In this page we are to cover,
as we go along, some of the
most common elements that 'the serfs' are faced with, when they seek justice in
to relevant practices that are intended, most definitely, to obstruct justice and to deny
rights which, to all intents and purposes are assured in law and through International
Treaties & Accords.
no diligent reader / researcher or victim of abuse of Public Office can overlook the arrangements in place. Such 'elements' as the one attached to the
undisclosed 'provisions by judicial chair occupants' happen to be in contempt of all law.
Thereby the criminals who ARE in control establish the fallacy of the promotions about
alleged Democratic governance and alleged rule of law & order, as sold to the
otherwise indoctrinated and misled citizens by the Hypocrites and Sycophants who ARE in
control in all pseudo-democracies.
Listed below some typical
examples attached to and arising out of blunt activities that are intended, by the
reckless Organisers and Managers of 'Crimes Incorporated United Kingdom Unlimited -
(CIUKU) Enterprises', to defraud and cause damages to the citizens:
Hearings behind closed
doors in breach of Article 6 of the European
Convention and the most fundamental of principles clearly stipulating that JUSTICE SHOULD
BE SEEN TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURTS.
Issuing court Orders
and delivering judgements in contempt of the evidence
presented to and argued before abusers of public office who purport to be acting as judicious persons while in occupation of judicial chairs. (Seen to be relying on
charlatans and illiterates, other Public Servants, to promote the type of waffle you
can link to from here).
occupants acting in contempt of the law applicable to the
evidence and the issues / matters / events presented to and argued before them.
occupants, acting in breach of their Judicial Oaths through
contempt of the law applicable to the evidence presented to them.
occupants entertaining all manner of unsupported assertions and allegations. More often
that not they obstruct the other side, in the matters litigated before them. The citizens
who ARE thus targeted, for any number of reasons, ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE
ASSERTIONS / LIES / FALSE EVIDENCE, and such 'abuse of judicial chair occupancy' happens
to be in contempt of the right to fair hearings and another
fundamental principle, that of 'due process'.
occupants Striking Out actions and cases, properly and
legitimately instigated, WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE OR REASONING in support of such abuse of office.
occupants, entering wrong judgements by denying due process to applicants, thereby setting
the wheels in motion for 'need to appeal' their
reckless attitude to the citizens who thereat have imposed upon them the necessity to
appeal while in search of 'abducted justice'.
Court office staff deliberately delaying the issue
and or posting of court orders, even posting such to
wrong addresses WITH INTENT, thereby introducing the most common of frauds, by the
legal circles, on 'the serfs' who are thus put on the road to the most common of
'obstructions and perversion of justice', the 'need for leave to appeal out of time'.
Delaying with intent -
Obstructing execution and delivery of Transcripts especially of misconducted court hearings(!),
proceedings before judicial chair occupants who act in breach of judicial oaths, and in
contempt of the evidence and the law. (NOTE: We will release evidence in respect of an invitation to court whereby the
alleged hearing was for an application to impose on the victims allegedly legitimate legal
costs, attached to and arising out of fraudulent court proceedings. The victims appeared
to be hell bent on following through with the constructive frauds in contempt of the law
and all ready to act as many of the lovers of the system who were introduced to us by *the
usual fraudsters club recruits* and *the maintenance engineers* who are running around
*promoting the system as is* and NOT CHALLENGING OR EXPOSING THE CRIMINAL IN INTENT
Officers of the Court (solicitors are), clerical staff and 'process servers', employed/retained by the courts, making false statements as to their parts in the processing
and execution of the business of the courts.
You read, in our pages, of the
'arrangements in place for the constructive frauds on the 'serfs', through the provisions of Article 38 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. Consider, therefore, why there exist among those who
- visit the newsgroups,
- blow their trumpets about 'the system',
- proclaim their disaffection and
- 'disgust at the practices' in the courts,
- assert personal knowledge and experiences,
- YET FAILED AND OR FAIL TO PUBLISH ANY EVIDENCE
- in ANY WEB-SITE, through which to
- inform and prove to
- Mr and Mrs Average of that which they profess
- WHO BUT THE REAL SHYSTERS, are party to the above
fraud on YOU, Mr and Mrs Average?
http://www.uk-human-rights.org/comonlin.htm and consider stating the facts of your
own experiences in a personal web-site / web-pages. Join with others and work together in
exposing and challenging all offending Public(!) Servants(?) who misconduct in public
JOIN the COMMUNITY ON LINE if
you have been cheated out of your rights, by the legal circles and or were denied
protection, under the law, by the police.
If you have the evidence against
the offenders, you can publish it in your personal web-site as your rights in law provide.
Be not fooled by planted mischief-makers and read of the directives from THE authority
Every citizen is duty bound to
report crime and if the police ignored or ignore you, USE YOUR RIGHTS, EXPOSE THE
OFFENDERS who ignore the law.
Visit the Stephen Lawrence page
(Link) and note how Parliament provided for your rights. Yet, our Law Enforcement Agencies
simply ignore such provisions, and act as contemptuous of your rights as a member of the
*human-rights.org * Community On Line * has pleaded and lodged at the European Court on
Human Rights. Through defaults and omissions, the police / authorities fail (Link) to protect you and in
fact they actually torment and torture you, the victims.
