time being, to publish the text in HTML for links to and from
as in other instances, in our pages.
- The content of the affidavit WILL BE RELEASED in HTML as soon as we have
resolved a problem with 'the conversion of documents saved as .doc to the html format.
- For the time being the interested and concerned citizens, readers and
researchers SHOULD click on the thumbnail images of each page and when the full frame
version opens up, use of a programme such as Photo Editor (Microsoft) should provide the
platform to print the images.
|
Page4
 |
Page5
 |
Page6
 |
Page7
 |
- We point visitors, readers and researchers to the copyright stipulations and
conditions at the bottom of all pages at this web-site.
- We do not expect nay of the many charlatans and stooges who contacted Andrew
Yiannides as victim challengers who were/are serving other interests, to consider the
implications IN RESPECT OF THE ORGANISED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY which morons alone are
capable of overlooking & the criminally motivated shoving in the dark corners of the
evil / corrupted minds.
- We urge a visit to the holocaust image of one such 'victim' who was party to
issues covered at... [*Link]
|
Page8
 |
Page9
 |
Page10 |
Page11
 |
- Use of the material should be made with the
to the origins of the material, and no commercial use (for pecuniary gain or profit
should be contemplated) is to be permitted / attempted without license in writing from the
creator of the web-site and the intellectual property owner(s).
- Linking pointing to the material and the evidence at this website is invited,
and encouraged. We will gladly provide / create anchor points, bookmarks for direct links
to material of interest to other web-masters and victim citizens who act as their
OBLIGATIONS to other citizens command.
|
Page12
 |
Page13 |
Page14 |
Page14 as sworn |
| Below the
content of the affidavit in HTML format for links to and from the text
- elements |
| Victims of similar
practices who ARE STATING SUCH ACTIVITIES in the public domain, are invited to contact us
in order that we may arrange for LINKS to and from the respective statements & thereby
co-operate on the issue of OBLIGATIONS TO SOCIETY AT LARGE |
| IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY
COURT |
Case
Number ED604970 |
|
| PLAINTIFF |
Mr Nihal Wijemuni |
AND |
| FIRST DEFENDANT |
Mrs D Englezakis |
| SECOND DEFENDANT |
Mr Andrew Yiannides |
AFFIDAVIT OF ANDREW
YIANNIDES
|
I Andrew Yiannides of 65
Abbott's Park Road London E10 6HU in the London Borough of Waltham Forest Designer /
Technologist and Consultant in Clothing Manufacturing MAKE OATH and say as follows:-
1. Save where otherwise expressed I depose to the
facts set out in this my affidavit from my own knowledge and from documents I had and or
have in my possession, documents I perused and from conversations I had with any other
party referred to herein who in the past confirmed the factuality of what I herein repeat
and I firmly believe to be true because conversations and or matters herein deposed of by
me were not at the relevant times denied and or challenged by such other parties as I
refer to.
2. I am the elder brother
of Mrs Despina Englezakis, the First Defendant, hereinafter referred to as the landlady in
this action. I was instrumental and it was through me that Mr N Wijemuni hereinafter
referred to as the Plaintiff, negotiated with and secured a Shorthold Tenancy Agreement
from the landlady in respect of the rooms on the First floor at 68 Rathcoole Gardens
London N8, hereinafter referred to as The Premises. Throughout all relevant periods I was
and have been acting as agent for the landlady. The Landlady and the tenants signed the
said agreement on 20 November 1994; true copy of the said agreement appears on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the exhibit marked
"A.Y.1" attached to this my affidavit now produced before me. When moving in
with his wife, the Plaintiff stated that his wife Ms P C Congalves was pregnant; in
consideration of that fact the landlady asked me to endorse the agreement with an
additional term/undertaking on her behalf; it was anticipated at the time that an elderly
lady in occupation of the ground floor flat was to move to a newly built old Peoples home
round the corner. For the purposes of this my affidavit Mr Nihal Wijemuni and Ms P C
Congalves will be refereed to as The Tenants, jointly.
3. I beg to refer to page
1 of the said Agreement; it was duly signed by the parties thereto in my presence. The
landlady's address was not endorsed on the said agreement at the time for her intentions
were to walk out of the matrimonial home in Ilford, because of verbal and physical abuses
by her husband. As her elder brother I did and was doing my best, over a long period of
time, to cause her husband to recognise that impositions on any other through violence
were unacceptable in our society. At the time of the signing of the agreement the
landlady's interests had not been registered at the Land Registry and she had been advised
not to abandon the matrimonial home until her interests were so registered.
