ukhrtitle.gif (7690 bytes)

Crime - Organised - Institutionalised - Corruption - Fraud - Protection Rackets, run and managed by judicial chair occupants, in a free-for-all state of abundance. Note below the arrangements between the administrative, the judiciary and the media; read of the all-embracing guarantee in place, in contempt of all law : the root we point to in our pages.

WHERE IS JUSTICE? Read below:-

>>> "The court has inherent jurisdiction to stay an action which must fail; as, for instance an action brought in respect of an act of State" <<<*

*Link from herre to founder's tribulations in 1972-75 and recognise WHY, PSEUDOdemocracy

* And by extension any act of any public servant who is appointed, retained and maintained by other public servants for all of whom, the state, as employer, is ultimately responsible, including abusers of judicial chair occupancy. Hence, the billions paid out as covered in the affidavit which visitors can link to directly from here [*Link].
* Link also from here to the founder's conclusions as of 1972-75 when the great Metropolitan police were seen to be nothing but accessories to and abettors to the rampant fraud and corruption through the courts organised and processed while Members of Parliament were -as they still do- promoting the waffle that amounts to nothing short of : 'independence of the judiciary to act in contempt of ALL LAW (national and international) in a pseudo-democracy.

Link from here to proof >most clear< as to the parts the police play in promotion and expansion of the criminal activities instigated, organised, managed, processed and imposed on society >the sucker-serfs : the taxpayers< by the legal circles. Read of assertions by a typical hypocrite, none other than the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark QPM, when he spoke of FALSE RECORDS and FORGERIES by the legal circles when delivering his Dimbleby Lecture on BBC-TV in November 1976, 15 months after he received true copy of THE FORGERY created by the licensed criminals >the legal circles< for their evil ends in the case that opened Andrew Yiannides' mental eyes to the realities of life in the United Kingdom, the mother of all PSEUDOdemocracies. Can anyone enlighten Andrew and the millions of victims of the legal circles / the courts >"WHY NO PROSECUTION of the solicitors & the barristers in 1972?<

* With such facilities in place, the words we point to here, attached to arrogant abuse of public office and arrogant dereliction of public duties, can anyone assert that Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights, was not right to conclude and determine that Justice has been abducted and that she is held captive in the dungeons maintained by her abductors who rape her daily in their courts in the mother of all PSEUDOdemocracies?
Access from here www.justiceraped.org and read of the realities in articles penned by the researcher who declined an 'invitations to join the club of converted morons and fraudsters, persons who determine to target and use the ever growing numbers of victims of the abused courts facilities for more of the same criminal activities they 'had been victims of' themselves. Access also from here part of the stated events in the course of a hearing at court when the court's facilities were being used with criminal intent by the organisers of the lives of the sheeple in the United Kingdom, when properties were targeted by the fraudsters in control of the Law Enforcement Agencies, operating ion tandem with the used and encouraged products of an allegedly 'civilised democracy' as created by the followers and promoters of the vile scenarios sold and promoted to the ill-educated sheeple as 'holy scriptures'. Access from here and read the article on the alphabet crearted by fraudsters which alphabet they transkated to the language of the targeted civilsation some 2300 years ago.
* ALL Member States of the European Union are subject to the ruling which visitors, readers and researchers can access in the explicit page /yourrights.htm
Link from here to the realities - we point also, in our pages, to the hint / warning > indirect but nonetheless very clear < for thinkers / true humans to recognise
* On 3rd March 2008 >someone's birthday< we released a House of Lords PRECEDENT CASE and reveal deliberations by their Lordships in respect of FRAUD - DECEPTION - CONSPIRACY & IMPLIED LIES BY KEEPING SILENT about any wrong imposed on any other
* >>> IN THE MEANTIME WE have been naming and shaming a number who know of & do much more than just approve wrongs imposed on millions of 'sucker-serfs' in our allegedly civilised country / state / province / district of the European Union that allegedly protects 'citizens from FRAUD & CORRUPTION.
Needless to say the case entailed activities and practices by solicitors as Mr Andrew Yiannides was subjected to, decades later, by an old school friend, Mr Kypros Nichola of Nicholas & Co. in London. Mr K. Nichola bluntly abused the trust placed in him and indulged, in tandem with others, in criminal activities intended to cause the damages that were imposed on the targeted 'serf' by accredited - by the Law Society & Bar Council - allegedly Honourable Officers of the Supreme Court, the courts maintained by successive elected governments in the United Kingdom, one of many pseudodemocracies. In due course another revelation relevant to the arrogant 'inherent jurisdiction', through which to deny, obstruct justice & impose all manner of criminally created states on 'the serfs', who are taxed for the cost of maintaining criminals in public office, in pseudo-democracies]

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, successive irresponsible Lord Chancellors and Home Secretaries who ignored all complaints and submissions irrespective of the evidence and the law pointed to, by the victims of it all, the citizens who are called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of criminals in public office.