READ OF SUCH PROVISIONS and
exercise your rights! Challenge and EXPOSE THE VILE OFFENDERS, who endorse and
promote crime through defaults and omissions in the purported exercise of their public
duties, AS YOUR SERVANTS.
"Do for, by and with yourself that which
satisfies you so long as that which you do does not infringe upon and or violates the
rights of any other". © AY 1972
BE GUIDED BY AUTHORITIES WHO
DEFINED YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS DERIVED FROM AND DEFINED AS : "THE CONVENTION
IN LEGAL TERMS".
The development of and FOR THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, in modern times begun with the Magna Carta, in
Europe. Below, in as simple as can be defined, the principles of rights and freedoms,
clarified by Mark Janis, (fellow) Richard Kay (professor) and Anthony Bradley (professor).
- 1. Men are born and remain free
and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness.
- 2. The aim of every political
association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man; these rights
are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
- 3. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no
individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefrom.
- 4. Liberty consists of the power to do whatever is not injurious to others; thus the
enjoyment of the natural rights of every man has for its limits only those that assure
other members of society the enjoyment of those same rights; such limits may be determined
only by law.
- 5. The law has the right to forbid only actions which are injurious to society.
Whatever is not forbidden by law, may not be prevented, and no one may be constrained to
do what it does not prescribe.
- 6. Law is the expression of the general will; all citizens have the right to concur
personally, or through their representatives, in its formation; it must be the same for
all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal before it, are equally
admissible to all public offices, positions, and employment, according to their capacity,
and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents.
- 7. No man may be accused, arrested, or detained except in the cases determined by
law, and according to the forms prescribed thereby. Whoever solicits, expedites, or
executes arbitrary orders, or has them executed, must be punished; but every citizen
summoned or apprehended in pursuance of the law must obey immediately; he renders himself
culpable by resistance.
- 8. The law is to establish only
penalties that are absolutely and obviously necessary; and no one may be punished except
by virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offence and legally applied.
- 9. Since every man is presumed innocent
until declared guilty, if arrest be deemed indispensable, all unnecessary severity for
securing the person of the accused must be severely repressed by law.
- 10. No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided
their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
- 11. Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the
rights of man. Consequently, every citizen may speak, write, and print freely, subject to
responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the eases determined by law.
- 12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen necessitates a public force; such
a force, therefore, is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular
benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
- 13. For the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration a
common tax is indispensable; it must be assessed equally on all citizens in proportion to
- 14. Citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or through their
representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to supervise
its use, and to determine its quota, assessment, payment, and duration.
- 15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an accounting of his
- 16. Every society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation
of powers not determined has no constitution at all.
- 17. Since property is a sacred and inviolable right, no one may be deprived thereof
unless a legally established public necessity obviously requires it, and upon condition of
a just and previous indemnity.
Consider the above in the
context of our founder's proclamation on true Democracy and do not fail to note the
obvious : Society,
CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE OF EVERY PUBLIC AGENT AN ACCOUNTING OF HIS / HER
- When the representatives of the citizens
- fail in their public duties and
- assume the right to dictate to, instead of
serving, the citizens,
- the citizens can and should "take the law in
their own hands" and
- the citizens can "use it in accordance with
the provisions the representatives put in place".
- There is no need for
- abuse of body and
- misuse of mind.
- There is no need for revolution and bloodshed.
THE CITIZENS HAVE THE MEANS TO
EXPOSE AND CALL TO BOOK ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE STILL DREAMING OF SERFDOM DAYS.
- It is time for public servants to cease behaving
as Lords and Masters.
- It is time for them to 'humbly serve their
employers, the citizens' AS THE LAW PROVIDES.
THE CITIZENS HAVE THE WORLD JURY
TO RELY UPON FOR DELIVERY OF JUSTICE OUT OF THE BONDS HER ABDUCTORS AND RAPISTS HAVE BEEN
HOLDING HER ALONG WITH DEMOCRACY.
- It would appear that
- the media barons and their stooges
- know not the true meaning of either.
- Through defaults and omissions to publish and
- deal with the facts,
- the realities and
- the truth
- THEY helped develop that which they expect of us
to deliver to our children.
- THEY WERE AND WILL REMAIN DREAMERS
- SO LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THEIR SILENCE AND
- AS LONG AS THEY IGNORE THE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN
Founder *human-rights* (NGO)
London - United Kingdom
Below the Case as STATED /
PLEADED at the European Court for Human Rights.
- Everything was pleaded in the stated facts but
one element was deliberately not pointed to in the violations, as pleaded for
professionals whose prime duty is to apply FACTS & EVENTS STATED - established /
proven, to applicable law.
- Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of the facility
for citizens : human-rights.org had his own plans for abusers of Public office.