4. Soon after the birth
of The Tenants child, the tenants announced they were to go to Portugal to visit the
parents of Ms P C Congalves and the Plaintiff asked me and the Landlady to transfer and
use funds from the security deposit held under the terms of the Agreement and he promised
to make good the tenants liabilities upon their return. While the Tenants were away the
Plaintiff asked an uncle of his to stay at The Premises. Upon their return to the United
Kingdom, The Tenants brought along as their guests, two younger brothers of Ms P C
Congalves. Soon afterwards they invited along another brother of Ms P C Congalves with his
pregnant wife. It became apparent at the time, through conversations that The Tenants were
seeking to secure Council accommodation, because of overcrowding and I told the Landlady
there was nothing we could do; it was a matter for Council officials to draw their own
conclusions. It was not long afterwards that the plastic cups to the taps in the bathroom
and later in the kitchen 'somehow' broke. The landlady and I looked for replacements while
these were temporarily fixed; the Landlady and I looked upon such matters as additional
attempts by The Tenants to secure Council accommodation; the Landlady and I agreed that it
was a matter for Council officials.
5. Notwithstanding the
additional working occupants at the premises the Tenants failed to make good their promise
to make their rent payments and rather than replace the security deposit as the Plaintiff
had promised the Plaintiff allowed the rent arrears to build up. From £ 600 in February 1995 these gradually built up to £ 2350 at which time the Plaintiff announced that he was to be
made redundant. I advised the Plaintiff to ensure that if he was not offered alternative
work to register at the unemployment office and to apply for Housing Benefit, and to
produce all necessary documents to the relevant departments. I specifically asked of The
Plaintiff to submit to me copies of his application for I wished to avoid delays and or
mistakes at and or by himself and or Local Authority staff who had built up a notorious
reputation for 'sitting on applications and delaying to deal with such matters for weeks
and months on end. The Plaintiff defaulted to comply.
6. Between February and
May 1996 the Plaintiff remitted to the Landlady two cheques in the sums of £ 500 and £ 300 and by 20 May
1996 the outstanding balance due had risen to £ 3130.00
which was unacceptably high; the relevant entries appear on sheet 2 of the Schedule of
charges and remittances as recorded for the Premises under the respective tenancy
agreement. True copy of the aforesaid Schedule appears on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the exhibit "A.Y.1" attached to this
my affidavit. In the meantime, for over two months the Plaintiff had been asserting
there were ongoing negotiations between his union and his ex-employers in respect of his
redundancy entitlement. By May the Plaintiff also asserted that a solicitor had been
briefed and was handling his redundancy claim and negotiations and that he was
anticipating settlement within a week or two. I asked to see evidence and copies of
correspondence to that effect; none was produced. In the circumstances I was left with no
choice but to chase up myself the Housing Benefit Section at Haringey Borough Council
which I contacted back in March after I was told by the Plaintiff that he had lodged his
application there. My renewed enquiries were treated with contempt by the staff at the
Local Authority and they asserted and relied on promoted 'confidentiality principles
governing the applicants submitted documents'. Staff at the local Authority refused to
state if an application had been submitted and even if one had been they were not obliged
to state so and or to give any information to the providers of the accommodation in
respect of which HOUSING BENEFIT is remitted.
7. It was not the first
time that I had to deal with such mentalities from the staff of the Local Authority and I
decided to take matters further. I demanded for a copy of the application by and from the
Plaintiff. Eventually on 28 June 1996 the Plaintiff furnished me a single page copy Headed
" Haringey Housing Benefits, Documents Received Form". True copy of the
submitted copy document appears on page 7 of the exhibit marked
"A.Y.1" . It evinces a visit and delivery of payment slips on 19 March 1996.
I decided not to pursue the matter further with the Plaintiff, for he could easily assert
'past payment slips', before the claimed redundancy which he used to rely upon in
justification for his failures to remit rents due to the landlady. I was concerned at what
were, on the face of it, further evidence of inordinate delays by staff of the Local
Authority. I telephoned and a young man I spoke to was arrogantly rude to me, so I
telephoned again to obtain the Chief Executive's office and after speaking to his private
secretary I transmitted my hand-written comments and the copies evincing pay slips handed
in on 19 March 1996 and a subsequent visit on 15 / 4 / 1996. I wrote later to the Chief
Executive a letter detailing other matters as well in order to bring home the message that
Local Authority staff fail to co-operate with Landlords and or their agents thereby
creating problems all around and giving rise to many a questions being raised by one and
all.
