JOIN others On Line and use your rights. Publish your own Statement of Facts (member's case at the European Court on Human Rights - paves the way) and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (*Link) & ACT, as / or with others, against the offenders. Join them and chip in for the creation of the mass of evidence against the abductors and rapists of Justice. You can then benefit from THE FACTS and evidence that you will help establish. It can all be used in any action, severally or jointly with others, as the case may be . Crimes against humanity are not ruled out when a large number of citizens can come up with evidence and as victims concur and or expand upon on the FACTS STATED & The VIOLATIONS PLEADED as LODGED at the ECoHR, already.

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

We invite you to take part in DATA collection in the areas covered by The CAMILA Project. Your own contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are active now & to all others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by using the rights we point to,   assured in law.

IMPORTANT Announcements
Announcement- July 2002
1. Court Proceedings ARE PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. Beware of Mischief Makers operating as and or for the Divide & Rule Brigade. Do not be misled by self- appointed 'gurus' such as we cover in the  explicit pages /2lipstalk.htm & /chaldep1.htm who aim to serve the Fraudsters Club as in /confraud.htm (the page) either from within or as guided (by the abductors and rapists of Justice) mischief makers / recruits. Such persons come up with all sorts of poor excuses, as to why victims ought not to act as their rights in law provide. (Link)

Letters TO - LIST
1. Home Secretary 12 / 1998
2. Prime Minister - 11 / 1999
3. Prime Minister - 12 / 1999
4. Frank Field MP - 4 / 2003
5. Haringey Council CHEATS
6. Editor of The Times - 1996
7. CEO Haringey Council 2001
8. Prime Minister - 2 / 2002
9. The Treasury - 2 / 2002
10. Home Secretary- 2 / 2002
11. Hackney Council CROOKS
12. Edit LEStandard 2/2002
13. Crown Prosecution CPS
14. D.S.S Fraud Department
15. Lord Chancellor Aug.1998
16. Law Society March 2003
17. European Court of HR 03
18. Lap-dog - LIPS fraudsters
19. Minister Work& Pension 01
20. <>

Letters FROM - LIST
1. Council Dreamer
2. Police Dedicated BUT
3. Haringey Council CEO 2001
4. Old Age Pensioner
5. Prime Minister Nov. 1999
6. Lord Chancellor's Agent
7. Solicitor to client Mar 2003
8. <>

Relevant LAW - List
Some Convention Rights -List
Some Convention Rights
4. Haringey Council Dreamer
5. Police Promoting Just LIES 
6. Norman Seeks Information
7. LCD Expose Police LIES
8. An Illiterate LCDpt. Officer
9. ECourtHR September 2003
<>

Page first published at *human-rights* in September 1997. A compilation with more material was first published by 'The CAMILA Project' in 1981 and we urge readers and researchers to access the page if only to read Sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1998, we have been   pointing to since 1992, after the managers, organisers and controllers of the Litigants In Person Society, made contact with the creator of this website and founder of human-rights.org under peculiar circumstance. What transpired thereafter can be recognised by grey matter users, after reading the exchanges between two of the members, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander and Mr Norman Scarth : [*Link]  

VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY; our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess; it was such a person who had been wasting our time and securing support through many a crocodile tear.  You will find the addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that you will share with us our concerns and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt and promote activities which they know are nothing but downright crimes. We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as conscientious, law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET. 

Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions.

