 JOIN the
Community On Line and publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. Use your
rights in law (link) and ACT, with
others, against the offenders. Join in joint actions against the
violations of your rights.
Affiliated Sites
For The Above Projected Activities
lbduk.org
(group)
The CAMILA
Project
affiliates for DATA collection
lbduk.org
ukfathers.co.uk
<>
KEY to Page
& Site
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
SECTION 2
part 1
part 2
part 3
SECTION 3
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
SECTION 4
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
'The Times' Law Report -1996
 Below, arrogant letter from an abuser of public office, noted to be offering
invisible services to the criminally motivated, the deceitfull and the greedy. Parallel to
such scenarios, also, Public Servants who are USING and ENCOURAGING the greedy to be party
to 'the plans for the sons of men', by the followers of the teachings by example stated in the most vile of works
ever to be presented to 'non-thinkers'.  NOTE the reference to the relied upon blessings
of a local judicial chair occupant.
back to: Cheats who beat them back to: publish letter
from staff back to: officers of law
Below, an article in the Local press after a local councillor came out of the woods
to admit that which he ignored for months. 
Page
1 (link to the text of the explicit Appeal) Appeal warranted.. violations by officers at 'the relevant county court'. (Back to, Haringey: specific
pleadings )
page
2 (*Link to text) Breaches of public duty and scripts for
theatrical productions (read paragraph.5).
page
3 (*Link to text) Challenges for non events (false assertions by
the court - paragraph 7
Page
4 (*Link to text) More false assertions by the criminals in control of our courts
-paragraph 9.
Page
5 (*Link
to text) Rights to property, Artucle 1 of First Protocol
violated by the court (Read paragraph 12).
Page
6 (*Link
to text) Monologue by a hijacker alleging 'hearing before him' challenged:
account for it (paragraph 16
Page 7 (*Link to text) Undeclared policies and
blunt invisible services to legal circles- paragraph 18
Page
8 (*Link
to text) District Judge acting recklessly, in contempt of
the law.... (paragraph 21)
Page
9 (*Link to text) District Judge in contelpt
of evidence, issues false instrument (paragraph 23)
Page
10 (*Link to text)
Obstructions by court to rights in law and procedure
challenged (paragraph 25)
Page
11 (*Link
to text)
Hijacking and script for theatrical productions challenged
(paragraph 26)
Page
12 (*Link
to text)
FRAUD on the DSS ignored by District Judge ..... (paragraph
26a)
Page 13 (*Link to text) Challenging inexcusable
failure to enter judgement (paragraph 26f)
Page
14 (Link to text)
Denial of rights to property PRACTISED by court (paragraph
26i)
Page
15 (Link to text) Order sought to declare directions/script error
based on a false instrument / FORGERY (paragraph A). Also orders
sought in respect of attempts to seek and abuse Legal Aid facilities in respect of
ESTABLISHED LIABILITIES founded on contract and failures to challenge the documented
evidence that the abusers of public office, as alleged judicious persons, elected to
ignore in pursuance of other ulterior motives and practice (paragraph B). Demand for security of costs against solicitors should they wish to
proceed with any theatrical scenarios and scripts as 'planned by the abuser of office at
that late hour (paragraph C).
Page
16 (Link to text)
Duty of Court
to refer to terms of Tenancy Agreement (paragraph D) Also court's CART BEFORE THE HORSE MENTALITIES challenged (paragraph D).
Demanding Order for Judgement and costs founded on the proof of the
liability of the defendants founded and resting on the DEFAULT SUMMONS CLAIM. Demanding also for an order of all costs to the date of and
including the hearing of the Appeal, in the event that the court may wish t proceed
by way of the scenario and script that the abusers of public office indulged in at the
expense of the property owner in pursuance of undeclared policies and practices (paragraph
E). (Back to: Police Complaints Authority)
Page
17 (Link to text)
Duty of care 'for claimants by state and Local Authorities'
(paragraph D). Demands also for explanations and justifications from the author of the
script and scenario FOR FAILING TO DEAL with the absence of any
substance and or evidence upon which to found the proposed theatrical production in
pursuance of undeclared by the state and the courts policies (paragraph G).
Page 18 (Link
to text)
Failure to defend established liability gave rise to challenge COURT
and freedoms to indulge by persons in judicial chairs; challenged as violations of Article
13 (paragraph I). Also CONSCIOUS knowledge and endorsement of FRAUD
ON THE Department of Social Security by LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFF AND OFFICERS leading to challenges of the court to refer the matters to the Fraud
Office of the DSS in Leeds (paragraph J). (Back to Haringey Council
Page 19 (*Link to text) Challenging court to justify to Lord Chancellor attempt to abuse Legal Aid 'facilities'. NOTE: copies of the Appeal sent to Lord Chancellor's office and the Legal
Aid Board, who also received copies of the FORGERIES that the enterprising geniuses
procured and USED in the execution of 'their public duties';
their activities arising and attached to the THEFT OF THE PROPERTIES of others, inclusive
of the theft of the rights in law of the targeted victims of all, through the script the
offending court officer indulged in 'out of the blue' and 'his hat of dirty tricks'.