- The facilities on the Internet and the Community
on Line were never intended for serfs or for 'the sold to the system as is' fraudsters and
- Link please to the explicit letter/FAX to the court (in the main window / frame of the page you are linked to from
here - it is not the letter, in this page, to the Court Manager in Plymouth - UK ) (ECoHR) and note the court's immediate response (in the margin / left window).
- In due course we will disclose what was / has
been in line for ALL abusers of public office and all SOLD TO THE SYSTEM charlatans, dreaming fraudsters and conniving shysters who contacted Mr Yiannides of their own
steam or as contacted thereafter and directed, as controlled and or as blackmailed
- USE OF THE LAW as is, was and remains the spring
board FOR HUMAN-RIGHTS. (Never overlook the fact
that the law is no ass).
- The media barons and the Intellectual Prostitutes
they retain and control had and have their plans for the sons of men.
- Mr Yiannides (one of the sons of men targeted)
has had his own plans for 'humans' and not the type of zombies and morons who were sent
along through whom to prove NOT WHO, but WHAT ELEMENTS ARE USED BY THE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE
BEEN IN CONTROL FOR FAR TOO LONG in allegedly democratic states that allegedly are founded
and resting on principles of law and order.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. I came to the UK in November 1977. I had no knowledge of the English
language or the Law. I was born in Peru, and grew up under a completely different legal
and social system.
2. I met Mr Marcus Parker-Rhodes, a British Citizen, and we were
married on 5th July 1980, while I was studying English in the UK and working as an Au
3. One child was born of the marriage on 1st October 1982.
4. By 1987 I was made aware that my husband was involved in an
extramarital relationship and in June 1988 my husband and I agreed that there was no
possibility of change in the situation and that we should proceed to a divorce. Both of us
retained solicitors to that effect
5. The solicitors referred our case to the Family Law Bar Association
for settlement of and property adjustment and for financial arrangements in respect of our
child. We were invited to sign a consent document to the effect that we would abide by the
decision of the FLBA. However, as stated below, and not until I collected the file of
documents from my solicitors, in June 1998, the said document was nullified by the fact
that both my husband and I did not accept the FLBA decision. The aforesaid nullification
of the document was confirmed in letters the solicitors exchanged but was never referred
to me, by my solicitors.
6. Marcus had been living with his girlfriend from 1989 to 1992 (well
over 2 years) and he is still living with her now. She was single and there were no other
children in the new relationship. My husband volunteered and was paying towards our
child's needs and towards the cost of maintaining the house and myself, while I was at
home raising our child, and trying to do some part-time work as a shiatsu practitioner.
7. Marcus was a well-known and established animator who had won several
prizes. He participated in the production of Monty-Python with Terry Gilliam and worked,
also, with Bob Godfrey, twice winner of an Oscar for animation. Marcus had declared
earnings in the sum of £ 24,900 in 1993 at the time of 'the divorce settlement
agreement', allegedly by consent, as referred to, and stated herein below.
8. At the time of the divorce I was earning £ 2500 a year from
occasional work while I was a full time mother and home-keeper.
9. Marcus had a private pension fund. He was paying £160 per month
10. The matrimonial home was an end of terrace Victorian 4 bedroom
property with a garden backing onto Highgate Woods; there was no mortgage or a mortgage
charge on the property. The property was subdivided in two, the ground floor was a 2
bedroom self-contained flat in a good state, and the first floor arranged as a studio.
11. My ex-husband's brother was the owner of a separate self-contained
4 bedroom flat in the same building. There were separate leases for the two households.
12. I carried out also extensive renovations to the property (our
matrimonial home) over several years and Marcus did not get involved in the work, as he
declared on affidavit in the course of the divorce negotiations / proceedings.
13. In the course of the divorce proceedings and settlement
negotiations, Marcus declared, also on affidavit, that he had inherited more than
£100,000 from his family.
14. We had agreed on the valuation of the furniture at £ 12,000 on a
15. Throughout I did have, I was to have, the responsibility of looking
after the child of the marriage, as had been agreed that I was more suitable for that
effect, and there were no restrictions on access rights, by the father, except the ones
imposed by his girlfriend/partner. Marcus's girlfriend Gwenda Foord had no children.
16. The settlement agreed, by the legal teams, was that I should
receive a lump sum of £45,000 and support with an additional £ 30,000 towards a mortgage
for acquisition, of a property for the child and I to move to. It had also been agreed by
the legal teams, that £45 per week, for the child's maintenance should be paid by the
father. The terms implied that the child and I should leave the matrimonial home where the
child was born and had grown up in with her two cousins with whom we shared the garden and
all common facilities at the house. This seemed too harsh for the children, at the time,
and my ex-husband's brother and his family concurred with that view.
17. I considered the proposals as unacceptable and improper on the
grounds that the child and I would be separated from the immediate family circle and that
any move by the child and I would, was to, entail additional costs and disruption problems
in respect of the child's education and environment.
18. I also considered the financial arrangements, as proposed, to have
been inadequate. As part of the ongoing attempts to reach a satisfactory and fair
settlement we secured a valuation of the matrimonial home, the leasehold registered in
Marcus' name, from estate agents. We had agreed the valuation. As a consequence there had
been an offer, from a cash buyer, who was ready to buy the leasehold at £115,000.