*Link from here to our exclusive page, covering confidential fraud as arranged THROUGH THE BEST KEPT OPEN SECRET in allegedly civilised democracies >all European States, that signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights after the conclusion of the 2nd. World War<.Elsewhere the foundations and the corner stone upon which the operatives built the societies of their making using the bricks and mortar we cover in this and other pages. The visitor should not be under any illusion that the stars in the theatrical productions we relate and partly cover in our pages were by any stretch of the imagination 'humans' who were / are gifted with any attributes that distinguish 'true humans' >thinkers< from wild animals hunting for food.

Fraud in court  Council staff use Forgeries  

Misconduct in Public Office. 2 cases relative to applicable law One Protocol says it ALL It betrays arrogant intentions Law Provides for THEFTS and it covers Judges too Judges' duties   TIME 4 CHANGE   & CHALLENGES Site CONTENTS - Table of Contents & ongoing work Your Rights & OBLIGATIONS to Society SEARCH facility for any specific element / issue of concern to visitors / readers
COURTS : their Facilities Abused For ORGANISED CRIME >FRAUD Solicitor's Perjury & Victim Ignores it all Just like the Law Society always does Blackmailed or is it Just Conditioned & Subjugated Victims who join the club ? We name Lovers of blunt fraud through courts - Users of the facilities 4 illicit gains Local Authorities & FRAUD on 'serfs' the Taxpayers who are kept in the dark Police Party to & Endorsing Criminal Acts, Activities Arrogant Fraud FALSE Records & Contempt of Law by the legal Circles & Public Services The crafty ones & Vexatious Litigant PLOYS for the rewarded silent

* Information FOR victims who wish to co-operate by EXPOSING & CHALLENGING abusers of Public Office *

December 2006 - SUMMONS ISSUED & SERVED IN RESPECT OF FRAUDULENT & CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN FAMILY COURTS
[*Link from here to evidence. *Link also from here to a case when the abusers of the courts' facilities abandoned their plans for another targeted family]

IMPORTANT INFORMATION for all victims of malpractice - misconduct - negligence, etc. TO NOTE

In the civil justice system in England and Wales, a judge presides over the proceedings that are argued by the opposing sides through the adversarial process. The process enables the court, judge, to reach a conclusion as to the truth of the facts in dispute. Thereat it is for the judge to apply the law to the facts proven, established at court.

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

An explicit Affidavit [*L] plus exhibits and
     letters to a Chief Inspector of Police
[*L],
          one to solicitors
[*L] and another to the Lord Chancellor [*L] evince
               ORGANISED CRIMES
(Access and read the letter to the police in September 2006 [*L])
Access & read from one of a number of letters to the Prime Minister :- * I believe that New Labour will deliver us from the wrongs we have been suffering for far too long. Use of our resources in terms of human potential and capabilities can and should be channelled through rights not wrongs, through positives not through negatives. It is our produce and ingenuity we can sell to others not the minefields of corrupt and bankrupt public services. * [*Link from here to the page, note the steps taken to ensure the Prime Minister forwarded / delegated submissions and evidence received at 10 Downing Street to the right Minister / Ministry because the submissions were in respect of ORGANISED CRIMES

*

Crime - Organised -Institutionalised - Corruption - Fraud - Protection Rackets,  run and managed by judicial chair occupants, in a free-for-all state of abundance. Note the all-embracing guarantee, in place but in contempt of all law:
"The court has inherent jurisdiction to stay an action which must fail; as, for instance an action brought in respect of an act of State". (And by extension any act of any public servant who is appointed, retained and maintained by other public servants for all of whom, the state, as employer, is ultimately responsible, including abusers of judicial chair occupancy and hence, the billions paid out as covered in the exclusive affidavit that visitors can link to directly from here) *Page revised on: 15 June 2012*

lawcompi.htm           KEY PageChanges 20 Jul. 2003

The Law Compilation *Page Created February 1997**
HELP US TO HELP YOU Please (*Link to plea).

hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)JOIN the Community On Line (*Link to information page) and use your rights. Publish your 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) and 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.

Affiliated Sites For The Above Project / Activities   lbduk.org (group)


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)


KEY to page & site
Acts of Parliament
ECoHR Convention Articles
Precedent CASE on COSTS
Case 4 PUBLICATION - Link
European Union Law
Page CHANGES - List
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Page CHANGES - List
Jun. 2004 Links  2 & From
Left Shared Border - Links
Link to LETTERS TO -  List
Link to LETTERS FROM - List
part 5
part 6
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Letters TO - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Letters FROM - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Site ARTICLES - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Site IMAGES - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

Acts of Parliament
1. Theft Act 1968 - parts
2. Theft Act 1978 - parts
3. Forgery - Counterfeit Act
4. Criminal Justice Act 1988
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

The ISSUES Page-Site
1. Reasons to Publish Order
2. Fraud Vitiates Judgement
3. Misconduct In Public Office
4. Provisions For Victims Exist
5. Offenders Default & Omit
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4
part 3
part 4

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

undercon.gif (286 bytes) Site reconstruction for easier navigation. Page revised: June 15, 2012
Page first published at *human-rights* in September 1997. A compilation with more material was first published by 'The CAMILA Project' in 1981.

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*.

  • 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 if 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 respopnsible for the implimentation of the law are part and parcel on 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.
  • 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 21 years, as our 'DECLARATION' Challenge, the document you can print from our pages qualifies.

