Crime - Organised - Institutionalised - Corruption - Fraud - Exposing Human Rights Violations WorldWide 

englishlaw.htm         KEY PageChanges 25 Nov. 2003

English Law - Foundations
hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)JOIN the Community On Line.  State Facts, Publish the Evidence In Your Case and work with others for THE 'Common Cause'. Access clearly stated facts and realities that a member submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Note and use (link to) and as a guide, any similarities in your own marathon runs through the theatres they dare refer to as Justice Halls and courts of law. (*Link, to the Community On Line victim's web-pages).

The Statement of facts / Legal Argument by and for the Chairman of live beat dads Do not fail to note the rights pleaded  (par. 5.a & 5.b) in the case of a relationship gone astray, merely because the other side felt the urge and need for a change of partner. Thereafter ONE & ALL decided to use the innocent children as the vehicle for use in and for the conversion of assets industries, a division of CIUKU Enterprises!

Euro Convention Rights
Article 6.1 Court Hearings
Article 6.2 Court Hearings
Article 6.3 Court Hearings
Article 8.1 Respect 4 Family
Article 8.2 Family Rights
Article 9  Free TO THINK +++
Article 10 Free to Share Info
Article 11 Free JoinAssemble Article 14 No Discrimination

KEY to Page & Site
LETTERS TO - List Page&Site LETTERS FROM -   List P&S 
News ARTICLES - Page List
LAW  Convention Rights
LAW European Union Rights PAGE - ISSUES - List
This PAGE - QUOTES - List
This  SITE - PAGES - List
OTHER SITES - Short List

Page - ARTICLES - List
1. LES Blair-Brown & TAX
2. The Sun - Met. Comm 2002 Site NEWS Articles - List
1. David Blunkett & Judges 
2. D. Mail Free For All 2001
3. Global Role For Britain
4. Blair-Brown Rift On TAX? 5. 12.3 Billion Compensation 6. Brave(!) Sir J Steven QPM
7. Ministers Police & FRAUD  8. EU - Institutionalised Fraud  9. Journalists GAGGED 1993

Page ITEMS Covered-List
1. No Rift Over Tax In Govern 2. Last Year & Now, CRIMES
3. Global Role 4 Britain - PM.
4. Norman Acts Deceitfully
5. The National Scandal 
6. OSS Acted- Solicitor Fined
7. Media IGNORE U-R Rights
8. Norman Records at CoA
9. Police Summons A VICTIM
10. Solicitor Admitted FRAUD
11. The G. H. Scriven- Fiasco
12. HOW The Bill Of RIGHTS

4. Law Society Guilty- Deceit

Site Letters TO - List
1. April 2003 Frank Field MP
2. Dec. 1998 Home Secretary
3. Dec. 1999 Prime Minister
4. May 2000 Hackney Council
5.Jun. 2001 Haringey Council
6. Feb. 2002 The Treasury
7. Feb. 2002 Home Secretary
8. Feb. 2002 Prime Minister
9. Mar. 2002 LonEv Standard
10. Mar. 2003 Law Society++
11 Jul.2003 Work&Pens Minis
12 Jul. 2003 Hackney Council
13 August 2003 ECourtHR
14. Victim Suppressing Facts

Site Letters FROM - List
1. Part- SOLICITOR To Client 2. Prime Minister Nov. 1999
3. CEO HaringeyCouncil 2001
4. Haringey Council Dreamer
5. Police Promoting Just LIES 
6. Norman Seeks Information
7. LCD Expose Police LIES
8. An Illiterate LCDpt. Officer
9. ECourtHR September 2003
10. No D-Notices Do PUBLISH
11. Lord Irvine to G Brady MP

Page NEWS Articles - List
1. L.E.S by David Blunkett 
2. D. Mail Free For All 2001

Page & Site IMAGES - List
1. LES - D Blunkett & Judges 
2. OSS Flood of Complaints
3. Suppresser's 3page Letter
4. Fraud 4 Invisible Refugees
5. 4 Billion by Welfare Cheats
6. 60 Million Legal Aid Cheats
7. 800 Million Soc Sec Fraud
8. Cowboy Lawyers & LCD
9.  DIY Havoc In The Courts
10. Pensioner Sues PM Blair  11. Lord Paul On Family State 12. Corrupt Regime Defeated
13. Extra Funds For Haringey
14. Police Manufacture LIES
15. Case of Scandalising ? 16. No Stars For Haringey  17. Lawyer Flees With 6 Milli
18. Benefit Scam End In Jail
19. Hoffman Fiasco & 1 Milli
20. Judges Condemn Lilley
21. Lawyers Appalling Servi
22. Loophole Rogue Lawyer
23. Letter to Prime Minister
24. MPs And 4 Billion FRAUD
25. Police Exposed As LIARS
26. Complains Again Soli Rise
27. Public 2 Help Choose Jud

Relevant Quotes In Page
1. Democracy Is In Mortal Danger, so long as...
2. Days of the Blind Deaf and Dumb Media Are Over
3. Most abused & Breached  piece of legislation by.....
4. The INTERNET is here and so is Freedom Of Information & Exchange of Ideas.