19. My solicitors persisted that the arrangements they negotiated were
the best they could secure under the circumstances. As a result I had no option but to
seek second opinions from other solicitors. A number indicated that they were in agreement
with my concerns that:
19.1. the proposed financial settlement was inadequate
19.2. any move from the property, the child and I were already in possession of and
living in, would be:
19.2.1 unsettling for the child
19.2.2 and entail additional costly outgoings in terms of commissions and legal fees.
20. I had spoken at length to a number of solicitors. One of the
solicitors, who invited me along after indicating that she shared my concerns, was the
solicitor that I subsequently instructed. In the course of the meeting(s) that led to the
change over and the transfer of my papers/case I was asked to sign papers. I was not
surprised at the suggestion that my new solicitors' team should first renegotiate what the
FLBA had put forward as a settlement agreement.
21. My new solicitor knew, as of the first instance when I contacted
them and thereafter, that I had not agreed with the terms of the negotiated settlement
that had been promoted and presented to me by the previous firm who were representing me.
I refused to succumb to their pressures for several months. Ms. Coubrough, the solicitor
handling my case, told me in the course of our meeting on 22 September 1993 that, by law,
I had to follow the FLBA opinion, as Mr. Van Endem, my ex-husband's solicitor, also
22. The settlement provided also that in the event that I entered into
any relationship, my husband would withdraw funding in the event of my child leaving the
new home or if I went to live with another man or in the event of my child reaching the
age of 18.
23. I was told, in no uncertain terms by my Solicitors, that they would
abandon me and that she would block the Legal Aid facility, if I did not accept what they
presented to me as an acceptable financial arrangement.
24. Furthermore my solicitors were threatening me, orally and in
letters too, with 'justifiable rights in law' that my husband had, as they asserted, which
he could use in order to evict me from the matrimonial home. In the circumstances I began
to search for alternative accommodation. I found a dilapidated flat that was all I could
afford, under the agreement being imposed on me and I informed my solicitors accordingly.
By seeking and aiming to impose such settlement conditions on me, my Solicitor (Ms
Coubrough) put me in a state of severe undue hardship. It was an utterly unnecessary thing
to do, which I now recognise as calculated and intentional, leading to my having to
capitulate to 'wrongs as imposed on me, that no one would be prepared to address within
the United Kingdom'.
25. The agreement that I was caused to sign, under the conditions and
circumstances stated above, was presented to the court for endorsement and issue by the
court. I was neither present nor was I made aware of how and when the court was invited to
endorse what my solicitors and their counterparts created, as 'the best settlement under
26. I moved with our child to the new property, which I bought for £
65,000 with the £45,000 and the 'additional' loan/charge facility of £20,000 that Marcus
secured on the property, subject to the terms and conditions that were imposed on me by my
Solicitors. Marcus secured the funds through a mortgage facility and charge on the
27. Thereafter, whenever I talked to barristers and solicitors, I was
always told, 'that although I appeared to be right in my argument that it could not be
logical I was offered less than half of the worth of the matrimonial assets', nonetheless
I was stuck with a Consent Order. On each and every occasion I was told there was nothing
that could be done.
28. To meet our living costs and essential outgoings I secured
part-time work. I also applied for assistance from the state because, in my circumstances
I qualified. As a result the Child Support Agency, that was set up by the government to
look into and assist in circumstances, contacted me. The Child Support Agency were given
full particulars and all necessary information regarding my situation and what I knew
regarding the child's father. They advised that as the father was already paying £45 per
week, towards the child's needs, and as that was not part of 'the court settlement' my
child and I had to survive on whatever my income and assistance came to.
29. In 1996 my contract of part-time work came to an end I contacted
the authorities about the change of my circumstances. Other state officials accordingly
notified the Child Support Agency and their officers contacted me. All they did for us was
to cause and bring about changes, such as my husband stopping his £45 weekly payments.
30. Throughout 1996 to 1998 the child and I had to survive under very
difficult circumstances, on state benefit. The Child Support Agency never considered the
father should be made liable for any regular payments for our child. He was in receipt of
rental income from the property that the child and I were caused to move out of, and he
was also benefiting from a substantial income through his work. During that period I would
speak, of our circumstances, to friends and acquaintances and to any contacts they would
recommend. Eventually I decided to act on the suggestion of a friend.
31. I wrote to the solicitors and I asked for the file of papers
pertaining to the divorce case they handled and settled for me. They arranged for me to
32. As I went through the papers contained in the file I kept coming
across documents covering issues that were never referred to me, by my solicitors. I spoke
of the issues to the friend who advised me to ask for the file and I explained the
situation attached to papers and documents pertaining to the divorce matters the
solicitors handled and dealt with that the solicitor never referred to me. His suggestion
was that I should seek legal advice, in the circumstances.
33. A can of worms had opened up and none of the solicitors I
contacted, in order to discuss the issues, was willing to act for me or to represent me
and take my case to court.