Many the offending who defaulted and default. In fact no one has ever completed, signed and returned our DECLARATION, document! That default in itself 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)

Section 15

Obtaining property by deception

Section 16.

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 )

Section 17

False Accounting.

(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause loss to another:-

(2) (2) For the purposes of this section, a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular or who omits or concurs in omitting a particular from an account or other document is to be treated as falsifying the account or document. (Back to: misleading instruments )

Section 20

Suppression etc. of documents

  • 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.

Theft Act 1978

Amendment to Section 16(2)(a)

Evasion of liability by deception

2 (1) subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception -

  • dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another's; or
  • with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait payment (whether or not the due date of payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or
  • dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment; he shall be guilty of an offence.

(Back to Haringey: funds secured as Housing Benefit

2-101 Belief in a right to deprive.

The appropriator who believes "that he has in law the right to deprive" of property the person to whom it belongs is not guilty of theft, for his appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest (s.2(1)(a)). This belief corresponds to the "claim of right made in good faith" the absence of which was formerly an ingredient of larceny. D's belief that he has a right to deprive P will protect him however mistaken or unreasonable it is, even though the claim he makes is of a kind completely unknown to the law. The less plausible the claim, the less likely it is, of course that anyone will believe that it was entertained. But it is sufficient for D to raise reasonable doubt as to his having had the belief in question, the prosecution must prove that the appropriation was dishonest.

From The Criminal Law Library Vol. 1 Alridge & Parry on Fraud.

Page 166 - 6.03

Forgery

"A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice." Section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

The offence is punishable on conviction on indictment with 10 years imprisonment. Its elements will be considered under the following headings:-

  • Instrument.
  • False instrument.
  • Making a false instrument.
  • Acceptance of the instrument as genuine.
  • Causation.
  • Section 8(1) Defines the word 'instrument' as (a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character.

Lord Diplock's advice to Privy Council " ….. the expression 'instrument, whether in the context of the Forgery Ordinance is not confined to a formal document, but includes any document intended to have some effect, as evidence of, or in connection with, a transaction which is capable of giving rise to legal rights or obligations.

Page 177 - 6.20

Making a false instrument.

The actus reus of forgery is the making of a false instrument. This obviously includes the original production of an instrument which is false as soon as it is produced. But section 9(2) provides:-

"A person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as making a false instrument if he alters an instrument so as to make it false in any respect (whether or not it is false in some other aspect apart from that alteration)"

In other words, "making a false instrument" includes:-

  • Making an instrument which is false.
  • Making a genuine instrument false, and
  • Making a false instrument even falser.

Page 178 - 6.22

Acceptance of the instrument as genuine

The first element of the mens rea of forgery is that the maker of the false instrument must intend that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine.

Section 10. (3)

The phrase "to accept it as genuine" may perhaps be construed in the light of section 10(3): one accepts an instrument as genuine if one responds to it as if it were genuine. The verb "to accept" is clearly not to be confined to the sense of a physical taking, i.e. it is sufficient if the victim is intended to look at the instrument without touching or keeping it. Presumably it is also sufficient if the maker of the instrument knows that the intended victim will be indifferent whether it is genuine or not - as will often be the case where stolen cheque cards and credit cards are concerned.

  • Addendum by Landlords Action Group:  "… or the person accepting it (who may claim to be / have been a victim in the first instance) is indifferent to the loss and or the damages being caused or to be caused to the ultimate intended victim and or victims).

Page 179 - 6.24

Prejudice

It must also be proved that the defendant intended the false instrument to be used so as to induce the person accepting it to (or not to) do some act to his own or someone else's prejudice. "Prejudice" is defined by section 10(1)

Subject to subsection (2) and (4) below, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, an act or omission intended to be induced is to a person's prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs - will result:-

  • in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or
  • in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration; or
  • in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration; or
  • will result in somebody being given an opportunity-
  • (1) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him; or
  • (2) to gain a financial advantage from him other than by way of remuneration; or
  • (3) will be the result of his having accepted a false instrument as genuine in connection       with his performance of any duty".

6.25

Thus the concept of an intent to cause prejudice is very similar to that of intent to defraud under the old law. It is sufficient if the maker of the instrument intents some other person to suffer financial loss, or, somebody else to gain a financial advantage at that person's expense.

Page 185 6.37

Suppression of documents

The law of forgery is supplemented by two offences under section 20 of the Theft Act 1968. The offence of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, contrary to section 20(2), is considered above together with the other offences of deception, it may be a useful alternative to forgery where the instrument is not made by the defendant himself but by a person whom he has deceived into making it. Section 20(1) provides:-

  • "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.

The Law

(support - Solicitors - A Precedent case)

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 mire 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 that the legal circles indulge in, in contempt of criminal law, as the compilation above covers.

HIGHLIGHTS IN THE CASE

  • "An order for discovery required the client to give information in writing and on oath of all documents which are of 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."m
  • 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".
  • "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."

From the Administration of Jusdtice Act 1960, we read

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

.... 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.


Return to HomePage

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

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

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

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

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

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

,,,