1. Added Letter to MP   *Link
2. Added Law Reports *Link
3. Edited Introduction & Links
4. Added Important Footnote 5. Importance of Publication
6. More Links & Bookmarks
7. Added Footnote to ITEM 4
8. Link to Abettor Legal Quote
9. 3-page letter SUPPRESSER


KEY to Page & Site
Page Quotes
part 2
part 3


Page Quotes
1. E.U  Law Above - U.K
2. Judicial Precedent
part 3
part 4

part 1
part 2
part 3

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6

undercon.gif (286 bytes) Site reconstruction.Page Revised: June 30, 2012.  
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; it was such a person who had been wasting out time and securing support through many a crocodile tear.  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.  

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, at the top of the left column/margin, below the file name (*....xxxxx.htm *). 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 the page and or in other pages. For further clarification email: webmaster@

The material below is from simple guides that were published, in 1972, by HMSO. The extract below is from the introduction to the 'Origins of English Law'.


THE main sources of English law are legislation and unwritten law (1*). Legislation consists of laws made by or under the authority of Parliament and may be statutes (Acts of Parliament) or subordinate legislation that is to say, `statutory instruments', formerly known as Statutory Rules and Orders (which are Orders in Council, orders, rules and regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under the authority of a statute) or by-laws made by Local Government or other authorities exercising powers conferred upon them by Parliament. Unwritten law consists of common law and equity. There is, at present, no code of English law, although the Law Commission (see p. 36) is working on the codification of certain of its branches. The law today is contained in about 3,000 Acts of Parliament, some thousands of statutory instruments and statutory rules and orders, and over 300,000 reported cases.

Common Law

The common law of England evolved from spontaneously observed rules and practices shaped and formalised by decisions made by judges pronouncing the law in relation to the particular facts before them. It was so called to distinguish it from local laws as well as from any law that was particular or special, such as the canon laws emanating from Rome or the law merchant practised in mercantile courts.

In the Anglo-Saxon period the principles applied in local courts broadly reflected the customs of local communities as declared by the freemen of those communities, who were the judges of the courts. After the Norman conquest in 1066 the King's judges gradually welded the many and varied local customs into a single body of general principles which they applied uniformly, first during their periodic circuits through the shires and later at their meetings in London to hear cases at the royal courts(2*). In order to achieve consistency, the judges placed great reliance on previous judgements given in similar cases, a practice which gave rise to the doctrine of judicial precedent(3*) upon which all law in England, other than legislation, is based. It is likely that the necessary information was at first passed from one judge to another through personal contact, but towards the end of the thirteenth century some unknown persons began to note down and circulate the rulings of judges both on circuit and in the royal courts and also the arguments of pleaders, as barristers (see p. 25) were then called. These notes were contained in Year Books, which covered the period 1283 to 1535 and were forerunners of the published Law reports that have existed in one form or another for more than 400 years

Actions in the common law courts were initiated by writs obtained from the Chancery (the office of the Chancellor and a skilled body of clerks(4*). Originally used by the Sovereign to settle disputes brought to his notice by subjects who had been, or considered themselves to have been wronged, the writ soon developed from a royal command ordering that an alleged wrong should be righted into a direction to an official to hold and inquiry into a complaint or to a defendant either to concede or to answer plaintiff's claim. During the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries a great many writs were issued in a wide variety of forms, and presently they began to shape the main branches of common law and the procedure appropriate to those branches. As time went on a semi-official register of writs appeared, and this came to be regarded as an exhaustive catalogue of the causes of action known to law.

The circumscription of the law within the framework of the writ system (together with a temporary restriction on the office of the Chancellor to create new writs) acted as a brake on the development of the common law. After 1285 litigants were again able to obtain writs, but they ceased to be able to rely upon redress, since the courts of common law had established their right to declare that any cause or action that was not contrary to the established legal rules was unknown to law.