8. Following exchanges of
letters with the Chief Executive's office the Landlady received eventually a letter dated
3rd July 1996 wherein she was informed for the first time that the Plaintiff had applied
for Housing Benefit to be remitted to the claimants direct; true copy of the said letter
from the Chief Executive's office appears on pages 8 and 9
of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit. The document
also refers to 'Payment is being reinstated..' which matter alone gave grounds to suspect
dishonesties indulged in and covered up all along. I told the Landlady it was time to give
notice and to act. Following letters to the Plaintiff demanding evidence as to the alleged
redundancy and the ongoing negotiations he had been asserting for months, and his failures
to comply, still relying and asserting Council Staff faults I advised the landlady that we
should issue a Default Summons for and in respect of the outstanding and due rents. The
relevant notice was also given to the Chief Executive in a letter by the Landlady; true
copy of the said letter, dated 17th July 1996, appears on page 10 of
the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.
9. The issue of remitting
rents to tenants at the tenants' discretion/direction alone, had been the subject matter
of numerous telephone calls and conversations with Local Authority staff; inclusive of and
with the Secretary of the Chief Executive. The revelation that the tenant had applied for
payments to be made to the claimants and not to the landlady, the provider of the
accommodation, caused me to raise issue yet again with the Chief Executive's office.
Following failures by the Plaintiff and the Local Authority to act and correct the errors
of their ways the Landlady and I proceeded to Edmonton County Court in the afternoon of 24
July 1996 where the Landlady applied for the issue of a Default Summons in the sum of £ 4180.00 inclusive of costs for the Summons. The following
morning, 25th July 1996, I telephoned the Chief Executive's office and informed his
secretary, Miss Jan McNicholas, that a Summons had been applied for and that in accordance
with the information furnished to me and the Landlady by the staff at Edmonton County
Court it would be issued that day or the following day. Miss McNicholas telephoned back in
the afternoon and asserted that remittances had been posted to the Landlady's address. The
landlady and I informed Miss McNicholas that no remittances had been received; following
further telephone calls it was asserted that the tenant had given to the Local Authority
staff the address of the Landlady as 27 Bawdsey Avenue; I pointed out that the landlady's
address, given and used in correspondence for months, was not as 'given by the tenant' and
that references to their correspondence should clarify the issue. In a long conversation
with Miss Jan McNicholas I stated that if indeed any remittances had been sent to the
address as given to the authority by the tenant should be stopped and that the landlady
was not residing at the address where remittances had been directed to by another person
without reference to the landlady. I then explained the landlady's circumstances and Miss
Jan McNicholas requested of the landlady to write requesting cancellation of the stated on
the day 'uncleared giros' and in the meantime replacement giros would be sent to the
landlady at the address where she had been and was residing in Wood Green. The requested
letter was transmitted to the Chief Executive's office; true copy of the said letter
from the Landlady appears on page 11 of the exhibit marked
"A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit. In her letter of the same date
Miss Jan McNicholas confirmed receipt of the Landlady's latter through a post script in
her handwriting. In her letter of 25 July 1996, true copy of which appears on pages 12 and 13 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1"
attached to this my affidavit. In her letter Miss Jan McNicholas refers to three
remittances in the sums of £ 1868.75, £ 187.72 and £ 187.72 stated
to have been posted on 3rd July, 8th July and 22nd July respectively; it was noted that
the first was not sent until the 3rd of July on the very day the Chief Executive's office
was writing to state the tenants had asked for remittances to be made directly to them.
The author states also that she had information the cheques remitted had not been cashed.
10. In the evening of
25th July 1995 the landlady and I visited the Plaintiff to deliver a letter and a
statement of account showing the amount due and owing as had been the basis upon which the
Landlady applied for Default Summons. I spoke to the Plaintiff and explained to him that
if indeed he had received no funds no Housing Benefit over the period March through to
July 1996 he should contact his solicitor upon service of the Default Summons and to ask
his solicitor to serve Third Party Notice on the Local Authority; I also told him that he
might be able to Claim damages arising out of the failures if its staff to deal with his
application if what he had been stating to us was true and factual. I further explained
that the Landlady and myself had been patient and understanding whilst we believed every
word he asserted to us; I informed the Plaintiff that his failures to act after given
notice and after the landlady and I had received letters from the Chief Executive's office
the situation had somewhat changed. True copy of the letter dated 25 July 1996 (evincing
unchecked spelling before printing) and the attached statement of account as was delivered
to the Plaintiff in the evening on the date appear on pages 14 and 15 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my
affidavit.