As part of the reconstruction process our new pages (and pages where changes and additions have been implemented, the improved / amended pages) are endorsed with the link 'Page Changes and the date of the last changes, at the top of the left column/margin, below the file name (*....xxxxx.htm *). The link takes visitors to a List of the changes implemented in the page. These include new material and links from relevant paragraphs to other or new relevant material in the page and or in other pages. For further clarification email: webmaster@

THE LAW and Forgeries HOME-PAGE

(*List of cases when Forgeries & Consequential False Instruments were used)

We publish below a brief for the citizens to know of

The Law

IT IS MOST IMPORTANT that the reader / visitor recognises and accepts the concept and legal argument as developed and presented below by Andrew, the founder of *human-rights*. [*Link to the judge's duty AFTER the hearing of a case under the UK's adversarial system]

• The LAW provides under Section 17 (*Link below) that the 'making of a document that fails to account for a particular fact which is omitted (such as a judge ignoring the evidence or the law applicable) at the time of the making of the document (such as a perverse order), the document in such circumstances is to be treated as falsifying the account or document'.
• The LAW further provides under Section 17 (*Link below) that a false document leading to gains for the author or another (second party, such as the barristers / solicitors costs attached, even for the need of an appeal) and causing loss to another (third party, such as the clients of the legal circles / courts) can be indicted and upon conviction shall be liable to imprisonment up to seven years. (It does not happen though because those who are responsible for the implementation of the law are part and parcel of the Organised Fraud & Corruption THROUGH THE COURTS).
• RECOGNISE WHY we published and maintain in our pages the Court Order in the case of Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven where the words "UPON READING THE EVIDENCE" establish the most common factor that is absent in almost all cases where the judicial chair occupant has only one thing in mind: "HOW BEST TO CREATE and CAUSE THE GENERATION OF INCOME", for the legal circles, the very area in which he/she may still be practising and or from which the defaulter arose to public office.[*Link to an explicit invitation by the court to the two opposing legal teams to partake in the perfection of a court order to be read.....]
• THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE PERSON, who omits such elements and or defaults to address the evidence and or the law applicable in the case before the defaulter, ACTS IN CONTEMPT OF BOTH OR EITHER FACT AND OR LAW APPLICABLE. As such the person is an abuser of position who simply misconducts in public office.

We refer you to definitions and principles of RIGHTS FOR THE CITIZENS as defined by authorities on the issue of THE CONVENTION (European) IN LEGAL TERMS. The rights of the citizens to call upon persons in public office to account for their activities and for those under them should be clear to all citizens, in any 'alleged' democracy. OUR DEMANDS of public servants and public service providers, have been very clear, for over 25 years, as our 'DECLARATION' Challenge, the document you can print from our pages qualifies.[*Link to 'Declaration' form]

Many the offending who defaulted and default. In fact no one has ever completed, signed and returned our DECLARATION, document! That default in itself constitutes proof that the criminals in control KNOW THEY ARE BREACHING THE LAW! And we are faced with 'greenhorns / tutored mischief-making plants' among the genuine victims, who come along to interfere in our relentless work. The provisions for victims of the administrators of CIUKU Enterprises for challengers who wish to expose the rampant fraud and corruption, feeding the scavenging parasites, through abuse of the legal system and the courts' facilities, EXIST FOR GENUINE VICTIMS & CHALLENGERS who wish to leave a better legacy than the one we inherited from our predecessors. They did not know better or have the means to challenge openly, as we do and can, the Masters & Lords who control the lives of modern day Serfs.

THE THEFT ACT 1968 (extracted from Vol. 12 Halsbury's All England Statutes)

• A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.(Back to National Scandal: organised / Social Security funds / law ignored
• For the purposes of this section a person is to be treated as obtaining property if he obtains ownership, possession or control of it, and "obtain" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain or retain. (Back to National Scandal: theft acts , Haringey: advantage for  )
• For the purposes of this section "deception" means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by word or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. (Back to National Scandal:  )

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (back to: National Scandal:  pecuniary advantage )

• A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any Will or testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
• A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another by any deception procures the execution of a valuable security shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and this subsection shall apply in relation to the making, acceptance, endorsement, alteration, cancellation or destruction in whole or in part of a valuable security, and in relation to the signing of any paper or other material (document?) in order that it may be made or converted into, or used or dealt with as, a valuable security, as if that were the execution of a valuable security.
• For the purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and "valuable" means any document creating, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation of, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation.

