The system as evolved is covered in the page 'English Legal System' and remains the same after the Woolf reforms.

Read of CORRUPT Detectives, Judges, Lawyers, Ministers - article in the London Evening Standard [*Link to image & text]

Include Reference No:
Plaintif:  Stavros Antonas

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be moved on ..............day the ........... day of  ............................. 1998 at .....................  to hear an APPEAL on behalf of the PLAINTIFF in this action against the ORDER of District Judge Silverman, allegedly made 20 July 1998 and drawn on 27 July 1998 whereby the said District Judge or some anonymous person is alleged to have heard a fictitious application by and on behalf of an unnamed party on 20 July 1998 and the aforesaid District Judge electing on 27 July to act in contravention of every principle of law, National and International and in breach of procedure and practice rules failed and refused to deal with the arbitration hearing set down for the day electing instead to highjack and railroad the case as herein-below appealed on substantive grounds.

AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL are that:-

1.       The Order allegedly issued on 20 July 1998 is but a forgery of the most offensive kind, in that there was no hearing and no application set down for the Court to deal with any aspect in the case on the alleged date safe the arbitration hearing set for 27 July 1998 which the Plaintiff attended Court fully prepared after complying with the directions issued by the Court on 13 May 1998. And that any reference to an alleged hearing of the parties is fictitious and a non event in law and a figment of the imagination of the author and or publisher of the Order Appealed against. District Judge Silverman is called to strict proof of any notes made by him and to refer to the affidavits and the attached exhibits filed at Court on behalf of the Plaintiff and in particular the affidavit dated 27 July 1998; the Defendants knew full well what they were Summonsed to Court for; so did the District Judge and the solicitors purportedly acting for the Defendants as of 9 June 1998. The monologue and directions indulged into by District Judge Silverman simply represents the latest of the obstructions to Justice from within the Court as in other instances when applications to the Court arose and were warranted in the prosecution of the claim by the Plaintiff; summarily dismissed through utter disregard for the need of the applications and the evidence submitted to the Court, giving rise to a demand of the Court to explain away and or justify the failings and the

Page 2

attempt by District Judge Silverman to change the direction of the case, safe unjustified and inexcusable attempts to generate income for the legal professions through abuses of the Courts processes as are now to be investigated in higher places on substantive grounds; refer to the headlines Daily Mail Thursday 30th July 1998.

2.       The hearing listed for 27 July 1998 was an Arbitration hearing as the Court directed on 13 May 1998, copy of which directions is attached hereto. The parties did not appeal and or object to the matter being set down for arbirtration followingthe the directions of 13 May 1998. District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to seek new impositions at that late hour, two and a half months late  because of other ulterior motives, as herein below qualified. 

3.       The Plaintiff DID COMPLY with the directions of the Court, inclusive of filing and service of two affidavits dated 29th June 1998 and 27th July 1998; both affidavits supported with documented evidence in the context of the Exhibits ‘A.Y.1’ and ‘A.Y.2” attached thereto respectively qualify and quantify the Claim against the Defendants; the claim rests and is founded on unpaid rents.

4.       The Plaintiff attended Court on 27 July 1998 in accordance with the directions issued by the Court on 13th May 1998. The Plaintiff had and has every right to demand for Judgement in the sum of £4808.00 in accordance with the Pleadings and the supporting documented evidence filed at Court. The aforesaid claimed sum is made up of rents due and payable by the Defendants who at all material times claimed and were in receipt of Housing Benefit from the Department of Social Security via and through the Social Services of the of Haringey Council who at all material times were and have been acting as agents for the Department of Social Security and Central Government. The Plaintiff established at Court his claim through the submitted documented evidence which District Judge Silverman had no option but to consider diligently and judiciously and enter Judgement in accordance with the rules and the purpose of the presence of the parties at Coury on the day;  the claimed sum of £4808.00 is the balance of rents due and payable for the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998.

5.       The Defendants failed to act in accordance with the directions of the Court, even though represented by a firm of solicitors as of 9 June 1998. The Defendants and their solicitor attended the arbitration hearing on 27 July 1998 accompanied by Counsel who stated to the Attorney for the Plaintiff and to District Judge Silverman that the solicitor for the Defendants had briefed Counsel to attend Court because of and for an alleged repossession application / hearing. The fact that there was gross misrepresentation to Counsel by the Defendants’ solicitors was irrelevant and immaterial to District Judge Silverman who then proceceded to ignore the purpose of the hearing for the day and indulged in ‘NEW directions’ as per Order Apealed against; inexcusable and unjustified propositions through the Forgery endorsed with his name. The change of directions by District Judge Silverman through the introduction of a non-event resting on an alleged hearing on 20 July 1998 are offensive and an insult to the rules of procedure and to Justice itself. The propositions are nothing but the usual practices intended to further protract the case and obstruct Justice through abuse of the Court’s processes, while aiming at how best to generate income for the circles from within which District Judge Silverman arose to public office; the milking

of the cow practices depicted in the famous cartoon; with the addition in the instance at hand of an alleged judicious person from above the ‘milkmaids and litigants’ holding the litigants in place for the milk-maids to milk dry the cow and the feuding owners of the property (cow). IN THE INSTANCE AT HAND THE COURT and District Judge Silverman are fully aware that the properties in question (building and moneys due and payable as rents arising out of Tenancy Agreements) belong to the Plaintiff and none other.