The special imperfections of the medieval common law are said(5*) to have been: as to the law itself, that it did not cover the whole field of obligations; and as to its administration, that it had no means of extracting the truth from litigants (since it relied on documents and refused to listen to the parties themselves), that its judgements were not capable of being adapted to special circumstances, that its process in the course of a suit was ineffective, and that even a successful suit might be an empty victory for the winner.

Some people who failed to get satisfaction in the common law courts were, however, allowed to petition the Sovereign or his council (see p. 4). These petitions were handled by the Chancellor who, as well as being `Keeper of the King's Conscience', was the head of the writ office and in this capacity presumed to be acquainted with the general working of the law. At first the Chancellor made recommendations to the council, but soon he began to take decisions on his own initiative and presently petitions(6*) came to be addressed direct to the Court of Chancery rather than to the King.

In certain matters the Court of Chancery was able to enforce rights not recognised at common law (as in trusts and married women's property). In other matters, such as contract, fraud, accounts and partnerships, it was able either to give an alternative and more efficient remedy or to provide a remedy to replace a common law remedy that had been lost. In matters outside its direct jurisdiction, it could use its special procedure (a) to help to determine the rights of parties in other courts by compelling the disclosure of facts and documents(7*), (b) to secure to the plaintiff, if successful, the fruits of litigation, and (c) to protect a third person from injury through the conflicting rights of others. The Court of Chancery exercised an overriding jurisdiction and could prevent proceedings in the common law courts from being made the instrument of oppression either by restraining their commencement or prosecution, or by forbidding the enforcement of a judgement made under them, as the case might require.

In these ways the Court of Chancery afforded an improved means of attaining justice, but this was the extent of the difference between equity and common law. No Chancellor ever attempted to dispute the right of common law judges to pronounce the law, and gradually-as the vigour of the early Chancellors gave way to the more conservative outlook of successors -the Court of Chancery adopted the common law court practice of relying on the process of legal analogy, holding wherever possible to the maxim that `equity follows the law'. The result was that, by the end of the eighteenth century, equity had hardened into a body of legal doctrine as settled as the common law, and the systems had grown so much alike-save that equity dealt with different claims and provided different remedies-that there was little to choose between them, particularly as regards simplicity or speed. By the nineteenth century equity rules had become so involved and technical that long delays were frequent and a dispute involving both common law and equity sometimes took years to resolve.

Reforms were made in 1873 and 1875 by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, which reorganised the courts and provided that, in their new form, all should use and apply both common law and equity. In order to overcome the difficulty that might arise where a judge was faced with two, possibly conflicting, sets of rules, the Act of 1873 laid it down that where rules of common law conflicted with those of equity the latter were to prevail.


The earliest examples of enacted laws in England were the ordinances of the Curia Regis (the King and his council), which, in the early Norman period, was the governing body of the realm. Law-making by Parliament did not begin until the thirteenth century; it was not until the sixteenth century that legislative Acts took the form in which they are cast today(8*) and until the late nineteenth century the amount of legislation was comparatively small. The position began to change after the passing of the Reform Act in I 832(9*) and since the beginning of the twentieth century there has been a very great increase both in the volume of legislation and in its scope. Nowadays there is scarcely any aspect of life that is not, in some measure, affected by it.

Since Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament are absolutely binding on all courts, taking precedence over all other sources of law; they cannot be ultra vires (outside the competence of-in this case Parliament) for, although the principles of natural justice (broadly speaking, rules which an ordinary, reasonable person would consider fair) have always occupied an important position in the British constitution, they have never been defined or codified in the form of guaranteed rights. Thus rights, such as the right of personal freedom, the right of freedom of discussion, and the rights of association and public meeting, which are commonly considered more or less inviolate, are not protected against change by Act of Parliament, and the courts could not uphold them if Parliament decreed otherwise. Acts of Parliament are, in fact, formal announcements of rules of conduct to be observed in the future, which remain in force until they are repealed. The courts are not entitled to question or even discuss their validity-being required only to interpret them according to the wording used or, if Parliament has failed to make its intentions clear, according to certain canons of interpretation(10*).

This principle has no application to subordinate legislation (see p. 2), and it is open to any court before which such legislation may come to decide whether it is intra vires or ultra vires.


1*. In the event of Britain entering into the European communities in January 1973, there will be a further source of law - namely the directly applied law of the European treaties and of the delegated legislation made under them by the community institutions. This law will be of a separate legal order, standing alongside both statute and common law and, in the event of conflict, will take precedence over them.

2*. The courts of Common Pleas, King's Bench, and Exchequer.