Page
20 (Link to text)
Back-sheet address. Members of the Landlords Action Group,
ensuring the managing agents of 'their properties' receive all mail relevant to their
properties and to their rights in law.
Page 21  The extensive script
concocted in contempt of every principle of procedure. An instrument indulged into
in order to create theatrical productions in pursuance of undeclared policies and the
'usual income generation facilities' for the actors in the legal circles. The author and
the Lord Chancellor's Department are called to account while the Home Secretary is called
to justify the failures of the police in Haringey to attend to the blatant crimes
instigated and indulged into by the staff and officers at Haringey Council THROUGH THE USE
AND PROMOTION OF FORGERIES, with
additional denial of rights and breaches in public duty by many from within the
Metropolitan police, Haringey Area, leading to and inclusive of defaults and omissions by
the office of and the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon QPM. (Back to:
Haringey Council, the usual
railroading practices
Page
22  The police were handed a
Section 9 Statement, copies of the FORGERIES we publish and copy of an alleged
legitimate order purporting to be a 'justifiable' instrument in law arising out of
diligent references to the file in the case at hand. IN ITSELF that instrument resting
and founded on a non-event with the
additional offence of the fact that the court also arranged to post that false, in law,
instrument weeks late. The property agents who were co-operating in the scams and
the extensive constructive frauds, for obvious reasons (to any one who knows of court
procedures and rules) suppressed the delivery of that false instrument. They had been
forewarned of the tricks the court staff indulge in and they could recognise why the need for the most common tool by the courts in the best
interests of the directors and that actors who are in control of 'The Legal And
Court Productions Entertainment Industry'. The perversion of and the
corrupt abuse of the courts' facilities are criminal offences; we have other instances on
record, and the evidence, when Court Orders were posted late and without hearings
proper or the need for one in much the same way as when the Counterclaim
was struck out in one of the cases we cover in our pages. Appeal
warranted.. violations by officers at 'the relevant county
court'. (Back to, Haringey: specific pleadings)
Page
23  The Arbitration arrangements BY
THE COURT in view of the amount claimed. Reference to the Appeal we publish
qualifies much. The Lord Chancellor and his department have a lot to answer for, after
they prepare the LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN THE COURT FILE as we demanded and insist upon.
The letter can be published and our reasons can be made public along with much more
documented and damning evidence against the offenders who are of opinion that the needs of
the citizens for 'justice' are their ticket to dishonest and fraudulent gains through
abuse of the courts' facilities. NOTE: The order is
backdated by the offender in an attempt to justify the introduction of the FALSE and
fraudulent in intent instrument. Removal of the records from court file of the 'hearing of
23 July 1998 constitutes another INDICTABLE OFFENCE as qualified by 'The LAW' compilation
we publish.
Page
24  The request of the
court staff to ensure that they were to forward the
completed, in date and time, application to the amenable in the scams' letting / managing
agents of 'the targeted property and its owners'.
Page
25  Receipt issued when the Appeal was lodged. (Back to: National Scandal the explicit Appeal questionable activities
(above)
|
|
 Site under reconstruction
for better navigation. Page Revised: September 24, 2009
All underlined text with an asterisk
indicates a LINK at the bottom of the page.
Local Authority staff - VIOLATE - rights
assured in law
The days when public servants
relied on the BLIND DEAF AND DUMB MEDIA ARE OVER. The days when ALL relied on BLIND
DEAF AND DUMB OFFICERS, within the law enforcement agencies, ARE ALDO OVER.
This is the age of FREE exchange of information
and THE UNADULTERATED FACTS OF LIFE within all states, so long as their citizens are free
to exercise, AS WE DO, their basic human-rights that ARE GUARANTEED under the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECoHR).
Article
9. "EVERYONE has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion..."
Article
10. "EVERYONE
has the right to FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION....to HOLD OPINIONS...TO RECEIVE AND IMPART
INFORMATION AND IDEAS without interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers..... (with provisions attached to ) maintaining the authority AND IMPARTIALITY
of the judiciary".
Article 11. "EVERYONE
has the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of ASSOCIATION with
others.... rights to form and join ... for the protection of HIS INTERESTS".
Article 13. "EVERYONE
whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated SHALL have an
effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation HAS BEEN
committed by persons acting in an OFFICIAL CAPACITY."