6.       Counsel for the Defendant was ‘put right’ as to the purposes of the hearing set down for the day on 27 July 1998; Counsel was handed copy of the Affidavit, with the attached exhibits, that was sworn that morning and put on file. An attempt by Counsel at that point in time to argue (outside chambers before the parties were called in to Chambers) that the contracted rent for the property was in the sum of £220 per month and not per week was challenged by the Attorney appearing for the Plaintiff, who pointed out a succinct and explicit endorsement ‘per week’ on another part of the Tenancy Agreement; Counsel merely misinterpreted one entry; it was also pointed out to Counsel that the Defendant had used the very contract to claim the £ 220 per week from the Department of Social Security, and in the premises the argument advanced at that point in time was but a gross oversight of FACTS.

7.       District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to treat with utter disregard the matter before the Court resting, founded and arising out of and for rents due and payable under the terms of Tenancy Agreements. The District Judge ought to have acquainted himself with the facts of the case and perused diligently the filed affidavits and the attached exhibits if any judicious decision was to be entered by him in accordance with the purpose of the hearing set down for the day;  the invitation by the Court to an Arbirtration Hearing;  IF there had been  any other monologue and or undisclosed ‘secret hearing’ on 20 July 1998 the Court was duty bound to inform the Plaintiff, his agents and his representatives and the Court would have to consider that any ruling ‘indulged into in the absence of a party not made aware of the ‘alleged hearing’ was null and void; so determined higher authorities in the European Courts; referred to in another case, and District Judge Silverman was aware of that precedent.

8.       District Judge Silverman was wrong and grossly erred when he elected and chose to ignore the simple fact that the Defendant and his legal representatives DID FAIL to enter into and or entertain any ‘directions from the Court’ as the attached Directions dated 13th May 1998 evince; the solicitors stated in a letter to the Plaintiff’s agents, dated 9 June 1998 which is filed at Court, that they were acting in the matter.  IF THERE  EXISTED ANY DEFENCE TO THE CLAIM AT ANY TIME (rents paid in accordance with the Tenancy agreement) IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE SOLICITOR ACTING FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO PROCEED ACCORDINGLY;  not to rely upon and wait for individuals within the Court to play at cat and mouse games through abuses of the Court’s processes, such as the Arbitration Hearing that was not to materialise because of the unjustified and inexcusable highjacking attempt by District Judge Silverman. If the Defendants and or their solicitors considered that any remittances and or banked funds by them (other than the funds listed in the Schedule of account filed at Court) had not been duly recorded and or credited by the Plaintiff, the Defendants and the solicitors ‘purportedly acting for the Defendants had ample opportunity to state and or plead such

matters in the first instance; they ought to have proceeded as demanded of them and their clients, the Defendants.  Contempt for procedure and rules through reliance on individuals such as District Judge Silverman who breached their public duties as ‘alleged judicious persons acting in Judicial capacities’ while violating the rights of the Plaintiff through denials and obstruction to unbiased and unadulterated access to Justice, in no way constitute rights granted throufgh abuse of office as District Judge Silverman exhibited.

9.       The District Judge erred and was wrong to assert at the onset of the ‘arbitration hearing’ that he proposed to deal with an Application from the Plaintiff; District Judge Silverman ‘producing’ an application for which the associated document and copies thereof (for completion and service on the parties by post) had been delivered by the Plaibntiff to the Court on 1 July 1998; that application the Court’s office staff apparently initially entered down for an ‘intended’ hearing on Tuesday 14 July 1998, conveniently and miraculously they failed to forward the issued document to the parties; the Court’s staff after demands from the Plaintiff, to qualify their failures to issue and set down for hearing the Application, proceeded to re-schedule the application for hearing on Thursday 23 July 1998.  The Plaintiff attended the ‘hearing’ and the absence of the Defendants was duly noted.

10.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to ignore the fact that the Application he was proposing ‘to deal with there and then’ HAD ALREADY been dispensed with on 23 July 1998 by Deputy District Judge Smith who Summarily dismissed the application and acted contemptuously of the rights of the Plaintiff arising to that day; ignoring in the meantime the grounds and reasons for the application before the Court. As in other instances when judgements lead to demands for accommodation of the Local Authorities, the property owners HAVE NO RIGHTS as a general rule. And on 27 July 1998 District Judge Silverman ignored the fact that the Order of Deputy District Judge Smith drawn on  23 July 1998 was secured from the Court on that very day.