34. I contacted solicitors to whom I gave full particulars as my friend
had explained. Solicitors applied for Legal Aid assistance because of my circumstances and
apart from a 'limited to barrister's opinion certificate' I was denied proper
representation on the issues the documented evidence covered.
35. One of the solicitors, whose services I managed to retain, Mr.
Patel, delayed an essential meeting with a barrister for more than a year. When eventually
that meeting took place I was told by the barrister, in 1998, that it was too late to take
any action, to remedy the situation, because of provisions under Limitation Acts. Through
such defaults and omissions I was being used, a pawn at the mercy of the legal experts.
This led me to start visiting in earnest libraries in order to look up serious issues. I
needed to know about 'statute barred' and anything that I could come across that could
cover the activities and the documented events such as my solicitor engaged in, without
reference to me, while in control of my affairs.
36. I was being denied proper representation on the issues the
documented evidence covered and I needed answers and legal justifications to the problems
I was lumbered and faced with.
37. In conversation with Mr Patel, I was told (in what was a slip as
opposed to a direct statement) that it appeared to have been a case of misconduct by the
solicitors. I sought explanations but the solicitor changed the subject. At that point I
recognised that his slip could explain why no one was prepared to act for me. In the
circumstances I spoke to friends who suggested that I should do some serious research on
the issues in my local library or one that had a good legal section.
38. Because I had been told that the issues could amount to
'misconduct' by the solicitors, I needed to be better informed in order to contact the
governing body of solicitors, the Law Society. In the circumstances I begun in earnest to
visit regularly libraries in order to research the issues and I followed up every
discovery, from precedent case law to case law such as were covered in chapters attached
to relevant sections of the Limitations Acts.
39. When I contacted the Law Society, I was put in touch with the
Office for Supervision of Solicitors. Later I discovered that the Law Society, itself,
maintains the O.S.S. I had been naive and I recognised that issue. In the matter of
reliance on legal representation for and in my interest, by solicitors and barristers, I
was fast becoming aware of the simple realities. I soon recognised that I was even more
naïve to expect and or to rely on a body maintained by the Law Society (the union
protecting the interests of its members) to maintain the OSS in the interest of the
40. I soon discovered that the Law Society and the Office for the
Supervision of Solicitors would not be considering, favourably, my rights in law.
Protecting their members through contempt of the evidence would also lead to nothing but
court action against their members, and that would create work for their members and their
41. I was left with no option but to give notice to the Solicitors
Indemnity Fund and with my little knowledge and understanding of the legal technicalities
I decided to act. I issued a writ against the solicitor who took advantage of my luck of
knowledge and understanding of the matters they clearly misrepresented to me, and more
than likely as I saw matters at the time, also to the court.
42. Following service of the writ the solicitor entered an appearance
and filed a defence pleading that the case should be struck out because the Claim was
statute barred. An application to that effect was issued and served with supporting
Statement of Facts. The documents were served on me and I responded by submitting my own
Statement of Facts challenging the solicitor's deposition. In the course of a preliminary
hearing, which the solicitor failed to attend, the Master heard my arguments that were
based on Law and the evidence that I had uncovered while going through the file. Simply
put, the solicitor had concealed and failed to disclose to me a number of very relevant
issues and even actions the solicitor took without disclosing such matters to me. Those
elements qualified and clarified the fact that the position could not possibly ever be
presented as the solicitor addressed and submitted to the court. The Master issued
directions and stipulated that the solicitor should attend court in person in order for
the court to deal with the matters before it.
43. As my understanding and knowledge of law gradually increased and I
begun to understand more and more of the complexities on the conduct of my affairs by the
Solicitors I also begun to recognise that I should amend my pleadings and Statement of
Claim. I went to the Royal Courts of Justice and I attended the Practice Master for
assistance and directions. I did as I was advised and I served notice of my intentions on
the Solicitors representing the Solicitors. They wrote back to state they objected, so, I
prepared and delivered an Application, as I had been told by the Practice Master and I
proceeded to the Royal Courts of Justice, the Masters' office, for the issue of the
Application by the staff.
44. The bundle of papers that I subsequently prepared for the court was
re-organised by the Solicitors representing the Defendant Solicitor. The documents in the
bundle that I collected, from the court subsequent to the hearing before HH Justice Rimer,
evince my actions and my need for the court to address all issues, in accordance with the
evidence at hand. However the Amended Statement was not included as submitted by me,
indicating the fact that the bundle of documents had been tampered with.
45. Although the Master directed that the Solicitor who had been in
charge of my affairs, should attend court for the adjourned hearing of the Solicitors
application and my challenges as to the facts and merits of my case, the Solicitor again
failed to attend. The Master pointed to the fact that if arrangements were made quickly,
he would be able to sit on the case before the summer vacation. It was essential he stated
that the court dealt with the issues and to determine if there was a case to be answered,
as my submissions and the precedent cases I referred to that were covered in law books I
researched, on the issue of statutory limitations.