Forgery

• "A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces, conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years."
• The expression "dishonestly", "view to gain…or…Intent to cause loss" and "valuable security" have been dealt with. It will be recalled that an intention to avoid the exposure of previous misconduct is sufficient to constitute a view to gain, and that "valuable security" is defined in such a way as to correspond roughly to the narrow interpretations of the word "instrument" in the Forgery and Counterfeit Act 1981.

Case Law - Myers -v- Elman on appeal before the House of Lords (1939/1940)
The case that eventually lead to the Wasted Costs provisions some five decades later while solicitors were indulging in much more than just reckless indifference but blunt abuse of the courts' facilities in concert with barristers and court staff and officers. We shall be including typical cases in the column on the left, in which instances the victims were genuinely concerned about the free for all activities the legal circles indulge in, in contempt of criminal law, as the compilation above covers. [*Link from here to additional information & material from the HoL deliberations; *Link also from here to image of a letter from Lord Irvine, to a Member of Parliament in December 1999]

• "An order for discovery required the client to give information in writing and on oath of all documents which are or have been in his possession or his power, whether he is bound to produce them or not, but a client cannot be expected to realise the whole scope of that obligation without the aid and advice of his solicitor, the latter has a peculiar duty as an OFFICER of the COURT carefully to investigate the position, and as far as possible, see that the order is complied with. THE SOLICITOR CANNOT SIMPLY ALLOW THE CLIENT TO MAKE WHATEVER AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENTS HE THINKS FIT, NOR CAN HE ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CAREFUL INVESTIGATION OR SUPERVISION."
• Singleton J. found that both Mr Elman and his clerk, between whom he found himself unable to draw any distinction, "knew a good deal about the matters in question," and that they had "as a result of a deliberate policy adopted in Mr Elman's office," in the conduct of the defence, and in relation to discovery, "increased the plaintiff's difficulties, added to the expense, and obstructed the interests of justice," he held Mr Elman guilty of professional misconduct as a solicitor and an officer of the court, and he made an order stated in the first paragraph". (*FXXXXX)
• "If this is a correct view no doubt it would follow that the solicitor ought not to be ordered to pay costs unless he has himself been guilty of disgraceful conduct; and it would follow that however negligent or obstructive or improper his conduct of the proceedings as solicitors has seemed to be, whatever the injury has been inflicted on the other party, or parties to the litigation, he has only to show that he left the whole matter in the hands of a clerk and he will then escape the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to costs".
• "Misconduct or default or negligence in the course of the proceedings is in some cases sufficient to justify an order. The primary object of the Court is not to punish the solicitor, but to protect the client who has suffered and to indemnify the party who has been injured."
• "The particulars given before the inquiry directed by Singleton J. began included two matters, first, the filing of defences by his two clients which he knew to be false, and, secondly, that he prepared and advised and permitted his clients to make and file affidavits of documents which were wholly inadequate and false."
• "The swearing of an untrue affidavit of documents is perhaps the most obvious example of conduct which his solicitor cannot knowingly permit. He cannot properly, still less can he consistently with his duty to the Court, prepare AND PLACE A PERJURED AFFIDAVIT UPON THE FILE".
• "A further observation should be made here. Suppose that in such a case the client swears an affidavit of documents which discloses nothing relating to the frauds alleged in the statement of claim and suppose that the solicitor has previously given his client full and proper advice in the matter but has no good reason to suppose that the affidavit is untrue, it may be asked what else ought the most punctilious solicitor to do? My answer is nothing at the time. But suppose that before the actions comes to trial, facts come to the knowledge of the solicitor which show that the original affidavit by his client as defendant was untrue and that important documents were omitted from it, what then is the duty of the solicitor? I cannot doubt that his duty to the Plaintiff, and to the Court, is to inform his client that he, the solicitor, must cease to act for the client. HE CANNOT HONESTLY CONTEMPLATE THE PLAINTIFF FAILING THE ACTION OWING TO HIS CLIENT'S FALSE AFFIDAVIT, THAT WOULD, IN EFFECT, BE TO CONNIVE IN A FRAUD AND TO DECEIVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE". [*Link from here to additional material from the case and the deliberations by their Lordships]