11.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to ignore the fact that the Plaintiff pointed out to the Court that the Plaintiff could have and was within time to Appeal against the ‘Order’ of Deputy District Judge Smith, IF THE PLAINTIFF CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY; Deputy District Judge Smith, and through him the Court, had every opportunity to serve Justice, if so wished and or  inclined to do, in respect of funds due and payable under the terms of Tenancy Agreements; and in particular with due consideration of the manner with which the Plaintiff elected to institute proceedings; issuing a Default Summons in accordance with the policy of the Landlords Action Group; claiming only the Housing Benefit remitted to claimants as opposed to the contracted rents which practice blocks the discrimination that Local Authorities benefit from through reliance on the services of persons of the mentality of Deputy District Judge Smith and others who systematically and habitually obstruct and violate the rights, in law, of property owners through wrongful in law, practices and ‘violated’ procedures exposing and evincing (as in the instance at hand) ill intended practices through questionable acts and or omissions to execute public duties diligently and with all due respect of the facts before the Court, because of undeclared policies to ‘reduce the pressures on Local Authorities for Council accommodation’; irrespective of the violations and denials to unbiased and unadulterated Justice and through violations of the rights of property owners who invariably find themselves the victims of an undeclared policy consequential to non-payment of rents that lead to repossession of

properties by the property owners (and others). Hence the brief to Counsel and the blatant obstructions to unadulterated Justice and the abuse of the Court’s processes leading to blackmail and intimidation attached to allegedly justifiable litigation as promoted encouraged and instigated by those whose priority is and should be TO SERVE JUSTICE, not other ulterior motives and or undeclared policies as herein above and below stated

12.     District Judge Silverman was wrong and erred to partake in practices and or policies, as above stated; obstructing (under any pretext) property owners and denying to property owners unadulterated and unbiased rights at Court, especially to owners who rent their properties to Housing Benefit claimants and in particular Asylum Seekers (simply because Local Authorities are faced with too much demand for Council accommodation but have not enough accommodation at their disposal) . Participation in such practices is but a conscious if not deliberate violation of rights to property as provided for under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights; reducing pressures on Local Authorities resources ought not to override the rights of the individual citizen, especially when Local Authority policies and the practices of their staff lead to situations and Court cases as in this instance; furthermore in attempts to reduce Central Government funding (because of the needs of Asylum Seekers) the individual and small private landlords and property owners are targeted as easy prey because of the prohibitive costs attached to the corrupt and bankrupt legal services operating within the United Kingdom and District Judge Silverman and the Court ought to reconsider such policies at the expense of the vulnerable individual particularly in the light of the investigation that  was announced on Thursday 30 July 1998 in the Daily Mail; the article succinct, explicit and to the point;  bribes and corruption in high places; police, lawyers and even Judges.

13.       District Judge Silverman through disregard of the purpose for the presence at the Court of the Plaintiff indicated and exhibited contempt of the procedure and for the Court’s own earlier directions; the claim leading to the arbitration hearing RESTED AND IS FOUNDED ON UNPAID RENTS. Furthermore in failing to deal with the matters before the Court on the day, the District Judge was party to a fraudulent invitation to the Plaintiff who attended Court for and in respect of the set arbitration hearing, whereas the District Judge had no intention to deal with the facts and the evidence filed at Court because, like others before him, in purportedly acting in a judicious capacity (unbiased, unadulterated and without any other ulterior motive and or motives behind alleged ‘judicious’ rulings and Orders) the District Judge simply exposed his part in abuses of the Court’s processes for other purposes and ulterior motives and not in the service of Justice as provided for by (a) the rules of procedure, (b) the evidence filed at Court and (c) the PURPOSE FOR THE APPEARANCE of the parties before the Court at that point in time;  the arbitration hearing resting and founded on the Default Summons; a claim for rents not paid by the Defendants as stipulated under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements.

14.     District Judge Silverman IN PROCEEDING TO ENDORSE his Order of the day (allegedly made on 20 July 1998) he did with intent and or consciously instigate and introduced in the proceedings, an instrument that is NOTHING BUT A FORGERY which fact in law voids the document in its entirety. And the Plaintiff herewith qualifies that in applying to Court in the present context and application, the Plaintiff in no way acknowledges and or consents to any other within

the Court to misrepresent this present instrument as acceptance and or endorsement by the Plaintiff of the FORGERY as an Order proper and or as an instrument ‘acceptable in law’ by the Plaintiff.