46. I attended court with a friend in order to secure a new date for
the adjourned hearing as requested and directed by the Master. My application was for the
matter to be set down before the Master (who had familiarised himself with the case) as he
indicated. Somehow the Defendant's Solicitors were informed by the court staff, and
between them they organised and secured an emergency hearing, during the vacation period,
to be heard by a Judge on the grounds that the Defendant Solicitor was leaving the
47. I attended court for the purposes of the preliminary hearing with
my daughter and the friend who acted as my litigation friend for the occasion. He had
assisted me, also, to put the papers in the solicitor's file, in chronological order, and
to prepare a list of the documents. Mr Yiannides, from the human-rights non-governmental
organisation, whom I contacted on the Internet, attended the hearing also. He was passing
notes, to me, covering observations on the proceedings and guidance on the developments at
48. Barrister appearing for the Defending Solicitors was anticipating
of the Judge/court to deal with the issues, by way of arguments as submitted to court in
writing, and without oral examination of the statements submitted. After extensive
representations on both parties, HH Justice Rimer adjourned for lunch and announced that
for the purposes of the hearing, oral examination was important. He further clarified that
he had decided that I did have the right to cross-examine the solicitor who was in control
of my affairs.
49. Extensive reference to the bundle of documents, filed at court and
served to the Defendant Solicitors, was made throughout the hearings. The solicitor did
not denounce or challenge the authenticity of the documents in the bundle including the
letters sent to me and the notes that were in the file handed to me in June 1998.
50. When the court reconvened for the oral examination of the Solicitor
I handed to the defending Barrister and to the court a true photocopy of one of the
precedent cases that I came across while researching points of law. It covered the issue
of limitations, and in particular 'as of when time begins to run'. The case made it very
clear that in so far as higher authorities were concerned "time begun to run as of
when 'an authority on the subject confirmed the wrong suffered by or done to the
51. At the conclusion of the hearing HH Justice Rimer announced that he
was to refer to the precedent cases both parties relied upon and to the notes he made,
also to the bundle of documents lodged at court before delivering Judgement. I was given
to understand that it was implied that judgement would be delivered later in writing. The
person from human-rights clarified that judgement had to be delivered in open court. HH
Justice Rimer, in fact, proceeded to stipulate that the parties would have to appear
before him early in the morning on the Friday, the last day he was sitting at the Royal
Court of Justice for the vacation period.
52. I attended Court, early Friday morning, with my litigation friend.
I was shocked to hear that his HH was dismissing my claim and endorsing the solicitor's
application. The judgement I looked upon as in contempt of the facts and the evidence in
the bundle of documents perused during the hearing and cross-examination. His honour also
elected to ignore the intimidation, the coercion and even the threats bordering on black
mail that had been established in so far as witnesses attending the hearing could
recognise and ascertain. The submitted documented evidence established and support my
53. I telephoned Mr Yiannides of the human-rights non-governmental
organisation, who attended 3 of the hearings, including the preliminary hearing. Like me,
he was shocked. He recommended that I should apply immediately for a transcript of the
judgement deliberations and to serve notice of appeal. He emphasised that the transcript
was crucial and that I should make it clear that it was essential for the purpose of the
appeal and to instruct solicitors who would be retained for that purpose.
54. As an assisted person I qualified for the issue of the transcript
at public expense. I was faced with obstructions and delays before the transcript was made
available to me. When the transcript was ready for me to collect, from the transcribers,
Mr Yiannides attended me and I was able with his assistance to lodge the essential appeal,
as settled by human- rights, within time. More obstructions and delays followed and
extensive communications were necessary in order to challenge attempts to dismiss my
appeal on technicalities 'created with intent by others'.
55. Because of a very clear conflict in the judgement deliberations it
was crucial that I should secure a transcript of the hearing for the purposes of my
appeal. This was essential even though HH Justice Rimer determined that the agreement
presented to the Judge, for approval by court, as settled by the legal teams, was imposed
on me without input from the court. Nonetheless, in the actual judgement delivered by HH
the words used were "no undue influence" which to me, and to those present at
the hearing, indicated "just reasons to justify the judgement entered", albeit
without reference to any of the facts supported by the extensive documented evidence.
56. Leave to Appeal the judgement was refused and HH Justice Rimer gave
as reasons the opinion that "an appeal was not likely to succeed". In the light
of the aforesaid reasons it became most important that I should secure a transcript of the
whole hearing before HH Justice Rimer.
57. I was being denied the right to the full transcript of the hearing
before HH Justice Rimer, this time by the court staff. HH Justice Rimer elected to block
my right to appeal through his refusal and reasons for refusal. Up to the moment of
dismissal of my Claim and the subsequent obstructions by the court I had been under the
impression that the right to appeal was an automatic right for persons who not only
believed but also had evidence to prove they had been wronged. I therefore considered the
obstructions to my need to refer my grievances to a higher court as deliberate
obstructions in order to deny me access "to unhindered access to court and to
unadulterated Justice". The denial and obstructions to a full transcript of the
hearing, and the obstructions by many in the matter of securing a hearing date for the
purposes of my needs and "Leave to Appeal" I regarded also as intentional and
deliberate. In the circumstances I was advised to apply to the Court of Appeal for an
Order in order to secure the transcript that would support my appeal and establish also
that the documented evidence had been referred to, on the relevant day. The issue covered
in the deliberations of HH Justice Rimer relative to "imposed" agreement was
well founded and his HH Justice Rimer did not fail to recognise it.