From the Administration of Justice Act 1960, we read

8 & 9 ELIZ. 2 Administration of Justice Act, 1960 CH. 65

(1) .... had no reason to suspect that the proceedings were pending,
or that such proceedings were imminent, as the case may be.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing such matter as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section if at the time of distribution (having taken all reasonable care) he did not know that it contained any such matter as aforesaid and had no reason to suspect that he was likely to do so.

(3) The proof of any fact tending to establish a defence afforded by this section to any person in proceedings for contempt of court shall lie upon that person.

12.- (l) The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except in the following cases, that is to say-
    (a) where the proceedings relate to the wardship or adoption of an infant or wholly or mainly to the guardianship, custody, maintenance or upbringing of an infant, or rights of access to an infant; (NOTE: The operative word, here, is INFANT)
    (b) where the proceedings are brought under Part VIII of the Mental Health Act. 1959, or under any provision of that Act authorising an application or reference to be made to a Mental Health Review Tribunal or to a county court;
    (c) when the court sits in private for reasons of national security during that part of the proceedings about which the information in question is published,
     (d) where the information relates a secret process, discovery or invention which is in issue in the proceedings;
    (e) where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceedings or of information of the description which is published.
     (2)  Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, the publication of the text or a summary of the whole or part of an order made by a court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication.
    (3)  In this section references to a court include references to a judge and to a tribunal and to any person exercising the functions of a court, a judge or a tribunal; and references to a court sitting in private include references to a court sitting in camera or in chambers.
    (4)  Nothing in this section shall be construed as implying that any publication is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this section.