11. In the mid-afternoon
of Wednesday 29th August 1996 the Landlady received a telephone call from the wife of the
Plaintiff; she stated that she had gone to the Local Authority and that Housing Benefit
staff told her their Landlady was wrong to issue the Summons because they had paid the
rents due. The Landlady informed her that the letters received from the Local Authority
established a catalogue of errors and mistakes and that in any event the cheques allegedly
sent to the wrong address hardly represented half of what was due and owing to her at the
time. As a result of their telephone conversation it was agreed that the Plaintiff and his
wife would secure proof of Housing Benefit remittances banked and the Landlady should
telephone them Saturday evening to arrange to call on them at the premises on Sunday 4th
August when and the Plaintiff would adduce the documented evidence and issue a cheque for
the balance in order to settle the Plaintiff's liability and to avoid entering judgement
in the case before the Court.
12. In the afternoon of
Saturday 3rd August 1996 I received a telephone call from the Landlady. She herself had
received a telephone call and was informed that the tenants on the first floor at 68
Rathcoole Gardens were busy moving out and that over the previous three nights they had
been seen moving boxes and other items out of the premises. I proceeded to collect the
Landlady from her mother's address where she had been staying since leaving the
matrimonial home in Ilford. We went to The Premises, rung the bell and the brother-in-law
of the Plaintiff opened the door for us. I followed him to the first floor while the
Landlady dropped in to the front room at the ground floor to see the old lady living
there. I enquired of the guest of the Plaintiff where his sister and brother-in-law were;
I was told his sister had got her own flat and moved away and he was packing some of her
things to be collected; he said he did not have an address to give me; asked if he knew
where the Plaintiff was he stated he did not know where his brother-in-law was. The guest
took me to the kitchen where I noted he had and was busy packing kitchenware in boxes; the
side and wall kitchen cabinets were empty already. I asked if I could have a look in the
other rooms and I was taken to the front room; the Landlady joined us there; in her
presence I asked again where the Plaintiff and his wife were; the guest repeated what he
had already stated to me; the Landlady asked him if his sister had separated from the
Plaintiff; his reply was "I don' t know my sister has got her own flat now". I
then informed the Landlady that the guest was busy packing items in the kitchen; she
followed me there with the guest accompanying us. I enquired again of him if he knew where
the Plaintiff was; again he stated he did not know. I enquired of the landlady what she
thought of the situation; she said it was obvious the tenants were 'skiving off',
disappearing to destinations unknown in their efforts to evade meeting their rent
liabilities. She then told the Plaintiff's guest that it was not a nice thing to do;
asking her to wait until Saturday, to telephone that evening to arrange a meeting the
following day when the idea was to disappear without meeting their rent liabilities. I
asked him if he knew of the Plaintiff and or his sister having entered any appearance at
Edmonton County Court; he said he did not know; they had told him nothing about such
things; he said he was only asked to pack items for his sister because she got her own
flat; he added that he was going to stay on until he moved to Windsor in a few weeks time.
I informed him that the Landlady and I had made no issue of his presence in the Premises
for well over a year, because we looked upon him only as a guest of those who had secured
a tenancy agreement; however, because of the fact the contracted parties had been and were
moving away changed the situation; he was not party to the tenancy agreement and as such
he could not stay on even if he offered to pay rents in advance, because as far as the
landlady and I were concerned he was party to organised deceptions; I told him that he
would be treated as a trespasser if he was to attempt to stay on. The Landlady and I
decided that we should take action in order to jolt the Plaintiff and his wife to
recognise that they could not simply walk out of their contractual obligations in the
manner they had elected. The Tenants knew of both our telephone numbers and our addresses;
they knew how and where to get in touch with us; there was only one possible action for us
to take to safeguard the interests of the landlady. I told the guest that in the
circumstances the Landlady and I had no option but to take possession of the luxuries the
Plaintiff and his wife could afford to pay while ignoring their rent liabilities which
they had allowed to built up through the unemployment claims and the redundancy
negotiation assertions. I emphasised that the luxuries we were to remove would be held on
lien until such time as the rents owing were paid to the Landlady; the said luxuries are a
new television set, a new Video, a stack of Hi Fi equipment with speakers, and a satellite
receiver. The guest stated he did not wish to get involved with and in police matters and
that he had nothing to do with the situation. The items were placed on the back seat of my
car and I handed to the guest two sheets of A4 paper. I had listed the items taken
possession of and I qualified the reason, the causes and the terms under which the items
would be returned to the Plaintiff and or his wife. As evidence the tenants had been
caught in the act of moving the landlady and I took into the car also two small boxes of
packed (as wrapped by the guest) kitchenware, which it is quite possible I did not list on
the paper I gave to the guest. The Landlady was about to enter the car when the guest
called out the Plaintiff wished to speak to us on the telephone; apparently he had
contacted the Plaintiff with the mobile phone he was holding; the Landlady remarked it was
odd he knew how to contact the Plaintiff considering he was stating earlier he did not
know where the Plaintiff was; she told the guest of the Plaintiff that the time for
talking was over; she stated she would rather have a letter from the Plaintiff; it should
be posted to the address he had known for months and the Plaintiff should also quote the
address where the Landlady and I were to respond. As she attempted to get in the car the
Plaintiff, his wife, their child and a friend of theirs emerged from the corner of the
road and hurried towards the car.