15.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing the instrument with the words ‘upon hearing the Attorney for the Plaintiff’ opened himself to challenges:- (a) to produce any notes the District Judge may allege he kept in respect of any representations the Attorney WAS PERMITTED (when in fact he was not) and allegedly made on 27, not on the fictitious 20, July 1998 exept as herein above stated. The Court should first and foremost refer to the Affidavits dated 29th June 1998 and in particular the one dated 27th July 1997; and District Judge Silverman should then justify any notes as to representations he allowed and or permitted the Attorney for the Plaintiff to state and raise other than that the Plaintiff was attending Court for the purposes invited for and as set down by the Court itself as of 13th May 1998 and the failure of the District Judge to deal with the FACTS PLEADED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DAY CONSTITUTING the submissions for and on behalf of the Plaintiff THAT DAY.  Electing to Ignore and or suppress documented evidence in support of the Judgement denied through abuse of office, breaches of Public Duty and violations of Human Rights (right to properties) in no way justifies impositions of undeclared policies through gross dereliction of Public Office.

16.     District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to highjack and railroad the Arbitration Hearing through his inexcusable and unjustified monologue that overlooked (a) purpose for the Hearing as set down, (b) the submitted documented evidence in support of the Claim for rents not paid, and (c) THE RULES OF PROCEDURE contemoptuously ignored by all inclusive of the solicitor for the Defendants.  District Judge Silverman was made aware that Deputy District Judge Smith summarily dismissed the application on 23 July 1998. BUT the Plaintiff did secure the WARRANTED information covering the remittances received by the Defendants by way of Housing Benefit. District Judge Silverman, however, rendered himself and the Court answerable to the question WHO applied for the alleged hearing on 20th July 1998 (if one be relied upon and advanced at this juncture); also how, when and through what instrument and rule of procedure, AND WHY was the Plaintiff entertained on 23rd July IF there had been a determination by the Court on 20 July 1998? Furthermore why was not the Plaintiff made aware of the alleged and secret monologue if it be alleged that the Court moved itself FOR THE PURPOSES of the undeclared policy and the practices indulged in through abuses of the Court’s processes and instruments through  breaches of Public office and blatant violations of Human Rights?

17.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing the Forgery of the day with the words “and upon hearing Counsel for the Defendant” did open himself answerable to (a) the Plaintiff, (b) the Lord Chancellor and (c) the Legal Aid Board as to the grounds upon which a tenant who has paid no rents (even though he had been receiving the Housing Benefit remittances through the local Authority) qualifies for Legal Aid in respect of the Default Summons that was issued and served out of the very Court he serves, purportedly judiciously and with due respect to the facts and the evidence in support thereof; the evidence District Judge Silverman with intent elected to ignore and he wished out of existence, even though duly filed at Court which evidence remain

THE BASIS OF THE ONLY ADDRESS TO THE COURT had the Attorney for the Plaintiff been allowed to present the Plaintiff’s case and the Plaintiff’s justifuiable demand of the Court on 27 July 1998 for Judgement in the sum of £ 4808.00

18.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing his Order of the day with the words “...reference to arbitration be rescinded on the grounds that fraud is alleged against the plaintiff “ the District Judge is rendering himself answerable to the Plaintiff as to “If the Defendant is not claiming fraud by the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff at that point in time allegedly proceeding by way of the deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations (established through the Pleadings and the evidence filed)? Does failure by District Judge Silverman to refer to the documented evidence, served and filed at Court, the evidence that was NOT CHALLENGED by the Defendants and or their solicitors, at any time as of the institution of the proceedings FOUNDED AND RESTING ON NON PAYMENT OF RENTS, constitute grounds for the Court itself through District Judge Silverman to highjack, railroad and misdirect the proceedings already closed ? Abuse of office in attempts to serve undeclared policies and or other ulterior motives; ill intended and unjustified attempts to convert a small claim and arbitration hearing (resting and founded on unpaid rents) into a proposed full blown trial and theartrical production through the scenario attempted by District Judge Silverman, with the attached intimidation and blackmail with the trimmings for the circles from within which District Judge Silvermnan arose to public office.  At no time either party to the proceedings objected to the Arbitration procedure and in the circumstances Disrtcit Judge Silverman must be called to account for himself and for the attempted impositions in pursuit of other ulterior motives than the service of Justice, expeditiously AND with all due respect to the claim before the Court AS WAS PRESENTED though the submitted affidavits and the attached evidence on 29 June 1998 and on 27 July 1998.

19.     District Judge Silverman was wrong to introduce elements alien, foreign and neither raised nor pleaded by either party; through his actions District Judge Silverman simply established HIS PERSONAL attempt to highjack the case of his own and he must be called to account for himself and to produce any documents filed at Court other than those pleaded and filed at Court already that could give rise to the extensive misdirections (in his concocted scenario) as were indulged in and attempted by him through the FORGERY arising out of an alleged hearing on 20 July 1998.