FOOTNOTE
    1.   Visitor, you have been linked to this footnote for very important reasons. IF YOU ARE GENUINELY CONCERNED & A VICTIM OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES and of any one of the multitude of allegedly organised groups of victims that allegedly are challenging the very circles that most probably ruined your life, breathe fresh air - by acquainting yourself with the evil forces at work behind the scenes.
     The group we were pointing to (above) was one of the many that made contact with us, after one Duncan spread the news around that he had 'discovered the associated web-site *human-rights.demon.co.uk*, which, website, we shut down in March 2006. [*Link from here to the page where we relate & publish relevant evidence]
     No sooner had he passed the word around and the manager / controller of the Live Beat Dads dot Org (lbduk.org) website, one Dave Ellison, put Mr Andrew Yiannides (the founder of human-rights (NGO) in touch with the designer and creator of the lbduk.org website.
     The designer was none other than the victim of the divorce industry one Len Miskulin who HAD MADE THE NEWS because of his EXTENDED HUNGER STRIKE due to the fact that he was not allowed access to the two boys his partner gave birth to. Apparently the gestation vessel moved on because she wanted to change her dildo.
     On visiting 'the victim', Andrew noted that on the wall of his room of operations (computer room) there were plenty of photographs of the two boys and the majority of them were with a loving father playing with them on some beach or in their 'home', but without any photographs of a similar nature with the lady of leisure who gave birth to the two boys.
     A large print of 'the discarded dildo', a skin and bones figure reminiscent of the holocaust victims the world's serfs have been bombarded with, for well over 60 years was gracing the wall above his computer.
     Mr Yiannides was informed that it was one of the pictures used by the Daily Mail when they published an article about fathers who spend Christmas alone and 'benefit' from Court Orders NOT TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR 'THEIR' CHILDREN, as usually are the general directions from the courts care of the use of the gestation vessels, the Eves.
     Within two weeks Duncan moved on after arguing with Mr Yiannides that it was the women who were the cause of the problems and NOT the courts, nor the solicitors / barristers / Social workers who ARE USING THEM as we have been pointing out for years.
     In the meantime, Len Miskulin informed Mr Yiannides that Dave Ellison had been engaged in regular meetings with Dr. K Badsha of the Environmental Law Centre, up North, and they had been discussing Mr Yiannides' input by way of pleadings and challenges to the court and to the criminals who were using the gestation vessel, in Mr Miskulin's case.
     Because Mr Miskulin informed Mr Yiannides that he HAD LODGED AN APPLICATION to the court seeking an Order for DNA tests, in order to establish paternity of the two children, Mr Yiannides asked for further information. Mr Miskulin stated that the second boy born of the gestation vessel bore a close resemblance to a restaurant owner, who had close relations with them (Len & the gestation vessel).
     He clarified that for a while the gestation vessel worked as a weekend waitress at the restaurant. And the court, apparently, had been ignoring the application for months, almost a year.
     WITH SUCH INFORMATION at hand Mr Yiannides settled an explicit application to the court whereby the victim was presenting the offending abusers of the courts and USERS OF THE GESTATION VESSEL with a straight CHALLENGE: Heads I Win & Tails You Loose'.
     Anyone gifted with some grey matter in their skull would have picked up on the challenges (placed before the family court) and would have distributed the news far and wide, that such a challenge had been lodged and filed at the Royal Courts of Justice, for the Rampant Corruption (of societies) Jockeys to deal with.
     Not one of the alleged group leaders, individual challengers, not even the victim Len Miskulin did anything in that area.
     However, one John Charville and one George Macauley (the latter, Chairman of the United Kingdom Men's Movement - more about that false front in due course) and the former, an alleged legal guru, the lighthouse beaming legal wisdom to Mr G Macauley along with Mr Macauley's associate one Barry Worrall (one of the many defaulters who received the straight forward invitation to co-operate in and for A MOST IMPORTANT APPLICATION to Strasbourg) started posting emails to Mr Andrew Yiannides. [*Link from here to evidence in respect of the invitation and the Petition to Strasbourg in 1997].
     In each and every posting Mr John Charville was quoting from 'precedent divorce cases' & interestingly all from  various & different each time, United State courts.
     Such were the 'gems promoted by the genius' whom 'Macauley & Co.' were promoting as their source of legal canon balls'.
     The exchanges with John Charville, by and large were in private email postings and from the onset John Charville was pointed to the page http://www.uk-human-rights.org/englishlaw.htm (NOTE please that we have since expanded on the footnote input).