3*. Judicial precedent (that is to say, the application of the law to the ascertained facts) binds judges of the lower courts; it also normally binds judges in courts of equal rank, though the House of Lords (see p. 11) declared in 1966 that it would in future be prepared to depart from its own previous decisions where it seemed just to do so.

4*. `The chief clerks were called Masters. The foremost among them was known as the Master of the Rolls and frequently deputised for the Chancellor in his judicial work.

5*. `Halsbury's Laws of England. Vol. X.

6*. `During the fifteenth century these petitions became more frequent, and although initially such relief was spasmodic and dependent on the facts of the case, by the sixteenth century there were, in addition, certain areas of the law where it was usual for the Chancellor to provide relief. However, in contrast to the common law, remedies in equity were discretionary; this is still true today.

7*. `The reliance of the common law courts on written documents for the greater part of their evidence rendered them powerless if a necessary document was in the hands of the opposing party, or contained a mistake, or was lost.

8*. 'Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-'

9*. The first of several Acts of Parliament which reformed the electoral system and extended the franchise.

10*. If, by either of these means, the courts reach a decision contrary to the intentions of Parliament, Parliament must either accept the decision or pass an amending Act. Meanwhile, the decision stands. (Note: We draw our visitors' attention to a very simple case. It covered fraudulent costs imposed on clients by the legal circles. The House of lords ruled on the practices in 1938-39 (*Link to case stated). YET successive governments DID NOTHING for over 40 years, WHILE the judicial chair occupants in the lower courts as blind, deaf and dumb as ever. Law & Order? DEMOCRATIC governance?)  

  Back to HomePage

The creator of this website invites victims to access URrights & join him with other victims to expose & challenge abusers of trust & public office

APOLOGIES to friends and persons who could not access URrights following the recent changes by the providers of the facility ( Andrew Yiannides used to create the presence on the Internet for the group of victims / challengers of abused public services in allegedly civilised societies > PSEUDODEMOCRACIES <.
The changes related to the introduction of charges for the facilities, included the facility for to archive the material at URrights; also the facility to download the archived material to the creator's system (computer) while the creator and his group of friends considered which of the level of charges and service the group was to adopt.
HOWEVER the creator, Andrew Yiannides, WAS UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL and all attempts to engage the providers and their staff in reasonable explanation as to WHY THE FAILURES TO CONNECT / DOWNLOAD from the system THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL, were ignored.
Emails to the Publicity, to the Promotion, to the Public Relations, also to the Chief Executive's Office merited no response whatsoever from anyone acting for
In the circumstances Andrew will appreciate any information related to the problems covered above. Andrew will also appreciate any information relative to exchanges with or email postings, from to existing members.
EXISTING URrights members, victims of the legal system, victims of solicitors and the courts should access the updated pages at .org/solicitors.htm and .org/solfraud.htm by using the links from the list below.

Below pages where we expose known lovers of it all, users and maintenance engineers of the system as is