20.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred when he failed to refer to the affidavits filed at Court and the documented evidence attached thereto; through his failings HE DISQUALIFIED himself from acting in the case in any manner whatsoever, and he was wrong to attempt to generate through a FORGERY the usual income generating conditions imposed on the unsuspecting public for and in the interests of the legal professions. AND THE COURT through District Judge Silverman on 27 July 1998 ought to have considered the simple fact that IF the Defendants had any legitimate Defence and or causes for any alleged Counterclaim (referred to by District Judge Silverman arising out of the FILED Pleadings at Court) it was for the solicitor acting for the Defendants to raise such issues, as of 9 June 1998 and to qualify such at the same time (while the Defendants were in

possession of the Court's Directions dated 13th May 1998); and the Court ought to consider that the solicitor had ample time and opportunity to respond to challenges and to submissions by the Plaintiff; and the solicitors ought to have acted accordingly, seek leave to amend the Defendants pleadings, which in any event had already been filed at Court and served on THE PLAINTIFF WHO ACTED UPON the Defendants’ pleadings appropriately. Any amended Pleadings would be unacceptable in practice and procedure at this late hour; the filed pleadings in themselves constitute the only acceptable grounds for any Defence and or alleged counterclaim by virtue of the rules that the Court is bound to give weight to the original statements/pleadings; in the circumstances it is too late now to contemplate and or consider amending yet again pleadings in respect of any alleged defence arising out of AND RESTING ON FAILURES TO PAY RENTS due and payable under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements, SIMPLY TO GENERATE INCOME for the legal professions through theatrical productions.

21.     District Judge Silverman through failure to refer to and or deal with the facts evinced through the exhibits attached to both affidavits filed at Court by the Plaintiff exhibited failings of the most abhorrent nature; he was wrong and acted in gross dereliction of his public office; he acted recklessly and with intent he disregarded the evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s case. He was wrong to ignore the fact that the Defendants at no time filed and or served any evidence in support of any other alleged remittances (prior to and leading to the Arbitration Hearing as directed by the Court)  than those included in the Schedule of account relied upon and filed at Court by the Plaintiff. In the premises  District Judge Silvgerman was wrong to ignore the fact that the Defendants, their solicitors and or other legal advisers failed to submit any ‘evidence in support of any other remittances than  those pleaded and relied upon by the Plaintiff; he was also wrong to ignore the fact that for the purposes of the case before the Court the Claim and Countercalim are treated as two separate cases and not as one; each party to establish and support its claim/claims separately.  The Plaintiff’s case was and has been estblished through the filed documented evidence and District Judge Silverman was wrong to dirsegard both the EVIDENCE AND THE RULES in one breath.

22.     District Judge Silverman in attempting to introduce new inexcusable and unjustifiable stipulations of his own in his attempts to railroad and highjack the action through blatant abuse of office and implied causes for counterclaim other than the alleged moneys the Defendants allegedly spend in respect of the property (alleged purchases for furnishings when dealing with and through a letting agency, four years earlier, and alleged and unsubstantiated ‘repairs to the central heating system in the property recently) was ignoring the simple rules on evidence in support thereof AND SEPARATE CASES as in the above paragraph qualified. Furthermore IF the alleged purchases / expenses constitute GENUINE claims the Defendants would have and should have dealt with the alleged ‘purchases in the first instance with and through the letting agency Belle Estates; furthermore IF GENUINE AND JUSTIFIABLE THE ALLEGED COUNTERCLAIMS, the Defendants liabilities to the Plaintiff for the period February 1997 to July 1998 were almost fourfold the amount alleged and counterclaimed by the Defendants and the Defendants had ample time and

opportunities to deduct from due remittances the alleged claims and account for such to the Plaintiff and to the agents of the Plaintiff, HAD THE DEFENDANTS ALSO BEEN MEETING THEIR CONTRACTUAL LIABILITIES to the Plaintiff in the first instance. District Judge Silverman and the Court had and have no right to seek to place the cart before the horse and the Court was and is duty bound to enter Judgement as evinced through the submitted affidavits and the exhibits attached thereto and in particular the Schedule attached to the affidavit dated 27 July 1998  (pages 53 and 54 of the exhibit “A.Y.2’).