     The genius was simply asked to read the first FOOTNOTE at the above page in order to benefit from free education. The element simple : Ongoing the European Community / Union the overriding and SUPREME AUTHORITY IN LAW was to be European Law. And there was a charlatan promoting otherwise, causing Mr Yiannides to enquire of John Charville, in the course of their private exchanges: "Are you going to introduce precedent cases from Mars, next?'.
     The genius then moved on to postings through the lbduk yahoo group which Len Miskulin & or Dave Ellison had been operating, as owners / controllers, of the group.
     The Charville postings were nothing but direct attempts intended to discredit Mr Andrew Yiannides who carried on with the exchanges as if just personal email postings, irrespective of the fact that John Charville's output was received by persons who subscribed to the group and were not receiving Mr Yiannides' responses and SUBMISSIONS.
     Mr Yiannides DID NOT JOIN THE lbduk YAHOO GROUP (for reasons that were not stated to the owners/controllers who, as was the case with the LIPS crowd/mob, the fact was that as of the Summer of 1992 Mr A Yiannides was investigating and researching the reasons, such as what elements and type of persons are responsible for the ongoing 'fraud on & corruption of society through the courts'). The decision to research and investigate 'organised groups and what / who behind them' was taken after the managers / controllers of the Litigants In Person Society exposed their real and true aims for the group they were leading, directing, managing, controlling AND FOR WHAT ENDS THEIR PERSONAL GOALS. [*Link from here to an explicit page created around the content of a letter from their great hero, their allegedly Honorary (presumed Honourable) Secretary, Mr Norman Scarth. The letter was written after the author exposed himself and the practices of the group he was working with and for, as an accomplished FRAUDSTERS CLUB RECRUIT, for the umpteenth time).   
     Mr Yiannides' responses, however, to the rubbish promoted by Mr John Charville, were posted to Len Miskulin and to Dave Ellison.
     In conversations with the former,<> Mr Yiannides was invited to join the group and he was informed that the latter had expressed the view that : "Andrew Yiannides is perfectly entitled to reply to 'the Charville postings", disseminated as these were (through their group) world-wide.
     Len Miskulin was told that Andrew Yiannides had his reasons for NOT joining their group. Neither he nor Dave Ellison recognised that THEY WERE BEING TESTED, as to their real intentions and worth as alleged challengers who were ready to blow the lid... while they were ignoring the issue of the application at the RCJ, whereby the legal circles WERE BEING CHALLENGED IN A WAY THAT PROVIDED THE GALLOWS for the users of gestation vessels.
     In the meantime the ongoing meetings & exchanges up North between Dr. K Badsha and Dave Ellison progressed to meetings, in North London, between Dr. Kartar Badsha, Len Miskulin and Andrew Yiannides at a flat maintained by the ELC in Kentish Town.
     As a result of the ongoing exchange of ideas it was agreed that all known contacts, organised groups and individuals, should be invited to take part in setting up a central office of information. The objective of the proposed centre was to be : "To act for all affiliates and members, groups and individuals, as a Press & the Media information Centre, for Press Releases, and to maintain a register of all ongoing court cases and challenges lodged with Public Services and Ministers'.
     For the purposes of the meeting Dr. Kartar Badsha travelled to Debden, Essex, accompanied by a colleague from the ELC and offered to pay for a meal for all attendees who travelled to Len Miskulin's residence, where the meeting was taking place.
     Among the early arrivals was Mr Shaun O'Connell who in the course of the preliminaries and the getting to know one another exchanges he was handed copies of submissions to government and in particular the Prime Minister, by Mr A Yiannides, after he was afforded the opportunity to read a copy of the letter from the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng back in July 1995. The letter qualifies in the first line that it was sent, by the Parliamentary Spokes-person on Legal Affairs in the House of Commons for the opposition, in response to submissions by Mr Yiannides to the leader of the opposition, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair.
     Because of the work by Mr A Yiannides and the facility available to victims of the legal circles and the courts, to STATE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, on the Internet, in tandem with other victims / complainants as a united front under the common factor OF & FOR  HUMAN RIGHTS Mr S O'Connell stated that he was going to join the human-rights.org Community on Line. He stated that he recognised that the only way to make headway was 'to disgrace the offenders, who were abusing public office and the courts' facilities destroying people, not just financially but as humans, in the process.
     Dr Kartar Badsha and his colleague left early because of the long drive home, soon after the meeting got off the ground. Mr Saun O'Connell offered to keep the minutes and everything was progressing towards an understanding of and for the foundations for the proposed centre of information when a late arrival, without asking for sight of the minutes, to acquaint himself on the progress of the meeting he set off delivering a talk on how to make applications to court and how to address the judiciary in the process tapping on a book of procedures, etc.