58. Extensive communications exchanged with the Civil Appeal Office
resulted with an invitation to the court. The letter informing me of the time and place
was clearly endorsed with the fact that I was to attend court for the purpose of my
application for a transcript of the whole of the hearing before HH Justice Rimer.
59. I prepared an affidavit and exhibits, which I delivered to the
court, as my statement of facts and argument, on the day. I attended court with Mr
Yiannides who had been assisting me ever since the preliminary hearing. On arrival, we
found out that the case had been transferred to another court and was to be heard by
another Judge than the judge it had been assigned to, as listed and published for the day.
We were expecting my daughter to attend the hearing and a litigation friend. Mr Yiannides
went to request of the information service, at the entrance to the court, to inform
visitors, who seek assistance of and about the change of venue and to direct anyone
enquiring about my case to the new venue.
60. Another case was in progress when we entered the court and we
waited for my case to be called. When Mr Yiannides, my Litigation Friend, and I proceeded
to our places at the applicant's area, the court usher came over to us and we informed the
court that I was being assisted by a Litigation Friend, for the purposes of my
application. I repeated my statement and I requested of LJ Aldous to acknowledge my
statement and rights to assistance. I was flatly told that HL had read my affidavit and
perused the exhibits attached. He then informed me that I was to deal with my case alone,
and that my Litigation Friend was not to take part in the proceedings. At that juncture
the court usher, who was standing by, physically removed my Litigation Friend from the
bench where he had been standing, next to me. The usher told Mr Yiannides that her
instructions from His Lordships were clear "you either sit in the back, as a visitor,
or you are ejected from the court altogether". As I did not know of any way to
address or challenge the developments and as my Litigation Friend was not given any leave
to address the court, my Litigation Friend proceeded to seat at the back, I was then left
alone to deal with my application.
61. His Lordship having informed me that he had read the affidavit and
the attached exhibits, had given the impression that the court was to deal with my
application for the transcript. The letter inviting me to the hearing clearly covered that
issue only. It was not to be the case, however. His Lordship simply ignored my application
and the letter inviting me to the court for the day and proceeded simply to dismiss the
Leave to Appeal and pronounced an order to that effect. I gave notice of my intention to
Appeal to a full panel of the court. I needed for a full panel of the court of Appeal to
hear my Appeal and to endorse, if their Lordships so determine the activities and
wrongdoing that I had been subjected to. I asked of the associate to ensure that the
court's order should be forward as soon as possible, without delays as it would be needed
for my purposes.
62. There followed extensive communications for and in respect of my
right to an appeal proper before full panel of the Court of Appeal and the need for issue
of the transcript, of the preliminary hearing, prior to the hearing of my Appeal. The
evidence establishing the conclusive and clear "imposed" settlement agreement
that I was caused to sign as stated herein and in the course of all court appearances.
Whereas the Court of Appeal, staff, were hastening to post and cause to be delivered an
order that was not in conformity with the purposes of the invitation to the court on 20th
December 2001, they were denying me my rights to unhindered access to Justice.
63. Further exchanges with the Civil Appeals Office and a request for
the right to petition the Judicial Section of the House of Lords resulted with an Order
dated 16th January 2002 stipulating and qualifying that the application to Petition the
House of Lords was dismissed.
page - 4 - of the application
III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR
PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS.
(a) Lack of impartiality at and in the conduct of the courts' business.
(b) No fair hearing and contempt of and for the documented evidence lodged at court and
perused at the hearing before HH Justice Rimer.
(c) Contempt for the right to assistance by a
person of the Petitioner's choice for the purposes of a Court hearing, and in particular
when attending the invitation for one specific application only to be railroaded and
hijacked for other aims.
Contempt for the right to life within the law as the
Petitioner planned and is entitled to. Impositions by third parties, the legal
professions, as the courts acquiesce and endorse. Impositions whereby, the Petitioner
(citizen) spent her time / life researching law and chasing Justice that was denied to the
Petitioner, through the practices and the facts stated, with the consequential abduction
of her life, arising out of and attached to the need for the Petition. Abduction of life -
wasted as herein below covered under Article 4.
Inhuman and Degrading impositions through the
courts that systematically deny and obstruct rights, in national and international law
assured, such as the fraudulent invitation to the court for a specific application as
stated and covered in letters exchanged with the court. Thereat to obstruct the right of
the Petitioner to assistance by and from a person of the Petitioner's choice, and then
proceeding with the issue of an order that bore no semblance to the purpose for the
attendance at the court.