23.     District Judge Silverman in evading to deal with and or refer to the documented evidence filed at Court, simply evinced and exhibited predetermined ‘obstructions’ to the rights of the Plaintiff and the highjacking (by him and the anonymous person(s) partaking and or willing to lend their names to the alleged Hearing of 20 July 1998) of the case before the Court; the directions he instigated, promoted and stipulated are nothing but blatant obstructions to the Plaintiff through breaches of Public Office; just as Deputy District Judge Smith with blatant intent did, when he summarily dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on 23rd July 1998; also just as Deputy District Judge Kolbe with blatant intent did when he, also Summarily, dismissed an Application by the Plaitniff on 1st July 1998 when the Plaintiff applied to Court for an Order, Ordering the Defendants to cease obstructing the agents of the Plaintiff and their contractors from attending the property and to the needs of the property as provided for and in accordance with the terms of the Tenancy Agreements. Blatant obstructions to unbiased and unadulterated Justice and violations of fundamental Human Rights imposed through Gross breaches and Dereliction of Public Office, UNLAWFULLY to impose undeclared policies and TO CAUSE CUMULATIVE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WITH INTENT through blatant violations of rights in national and international Law. Peace of mind, wasted funds and time ARE PROPERTIES infringed upon through breaches of Public Office leading to violations of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, just as denials to access and use of (property and contracted rights thereof) moneys due and payable under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements which Local Authority staff and the COURT know were and are the basis and the foundation upon which Housing Benefit is remitted by the Department of Social Security, through the Local Authority, to claimants such as the Defendants are.

24.     District Judge Silverman in seeking to introduce his own ‘scenario’ in the case at hand was wrong and or with intent overlooked the liabilities he ought to have entered judgement for the Plaintiff, who is owed the sum of £4.808.00 which any person with commoh sense, let alone a judicious person recognises the Plantiff, IF in any breach of contract could and can be used for the needs of the propoerty. Every one from the Defendant's, to the staff at Haringey Council and even persons purportedly acting in a judicial manner have so far treated the property as their own and to determine and impose their own conditions irrespective of the damages they have caused, sought to and through the 'proposed script and scenario' (Appealed ahainst) are seeking to impose through breaches of contract, breaches of public office and through violations of fundamental human rights.

District Judge Silverman through his attempted script and scenario 'proposed' made it clear that he obhiously did not wish to enter Judgement for the Plaintiff through breaches of public office and dereliction of same. The unpaid rents could and can be used to IMPROVE   the property not attempt to divert and or convert such funds through abuse of office to alleged legitimate and or justifiable legal costs, through abuse of the Legal Aid facilities.  Any judicious person with common sense ought not to have overlooked that issue, let alone a person who to all intents and purposes was to preside as an arbitrator in the case before the Court (no automatic right of Appeal). The claimed and adjusted sum covered only the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998. The submitted and filed at Court Schedule did not cover the period 25 September 1995 (the date from whence the Defendants begun to receive the Housing Benefit themselves) up to 16 February 1997 from which date onwards the Plaintiff submitted full accounts through the bank statements pertaining to the only account in which the Defendants were remitting rents by themselves BUT without due consideration to their contractual liabilities to the Plaintiff.

25.     District Judge Silverman by not permitting the Plaintiff’s Attorney to present ANY case for the Plaintiff, on 27 July 1998, and by failing to properly acquaint himself with the case before the Court,  he did on the day wrongly, recklessly and or with intent:-

          (a)      seek to suppress and or ignored the pleaded facts and the documented  evidence in support thereof already filed at Court and served on the defendants.

          (b)      elect to ignore the fact that the defendants failed to submit any evidence in support of any other remittances which they ought to have stated and indeed had every opportunity to plead and or advance as of service of the Default Summons and in the first instance; further and or in the alternative the Defendants could and should have pleaded any OTHER remittances by them, other than those the Plaintiff acknowledged as received (banked by the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s account) and credited in the Schedule of the rent account duly submitted to the Defendants and filed at Court, fully substantiated and evinced through the submitted and filed copies of the relevant bank account statements; the Plaintiff’s submissions also resting and founded out of THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE COVERING HOUSING BENEFIT RECEIVED by the Defendants which documented evidence wsa received by the Plaintiff at the very last minute, through the managing agents of the Plaintiff who received same from the Local Authority. The aforesaid evidence covers all Housing Benefit remittances to and for the Benefit of the Defendants due and arising out of and because of the Defendants occupation of the property owned by the Plaintiff and none other; the very evidence sought and applied for through the Court was secured otherwise despite the fact that Deputy District Judge Smith did with intent deny rights to, to the Plaintiff, and or deliberately and selectively with intent OBSTRUCTING the Plaintiff from securing same in accordance with the application before the Court on 23rd July 1998. The application that Deputy District Judge Smith summarily dismissed, on 23rd July 1998, without any consideration of the rights of the Plaintiff, in national and international law; also in accordance with acceptable practice and procedure rules which District Judge Silverman subsequently endorsed (evincing duplicity of purpose by persons purportedly acting in a judicial but

not judicious capacity) through the Order purportedly and allegedly made by the Court on 20th July 1998 but issued on 27th July 1998 whereby the Defendants should serve “a fully particularised amended defence and Counterclaim” as if the facts before the Court were not sufficient and or had not established the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendants had failed to meet rents due and payable under the explicit terms of Tenancy Agreements filed at Court as part of the exhibits attached to the affidavits of the Attorney acting for and as the Plaintiff in person.