     Mr A Yiannides was familiar with the activities of the ELC and that these entailed 'educating the public'. And because in the course of the meetings in London the element of 'educating the public' was spoken of and recognised as the issue at the heart of almost all organised groups operating as 'Registered Charities', Mr. Yiannides considered it proper to enquire, of the new arrival, as to the new development.
     Mr Yiannides begged to ask for an explanation, as to the reasons for 'the new venue'. As far as he had been informed and concerned, the item was not on the agenda for the meeting he was invited to attend that evening. Amazingly Mr Len Miskulin reacted in a manner that did not befit the reasonable grounds for the justifiable request of the new arrival. (To be continued, *Link from here to the explicit page relative to the Len Miskulin case, and note the challenges to the courts which not one of the alleged leaders of the fathers / men  victims of the divorce industry ever promoted or bothered to address. DESPITE THE RESULTS ONE & ALL EVADED THE ISSUES AS IF THE CHOLERA).
    2.   *Link from here to the cause and reasons why Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights spent years researching & investigating the arrogant constructive fraud imposed on the citizens through abuse of the courts facilities, following the introduction of A BLUNT FORGERY INTENDED & USED TO PERVERT & CORRUPT JUSTICE. Indeed we shall be pointing to an arrogant invitation to a High Court Judge, through a deposition (Affidavit) which Counsel endorsed and it was submitted to / lodged at Court; through the said affidavit the invitation to a judge (at the Royal Court of Justice) to deny rights and to obstruct Justice to the targeted Plaintiff and victim of COMMERCIAL FRAUD. One and all, simply relying on constructively engineered FRAUDULENT COST CREATIONS through which to grind the victim of fraud down. Visitors, readers and researchers should prepare themselves for more revelations AND CHALLENGES IN & THROUGH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, in respect of the arrogant criminal activities & practices by solicitors, barristers, the police and many an alleged servant of the public during and after the legal circles indulged in the aforesaid CRIMINAL ACTS FULLY INTENDING TO DEFRAUD Mr. Andrew Yiannides of his rights and properties. Mr. Yiannides, as the proponent of the human-rights.org Community on Line has had to put up with many a foul act and evil promotions by converts-to & lovers of the system of operations, including persons who joined the Community on Line, persons who benefited from much more than simply assistance in the problems they were facing in the course of court proceedings. In the circumstances, some of the evidence will presently be released in the public domain, because such evil persons were and have been relying on the abductors and rapists of Justice to carry on ignoring the law applicable as of the first instance when Mr Yiannides HAD TO RESORT TO COURT in order to seek his rights at law; rights allegedly that were / are assured in law also through the European Union too. It remains to be seen how the defaulters who failed to take on board the warnings, which rulings and judgements, such as the House of Lord ruling we were pointing to for years and the deliberations we release / reproduced in another page on 3rd March 2008. The additional material, from the very case, to which the *link from here takes one, should be considered by ALL FRAUDSTERS-CLUB-RECRUITS who abused the generosity of Mr. Andrew Yiannides are reconsider their parts and evil activities which they full well knew & know to be ARROGANTLY ORGANISED & IMPLEMENTED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES leading to the corruption of the conditioned, the ill-informed, the ill-advised and programmed robots (non-thinkers : not humans) of their mentality as persons who adopted the New World Order Code of Ethics and morals. 
    3.   xxx
    4.   xxxx

...

• ALL of the persons we expose in the above pages elected to ignore THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT (to 'the serfs' = taxpayers ), THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC FACILITIES.
• They all did so because of their love for the rampant fraud on the national budget (the uninformed taxpayers) as covered in the exclusive page, which page ONE & ALL SIMPLY IGNORED.
• Not one ever bothered to address the issues we expose in the explicit page, despite the fact that we have been pointing all of our contacts, since May 1992, to it all.
• Visitors, readers and researchers are urged / invited to access and read the letter which the Hon. Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, Mr. Norman Scarth sent to the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, reproduced in the page .org/4deceit.htm.
• The author's statements, such as 'what for and why he sought additional assistance', spell out his parts as a lover of it all.
• Common sense dictates, that he should have directed his request to his partners in deceptions aplenty, all of whom engage in fraudulent misrepresentations AND WILFULLY TO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSING, FROM THE TAXPAYERS, THE FACTS OF LIFE RELATIVE TO THE RAMPANT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES.
• All the while one and all were / are engaging in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page, which page the author and his partners in fraud aplenty, simply shoved in the dark corners of his/their perverted / corrupted mind(s).