11FeCFTC
Page 1 of 1

• Nothing but  promotion of the reckless mentality of and by officers of the law.
• One and all persistently negating in the execution of their public duties and acting in contempt of the laws they were retained to apply themselves to.
• In so far as we were aware, the author of the letter, Mr Carl Robinson was / is familiar with the law, otherwise his appointment to the position he was / is holding, as an alleged Servant(?) of the Public(!) is highly suspect.
• When we sent the letter of 11th April 2002 to the Home Secretary we telephoned the number and recommended that the chairman of the MPC should download, duly complete the CHALLENGE form for publication in our pages along with the letter on the left. [*Link to the explicit form intended for completion by all who act in contempt of the evidence submitted to them].
• WE ARE STILL WAITING!
•  
•  

Above the visitor, reader, researcher reads of CRIME, ORGANISED as spoken of by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in June 2005. Ten years earlier he was addressing the issue of ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH THE COURTS care of the abductors and rapists of Justice - Themis, the Greek Goddess representing the PRINCIPLES OF MORAL CODE & THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS / JUSTICE.

In 1992 Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights (NGO) successfully challenged  many fraudulent activities of and by Public(!) Servants(?), alleged officers of the Law [*Link to full particulars briefly stated and an explicit appeal that caused one and all to abandon their plans for Mr Andrew Yiannides who founded *human-rights* (NGO)]. Ever since many the fraudsters club recruits who were sent along to mess with Mr. A Yiannides' rights and OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW to tell / report it all, as it is.. Many the lovers of the system, as is, who came along as agents of the criminals who are in control of the Justice & Police in our country. All acting as instructed and used by others in order to create conditions and scenarios through which to discredit, if successful, the target of many, the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides.

In 1995, after two legally trained politicians HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THE ELEMENT OF FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM, in a letter sent to Mr Andrew Yiannides, the agents, the stooges and the charlatans increased in frequency and number but not because of 'The CAMILA PROJECT' work. Furthermore, it could not have been because of the work for human-rights, because, although the work and plans were in place as of 1992, it was not until 1997 that the plans were translated into actions.

The fact that in 1992 Andrew was contacted by the leaders of the LIPS (Litigants In Person Society) was and remained most significant. Neither the leaders Mr Peter Hayward & Mrs Philomena Cullen, nor any of the guided/used members, EVER ACTED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD ESTABLISH HONOURABLE INTENTIONS on their part in the problem area in which both, and the recorded membership, professed knowledge and concerns ONLY IN PRIVATE. The ONLY activities in which all were noted to be pro-active was for to aim and be seen to dancing cheek to cheek with the abductors and rapists of Justice in the halls all dare refer to as courts of justice. All were noted to be cashing in & using the the needs of victims of the legal circles and the courts THEY WERE POINTED TO OR INTRODUCED by others who were / are party of the rings of 'fraudsters club recruits'* [*Link to the foundations for the term].  THE VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES & THE COURTS FOR & THROUGH THE CASH UNDER THE TABLE SCENARIOS. [*Link to list of typical example cases and actors who  ]

Among the many, who were sent along to mess around and attempt their evil ways with the WORK FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, was the person who merited from the granting of an order in the context which researchers, readers, visitors, to these pages can read in the left margin / window. (*Link to the image).

Persons of the mentality and attitudes of such persons, all of whom were noted to have been acting on instructions from those who were holding them to ransom and or acting as their string pullers were commanding, ESTABLISHED THEIR EVIL WAYS, EARLY ON. In fact, the recipient of the order in the left margin, exhibited how naive he was on the very first day in the course of an arranged meeting after 'a theatrical production at the Royal Courts of Justice'; on that day another charlatan and fraudsters club recruit was, for good reasons, 'declared a vexatious litigant', a Section 42 protection racket beneficiary.

The stooge and fraudster exposed in this page was just one of the many who was sent along as another alleged victim of the legal circles and the courts. SHE, Mrs. Veronica Beryl Fodden, was provided with copy of an explicit Court of Appeal case that related to the type of theatrical production that Mr A Yiannides was invited to watch at the RCJ, on instructions BY THE MASTER OF CEREMONIES behind Mrs. Philomena Cullen (one of such Masters). None other than Mr Peter Hayward who instructed one Mr.William Spring to telephone Mr Andrew Yiannides with the news about the venue at the RCJ.

We request of readers to consider the simple issue that it is immaterial if the persons we expose were acting as blackmailed stooges or as greedy fraudsters. What was and remains most relevant and important is the fact that THEY ALL KNEW that they were acting as fraudsters. The other aspect that none of them can run away from, happens to be the fact that were all acting as greedy ego-centric idiots, all of whom were FULLY AWARE THAT THEY WERE TO BE REWARDED FOR THEIR PARTS FROM STOLEN CASH, as arranged by the criminals who are in control of thoroughly corrupted court and legal services.

• In the left margin / window we publish and release an explicit Court Order; we also state how it came about, miraculously.
• The 'beneficiary', thereafter, failed to take any steps that could be looked upon by 'thinkers' (any 'human', not indoctrinated zombie or moron) as steps intended to build upon the obvious:
• The abusers of public office, are aware of the fact that 'the bubble is bursting' and, 'their criminal activities are no longer subject to 'the protection racket managed by the fraudsters who control the media'.
• We include the Intellectual Prostitutes whom the controllers of the media retain simply to promote the RECKLESS plans of the abductors and rapists of Justice.
• Needless to say the very media circles are seen to be operating as the abductors and rapists of Democracy, yet they have for decades been trumpeting much ado about the allegedly civilised states of Democratic governance that allegedly rest and are founded on principles of law and order.
• The 'beneficiary' of the order we publish above, for years 'miraculously defaulted to act as the occasion commanded' of a victim(?) of the legal circles.
• Somehow the beneficiary entertained notions that the work for human-rights, by Mr Andrew Yiannides could have been railroaded and hijacked by arrogant *fraudsters club recruits* and 'lovers / promoters / maintenance engineers of 'the arrangements in place FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS'.
• Visitors / readers should access the page where we publish evidence PRESS RELEASES by the government whereby the rewards for playing the field and the 'compensation culture runs into BILLIONS ANNUALLY.

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 pseudo-democracies.

We point 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.

However, 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).

• Judicial chair occupants acting in contempt of the law applicable to the evidence and the issues / matters / events presented to and argued before them.

• Judicial chair occupants, acting in breach of their Judicial Oaths through contempt of the law applicable to the evidence presented to them.

• Judicial chair 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'.

• Judicial chair occupants Striking Out actions and cases, properly and legitimately instigated, WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE OR REASONING in support of such abuse of office.

• Judicial chair 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 ACTIVITIES, APPROPRIATELY).

• 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 knowledge of!!!
• WHO BUT THE REAL SHYSTERS, are party to the above fraud on YOU, Mr and Mrs Average?

Go To: 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 office.

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 (Link)

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.

Remember:

"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 their means.
• 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 administration.
• 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 ADMINISTRATION.

We add:

• When the representatives of the citizens
• fail in their public duties and
• assume the right to dictate to, instead of serving, the citizens,
• then
• 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
• violence,
• 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 MAKING.

Andrew Yiannides
Founder *human-rights* (NGO)
London - United Kingdom
August 2002

• 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 dreaming charlatans.
• 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 stooges.
• 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.

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 pair.

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 towards it.

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 probate basis.

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 nego