          (c)      promote through the forgery of an alleged Court Order proper, nothing but the usual manifestations in pursuance of ulterior motives, in the interest of the income generating practices from within the Courts for and in respect of a claim that rests and is founded on UNPAID RENTS as per Default Summons, issued and served on the defendants who through their pleadings and submissions to the Court established themselves to have done nothing else but that which the Plaintiff claimed in his particular of Claim ‘failure to pay rents’.  District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to ignore and or consider the Headlines in the Daily Mail of January 13 1997 “£ 60 Million Scandal of legal-aid cheats”; he erred and was wrong also to ignore the fact that the case rests on Shorthold Tenancy Agreements extended and or re-negotiated as in the instance at hand when the Benefits Agency declined to accept the original Tenancy Agreement endorsed with the agreed rent set at £220 per week which lead to the parties hereto renegotiating and entering into a new agreement which the Defendants subsequently submitted to the Benefits Agency in order to re-instate the Defendants claim to and for Housing Benefit, FACTS District Judge Silverman can neither evade nor ignore.

26.     District Judge Silverman in failing to deal with and or consider the documented evidence filed at Court on 29th June 1998 and on 27th July 1998,  grossly erred and or was wrong to ignore and or seek the suppression of same and or reliance on any alleged ignorance of the facts arising out of breach of office and as a result of and consequential to HIS highjacking and railroading of the Arbitration hearing which he attempted to shelve (through the Oprder Appealed against) for and in respect of other interests and or ulterior motives other than the service of unadulterated and unbiased Justice. Evading to deal with the documented evidence filed at Court in no way justifies use of and reliance on other issues arising out of the pleadings as grounds through which to seek theatrical productions and or to generate income for the legal professions through blatant and reckless indifference to that which already was established through documented evidence. ESTABLISHED FACT:- the Defendants did not and had not been remitting the due rents through the claimed AND RECEIVED Housing Benefit and they did fail to advance and or adduce any evidence that they had paid the claimed balances as shown in the Schedule of rents account as was amended and submitted to the defendants, to their solicitors and as have been and are filed at Court already. THE PLEADINGS AND THE  DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE filed at Court qualify and establish:-

          (a)      The Defendants submitted and pleaded at Court that the only contract they signed and entered into in respect of the property they have been occupying as of August 1994, was the

contract dated 4th August 1994; initially the Defendants alleged the contracted rent was £145 per week; later they alleged that the agreed and contracted rent for the property was in the sum of £165 per week (after they were challenged as to their false declarations that Housing Benefit remitted to them was only in the sum of  £145 when in fact at that point in time it was £165 and higher earlier).  AND at that point in time (Court proccedings) the Defendants pleaded the contracted rent was £165 per week (as the disclosed Housing Benefit they received was) and they alleged also that they were keeping £20 per week (to justify banking £145 only as they had declared to the Plaintiff) because of alleged maintenance for the property, BUT produced no agreement to that effect and or any documented evidence that such expenditure was warranted and or in fact incurred for the property and on behalf of the owner and or any other who had authorised same. The amended pleadings that the rent allegedly contracted was ‘accepted’ and pleaded to be in the sum of £165 established beyond any doubt the false and gross misrepresentations to the Plaintiff and to the Court itself where a copy of the contract relied upon is very clearly endorsed with the agreed rent at £220 per week and not at £165 per week.  In the circumstances District Judge Silverman in electing to ignore the pleadings and the evidence available BEFORE HIM and filed at Court while purporting to be sitting in any judicial capacity proper (either without doing his ‘homework’ in the case by diligently perusing the filed documents and pleadings or because he is used to treating all landlords and their claims at Court ‘at nauseum’ and in line with adopted policies) and by attempting to impose HIS proposed theatrical scenarios through the highjacking and railroading what was NOTHING but an Arbitration Hearing (as the parties attended Court for)  HE DISQUALIFIED himslef from acting in the case. (Highjacking and railroading practices were exposed in the Englezakis -v- Wijemuni case, whereby two firms of solicitors with others playing their parts sought and attempted to convert rents due to alleged legal costs proper via ABUSE OF THE LEGAL AID facilities and the Court’s processes. The attempts lead subsequently to both solicitors and the Court receiving, from the property owner and the agent of the property, copy of a Court of Appeal ruling which the alleged legal experts and professionals ought not to have overlooked in their quest to convert rents owing (a Default Summons case, also) to legal costs arising out of allegedly justifiable Court proceedings.The attempts by the solicitors ceased and the Legal Aid Board acted appropriately in that instance following representations by the ‘intended victim’.

          (b)      The defendants even failed to justify their failures to remit regularly rents even at £145 per week which FACT the submitted and filed at Court documented evidence clearly evinces; no one let alone the Defendants can evade that simple fact, not least an alleged ‘judicious person’.

          (c)      The claim rests and is founded on unpaid rents; as such it is established by and through the documented evidence filed at Court.