13. The Plaintiff came
over to the driver's door and begun to call the Landlady and myself thieves; challenged if
he had put in any Defence to the Default Summons he said he had passed it to his solicitor
and that I should get in touch with him; I informed him that his solicitor should either
submit a Defence and Serve Notice on the Local Authority as I had recommended, provided
that it was their fault no rents had been received by the landlady, the party he had
contracted with, or they write to state how their client intended to make good his
liabilities after advancing many an unsubstantiated yarn. There was only action for the
Landlady and I, as her agent would advise her to take, if his solicitor failed to act as
was essential and deemed proper in the circumstances; it was to apply for Judgement when
the time for entering a defence had lapsed. Thereafter it would be a matter of public
records with the credit standing of both, him and his wife adversely affected. I told him
that it was matter for him and his solicitor to secure evidence that any of the stated
Housing Benefit remittances posted to the Landlady to the address he had given to the
Local Authority had in fact been received and banked by her. I emphasised that IF the
local Authority had been at fault his solicitor would have written to the Landlady in the
first instance and proceeded to serve Third Party Notice. His landlady and I would be
prepared to discuss the balances due from The Plaintiff AFTER the Local Authority had made
good their remittances stated to have been posted to the wrong address, cancelled and
reissued but never received at the correct address. It was therefore imperative at that
point in time for him to secure either remittances for Housing Benefit and his own
remittance to clear the rent liabilities or an application for Judgement failing
satisfaction of the debt. The Plaintiff ignored my statements carried on calling the
Landlady and my person thieves and demanding the return of the luxuries we had taken
possession of. He threatened to call the police because we stole his hi fi and television
and I told him that indeed it was his right to call upon the police but he should first
read the two papers I gave to his brother-in-law earlier; he walked away and his friend
came over to renew the allegations that the Landlady and I were thieves. I informed him to
read the very two papers the Plaintiff had been asked to read; there followed a long
conversation as to how the matters unfolded over the previous three months; the many
questions that arose in respect of statements by the Plaintiff and staff at the Local
Authority. I heard the Plaintiff calling out to me as he approached the car while he was
crushing the papers his guest gave him; he threw them down on the road. I told his friend
that he should speak to a solicitor because theft implied taking illegally, without due
cause and or reason; taking in order to benefit, to pass on as ones own, to sell, to
profit from. I then informed him that what the Landlady and I had done was to take
possession of, to hold onto on lien, until such time as the debtors met their liabilities;
the notes I had given to the guest, earlier on, were clear; the luxuries would were to be
returned as collected upon satisfaction of the outstanding debt. The friend moved away and
the Plaintiff took over his position by the door which he first hit hard with his knee and
then begun to kick at while banging hard at the window. He started shouting to me to get
out and to fight him like a man. I told him I had no intention to lower myself to his
level; I preferred to act and deal within the law; I pointed out that my notes were clear
and he ought not to discard them as he did if he intended to rely on either a solicitor or
the police they would be referred to the said notes. The Plaintiff became more aggressive
as I repeatedly refused to open the car and get out (I had used the electric central
locking system to stop him opening the doors). His guest walked over by the driver's door
and the two of them begun to bang on the door and the window. At that point I shouted at
the Landlady to call the police; she called out that both she and the others had spoken to
the police and both had been told it was civil matter; I told the Landlady to go to the
police station up the road and to explain personally that matters had by then developed
into criminal damages to property because of the kicking and the banging of my car.
14. The Landlady walked
away and the attackers begun to bang with all four hands on the window; it shattered glass
falling inside all over. The Plaintiff grubbed my right arm which I had stretched out in
an effort to switch the engine on; he pulled it up and over the shattered window and his
brother-in-law went for the keys in the steering column. With my left arm I attempted to
stop the repetitious efforts to grub the keys; in the process the attacker caused the
wiper mechanism to switch on; the wiper hit his right arm which he was resting on the
windscreen; he pushed the wiper back with force; later I discovered the mechanism was
damaged and has to be replaced. By then I noticed that my hand was bleeding badly above
the wrist; I demanded of the Plaintiff to let go of my arm so that I could got to hospital
to have the haemorrhage seen to; he ignored my pl | | |