.org/199dfax.htm .org/1ofmany.htm .org/2lipstalk.htm .org/4deceit.htm .org/absolute.htm .org/abusers.htm
.org/account4.htm .org.actors.htm .org/actors2.htm .org/adoko.htm .org/bankers.htm .org/beware.htm
.org/blunket1.htm .org/chaldep1.htm .org/confraud.htm .org/contract.htm .org/convicti.htm .org/courts.htm
.org/corruptcourts.htm .org/crimesin.htm .org/dreamers.htm .org/evesused.htm .org/evilones.htm .org/famfraud.htm
.org/govolso.htm .org/guesswhy.htm .org/len.htm .org/mauricek.htm .org/media.htm .org/solfraud.htm
.org/solicitors.htm .org/someplan.htm .org/someploy.htm .org/thefacts.htm .org/theproof.htm .org/thenerve.htm
.org/twisted.htm .org/uaccount.htm .org/ukmm.htm .org/uwatchit.htm .org/watchit1.htm .org/yourtax.htm
Every single person we name and expose in the above pages elected to ignore THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT (to 'the serfs' = 'the taxpayers'), THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC FACILITIES. All were/are relying on the Intellectual Prostitutes, from within the media, to keep it all in the family closet.
All, as typical twin-tongue hypocrites carry on complaining about the media for failing to report & for suppressing the facts and the realities they allegedly reported to the hard of hearing, to the otherwise committed angels blowing their silent trumpets for decades, all ready and gearing to welcome the expansion of the New World Order.
Of such parts the contributions from and failings of the persons we name and expose, AS IF THEIR OWN SILENCE, THEIR FAILURES  & THEIR BLUNT OBSTRUCTIONS to the work and other actions by the creator of this website, Andrew Yiannides, treated by one and all as if non-existent with the exception when the wily Norman Scarth, set off to abuse the trust he was allowed to benefit from, while his parts and questionable activities / performance were under scrutiny, specifically after HE FAILED to publish the full transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing HE WAS ALLOWED TO RECORD* [*Link from here to the food for thought page created by Andrew Yiannides, in the first instance].
Not one ever bothered to address the issues we expose in the explicit page, despite the fact that we have been pointing all of our contacts, since May 1992, to it all.
Visitors, readers and researchers are urged / invited to access and read the letter which the Hon. Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, Mr. Norman Scarth sent to the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, reproduced in the page .org/4deceit.htm* [*L]
The author's statements, such as 'what for and why seek additional assistance', thereby spelling out his parts as a lover of it all.
Common sense dictates, that he should have directed his request to his partners in deceptions aplenty, one & all engaging in fraudulent misrepresentations AND NOTED TO HAVE, WILFULLY, BEEN SUPPRESSING, FROM THE TAXPAYERS, THE FACTS OF LIFE RELATIVE TO THE RAMPANT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES as the failure of all to co-operate as covered and pointed to at:- [*L]. One and all fallen to the facilities for fraud aplenty on the taxpayers and the corruption of illiterates in law, the conditioned victims of the legal circles & courts who fall to the blackmail element attached to the REWARD for keeping the realities away from the taxpayers; just like the media and the Ministers responsible for the application of long existing law to the criminal activities we cover in our pages, do.
All the while one and all were / are engaging in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page, which page the author of the letter which Mr Norman Scarth sent to Andrew Yiannides, afforded us the opportunity to address the issue of the contributions of his partners and affiliates in fraud aplenty on the taxpayers; despite the reminder one and all, named in the new page simply shoved it all in the dark corners of their devoid of grey matter skulls, their perverted / corrupted mind(s)

On Sunday morning, the 19th September 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the Liberal-Democrats in the course of the BBC TV politics programme, spoke of the coalition government's commitment to address the element of waste and fraud through the public services sector. We trust and hope that the elements we expose in our pages and the parts adopted by the conditioned victims of the legal circles, the persons who engage in PROMOTING & EXPANDING THE ONGOING CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS, THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES, will be on the top of the list of government priorities.
Visitors, readers & researchers are urged to access the letters to Minister Frank Field [*L] after he had been directed by the Prime Minister to think/do the unthinkable.
Link also from here [*L] to the explicit letter to the Home Secretary in December 1998 with submissions arising out of the RAMPANT HOUSING BENEFIT FRAUD
On Tuesday 23rd November 2010, 'the Guardian' in its Comment & Debate page carried an article by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. In the evening of the same day the Deputy Prime Minister addressed a large audience at Kings place in respect of the government's changes on university students fees / loans.
Access from here the page where we reproduce an image of 'the Guardian' article & consider the simple fact that we, alone, have been asserting and proclaiming our objections to the theft of funds from the national budget leading to the ever-increasing annual deficit in the state's balance of payments.

ACCESS: (For an important message at this Community-on-Line web-site) & thereafter, access also the realities as submitted and lodged at the European Court for Human Rights covered at (Judge instigates Fraud On Tax Payers - he knows not the difference between 'imposed' & 'no undue influence'). APOLOGIES FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THIS WEBSITE. It appears that the beneficiary of the work, both for applications to the courts in the United Kingdom and the submissions to the ECoHR* [*Link from here to the Statement of Facts submitted to the ECoHR]. The beneficiary arranged with the providers of the free web space to erase the Intellectual Property of Andrew Yiannides, the founder of the human-rights Community-on-Line, without any reference to the creator of the website and owner of the Intellectual Property!
All visitors, serious readers and researchers are urged to access and read the arrangements in place FOR CORRUPTING THE MORONS who fall prey and victims of the legal circles / the abused courts facilities in all allegedly civilised PSEUDOdemocracies care of the CASH REWARDS to the morons who agree to join the club by accepting the rewards on offer through the European Court of Human Rights under the conditions stipulated as the evidence we point to clarifies and qualifies at:-
Copyright subsists on all material in our web-site, owned by the authors of same.
Visitors can refer to these pages in any non commercial activity, so long as attribution is given as to source. License to use, for commercial or other specific use of the material, shall have been secured in writing first, from the owners of any property and material from these pages. No material shall be reproduced in any form and by any means without prior agreement and or license in writing from the copyright owners. The Press are invited to contact us if they wish to publish material in the Public Interest, As We Do.
For any problems or questions regarding this web-site contact:  webmaster