          (d)      The rents claimed are founded and rest on the amounts paid by the Department of Social Security (not the contracted rents) for and in respect of occupation of the property by the Defendants under the terms of Tenancy Agreements through and under which the Defendants secured and benefit from, by occupation of the property and secured also the remittances from the department of social security and Central Government.

          (e)     The calimed rents are founded in what was set as the approved rent by a Rent Officer AFTER INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY, and in the ciecumstances no one could could and or can evade the common sense factor arisiong out of the fact that the property owner was and has been under no obligation but to attend to normal wear and tear under the terms if the Tenancy Agreement and that in any event the Defendants did allege and rely in their pleadings that they allegedly maintained themselves the property by allegedly utilising the sum of £20 per week. No judicious person could overlook that simple factor and no one can change the pleadings now for and in the intersts of the proposed theatrical production as attempted by District Judge Silverman. If the Defendants did act as they alleged in their pleadings, and the Plaintiffs had justifiable cause to credit the alleged expenditures by the Defendants, there would have existed no need to call in any other to 'bring pressure to bear on the |Plaintiff' AND THE DEFENDANTS would and should have produced the necessary evidence in support of their pleadings in the first instance and or as of the time they contacted solicitors.

        (f)     The balance claimed as outstanding in the amount of £4808,00 (for the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998) was not and cannot be challenged in any form and or manner by the Defendants of their own and or through their solicitors AND OR ANY OTHER such as the highjacking, railroading and malign individuals who summarily dismissed applications and ignored the evidence filed and presented to them as well as the arguments presented to them (through the affidavits and exhibits filed); obstructing the Plaintiff and or his Attorney in the prosecution of the case through abuses of public office in no way justifies the intent not to enter judgement in the case at hand because of undeclared policies or other ulterior motives by Public servants who purportedly acted judiciously in the performance of their public duties while ignoring the EVIDENCE filed is inexcusable and unjustified as herein above and below re-iterated. Obstructing inspection of and attendance to the property by the agents and contractors for the agents was but the most obvious if attempts to generaste scenarios that were and are inexcusable by virtue of the alleged maintainance by the Defendants. That element alone nullifies the attempt to railroad and hijack the case because the propoerty should be in the 'maintained state that the Defendants of their own pleaded. NO need for theatrical productions whatsoever.  

          (g)      Any alleged counterclaim arising out of the use of the property by the Defendants consequential to and or as a result of any alleged problems with the property is a non starter by virtue of the fact that the Defendants had already pleaded and filed at Court alleged expenditure for and in respect of maintenance of the property by allegedly utilising £20 per week from the Housing Benefit funds they received for and towards the alleged maintenance of the property.  The Defendants themselves introduced and pleaded such matters of their own in the case; NO ONE could ever rely on any amended and or concocted fabrications to create the theatrical productions intended through abuse of office by District Judge Silverman and his ‘sugested’ scenario. In the final analysis only idiots and persons lacking common sense could accept such duplicity, allegations and assertions from the Defendants which only a split personality could advance and thereafter anticipate and or expect of others to entertain and or promote at Court, unless ‘party to the theatre’.

          (h)      The defendants further alleged outgoings in respect of alleged repairs to the Central Heating system; the allegations AFTER they were Summonsed to Court because they failed to remit and or bank rents due (the Housing Benefit received after release of same consequential to submitting to the Benefits Agency the new Tenancy Agreement dated 27th October 1997). And the defendants pleaded the alleged outgoings ONLY as an afterthought to their initial Pleadings. The Defendants GOING AS FAR AS TO ALLEGE that they had no proof that such work was executed because, allegedly, they had given to the Plaintiff such invoice/invoices as they had secured for the alleged repairs to the Central Heating. Worse, the alleged work to the system they alleged cost £1100 well in excess of the value (50% higher) of the most expensive item, the Boiler itself.  And the repairs allegedly done at a time when no Housing Benefit was remitted to and or was received by the Defendants from the Local Authority and or from any other; the allegation in itself raising many a question such  as (i) where from the funds used? (ii) who authorised the alleged repairs to the system? and (iii) who the professional who charged such high costs for the alleged repairs to the system?  And while the Defendants were pleading such matters at Court they were at the same time also declaring to third parties that the Central heating boiler was inoperative. Worse, the Defendants were failing to report such allegations to the Plaintiff and or to the managing agents of the property.

          (i)      the defendants failing to remit rents, failing also to justify the discrepancy between banked and received funds did seek to and in fact obstructed the Plaintiff’s agents to attend to, view, inspect and deal with the problems which the Defendants introduced through third parties by claiming and asserting that they knew not of the existence of the managing agent (as their solicitor in his only communication promoted on 9th June 1998);  thereafter and for weeks persistently and unjustifiably acting in breach of the terms of the Tenancy Agreements between the parties heret