Impositions leading to forced labour due to and
arising out of the practices within the legal circles and the courts that were/are
acquiesced and endorsed through the facts stated and arising out of the need to lodge this
Petition. The Courts consciously acquiescing and endorsing forced labour through and
because of the need for the Petitioner to labour over volumes of legal books and records,
such as precedent case archives and statutes, in order to challenge the wrongs imposed by
the legal circles on the Petitioner, which facts no diligent person could ignore and or
Violations to proper family relationships through impositions and
manipulation of the legal and courts processes / system and services. Locking the
Petitioner in never ending court presentations because of and through defaults and
omissions, by the courts, to address the issues raised, presented and brought to the
attention of the courts' attention, and proven at court as in the instance at hand when HH
Justice Rimer acted in contempt of his own observation and finding and proceeded to
sanction an Order presented to the court by the offending legal circles and practitioners.
Discrimination on racial and sexual grounds, as evinced by the manner
in which the petitioner was treated throughout and in particular through the endorsement,
by the court in February 1994, of the 'settlement agreement' the legal circles imposed on
the Petitioner. The court and Judge consciously sanctioning an unnatural lifestyle on the
Petitioner in contrast to the rights the husband of the Petitioner, an Englishman was
already 'entitled to' and was to carry on benefiting from while the Petitioner was
relegated to a presumed housekeeper with no human rights. The Petitioner treated as a
servant to raise the child of the marriage on her own with no financial support or input
from the father as the reckless attitude of all, and in particular the agents and staff of
the Child Support Agency established over the years 1994 to 2002, through and because of
reliance on alleged legitimate 'judicious rulings and orders'. Also on grounds of property
ownership targeted by the legal circles for conversion through the practices appealed.
Article 1. Protocol 1.
Theft and transfer of assets and properties through abuse of the
courts' processes in contempt of the provisions for impartiality and the standards set for
the judicial processes in both national and international law, in the course of court
Contempt of the provision of and for a national body and authority to
investigate and address, issues arising out of wrong doing and misconduct by persons
acting in an official capacity. Contempt for the law and the evidence, as established in
the court of first instance where the hearing of the arguments and the documented evidence
was also adduced and perused. Contempt for the law because of reliance on the lack of the
provision in matters pertaining to 'judicial' duties, albeit conducted as in the stated
facts attached to this Petition.
page - 5 - of the application
STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ARTICLE 35 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
16. Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)
High Court Preliminary Hearing on issues resting on documented evidence.
The ORDER eventually issued by the court, on 12th November 2001, as
prepared and endorsed by the solicitors representing the defending solicitors, for HH Mr
Justice Rimer to approve, evincing belated date and elements approved ad nauseum by HH Mr
Justice Rimer. Attached to the Order are the reasons that HH Mr Justice Rimer gave for
denying Leave to Appeal his Order dismissing my claim against the Defending solicitors.
(Hearing 7th September 2002 - ORDER 12 November 2001.
17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or
authority and nature of decision for each of them).
(b) The ORDER of Lord Justice Aldous, dated 20th December 2001, issued
consequential to the invitation to the court for an explicit application for the
transcript of the hearing before HH Mr Justice Rimer, only to be railroaded into another
venue and thereat to be denied assistance by a person of my choice and to be forwarded
this ORDER dismissing my appeal.
(Court of Appeal, 20th December 2001)
18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to
you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.
ORDER of Lord Justice Aldous dated 11th January 2002 thereby confirming
end of the road in the United Kingdom and establishing that the lower courts can obstruct
the right to Appeal their decisions without question and or supervision. Attached to the
ORDER is copy of the envelope exhibiting date of posting, second class, on 16th January
(Ruling resting on New Rules . ORDER dated 11 January 2002 by Court of
page - 6 - of application
V. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION AND PROVISIONAL CLAIMS
FOR JUST SATISFACTION.
The Courts in the United Kingdom consciously endorsed unconscionable
bargains imposed on me by my solicitors. No other solicitor offered to address the wrongs,
through the courts in order to redress the situation. The fact is that another Statutory
Authority, the Child Support Agency, were party to downright denial of rights. Its
officers and agents ignored me and my rights from the onset just as HH Justice Rimer did
by denying me the right to an impartial ruling on the issues presented and proven to the
court,. The aforesaid facts establish intent, from the onset and institutionalised
wrongdoing. The defaults and blunt denials, lead to a full claim for all damages, imposed
buy the solicitors, endorsed and acquiesced by the courts through failures to consider and
address the documented evidence. Claims also arise in respect of all consequential losses,
in addition to damages because of lack of amenities that would have been available to my
child and I, had the wrongdoers attended to my rights at and in law properly. Damages also
arising out of the theft of my rights to a life as I planned and should have been able to
enjoy had the wrongs imposed on me not been permitted to evolve and propagate through the
HH Justice Rimer expressed presumed and or personal beliefs when
delivering judgement. The Applicant / Petitioner would appreciate evidence upon which
reliance was placed in order to surmise the Petitioner was/is a person qualified / well
versed in the English language and specifically in law.
The Applicant / Petitioner would also appreciate copies of any evidence
before the court that established any member of the legal professions / practitioner,
solicitor or barrister, ever offered to petition any court in the United Kingdom, for the
purposes of a review by a competent judge, not the person who consciously acquiesced an
imposed unnatural life style for the Petitioner, by endorsing the 'settlement agreement'
that was hatched up by the solicitors / legal professionals & for endorsement by the
court in 1994.