Article 13 is
VERY CLEAR. WHERE IS THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY
THAT LOOKS INTO THE VIOLATIONS judges in the United Kingdom endorse, entertain AND
INSTIGATE of their own? The question is simple and the Lord Chancellor with
the Home Secretary should co-operate and produce the formula under which the citizens CAN
challenge activities that blatantly breach national law and VIOLATE Human Rights. NOTE PLEASE: We have on record a high court case where the Judge made an issue of the
serious ERROR of judgements (practices in our view) by the Local Government Ombudsman. All
is not as the public is told; the multitude of documented facts we publish PROVE SO BEYOND
ANY REASONABLE DOUBT to the average citizen. The citizens demand that they be treated no
more as illiterate serfs of the middle ages and or as subjects to the whims and or
the abusive dishonesty of so-called 'public servants'; the 'alleged servants of the
public' who serve other ulterior motives*, which they fail to declare.
In the column on the left a 'Times' Law Report. It covers aspects attached to
Shorthold Tenancy Agreements. No sooner had the judgement been pronounced by the Court of
Appeal and a member of staff from Haringey Council, was writing to the landlady and her
agent to promote assertions contrary to the true facts in the case he was alluding to and
irrespective of the true legal position. The author of the letter, which we publish on
this page, was reported subsequently as no longer employed at Haringey Council.
The Law Report
is succinct and clear: "NO DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION" in a matter of
Shorthold Tenancy Agreements, even in the case the Court of Appeal was called upon to
determine, on appeal from a county court. In that instance the tenants actually were
evicted without any court proceedings and or court rulings in the matter; the fact was
that the property owner had sold it as an empty property and the tenancy was but a
Shorthold.
We have on record, however,
other issues and documented evidence that we will publish in these pages. We have been
left with no choice because public servants carried on ignoring the victims, went on to
act in additional contempt of Parliament's Law and they indulged in the creation of their
own false instruments. Through such convenient defaults, omissions and downright criminal
activities, they set about to cause damages to the person who reported the rampant fraud
and corruption their employers (Haringey Council and its staff and officers) engaged in,
as endorsed, aided and abetted by officers and staff at the Local (relevant) County Court.
The questionable
activities of Public Servants, operating within Local Authorities such as Haringey Council
in North London, have been the subject of well documented presentations and complaints by
us. We have been waiting for over three years for a dreamer within its confines, to set
down one complaint for presentation to the council's own review panel. He has
persistently defaulted to do so with intent, simply because he knows that in another case
the fraudulent demands the Council was
seeking to impose on targeted victims, private landlords, ended at that stage without the
need for theatrical productions outside the council's confines because the LAW is the LAW,
and facts are facts. We publish the
letter that the Chief Executive was caused, eventually, to write on 26th January 1999
to which you can link now). He
was making issue of the fact that Haringey Council staff and officers, en masse, were
dependant and relied on their partners in deceptions and fraud. He alluded to the persons
who were acting as managing agents for the targeted owners and the targeted
property. We have been left with no option but to publish other documented evidence
that covers the part the police played and play in the promotion of the CIUKU enterprises,
not to mention the break-ip of families, an even worse offence in an allegedly civilised
state. We demand proper actions and prosecutions of the criminals who treat Social
Security Funds (including Legal Aid funding facilities) as easy pickings as our founder
clarified in his letter of 18th December 1998, to the Home Secretary and as qualified in the Appeal published below.
Council staff acting in
contempt of 'The Law'* and the principles of law, asserting that they act on
directives from above and in accordance with 'the regulations' to which allegedly they
'adhere' in presumed ignorance of 'The LAW'. Such practices irrespective of
the dictum "Ignorance of The LAW is no
defence". The Law report we publish above, immaterial to
public servants, Court Officers and staff. Two firms of solicitors indulging themselves
and looking forward to use the court's facilities through which to convert RENTS DUE AND
PAYABLE (to a targeted landlord) to alleged legal costs. Attempts to defraud through the
usual theatrical scenarios and presentations by 'legal boffins' irrespective of the facts,
the evidence and the law applicable in that instance. Everything had been arranged by and
care of the Housing Benefit Fund manipulative administrators. Public servants who work
with and for dishonest tenants, for and with the 'legal parasites', for and with
amenable letting agents, as the council's own legal experts arrange through directives to
the blind and the illiterate in law Council staff; such arrangements as other public
servants endorse and entertain.
The facts covered in the
Appeal below were and ARE fully documented. The criminal activities indictable offences in
breach of Parliament's Laws; as in another case all was reported to the police. 'The LAW'
compilation published in our pages, for the benefit of all UK citizens and residents,
covers it all. Nonetheless, the criminals, in both instances, used, encouraged and relied
upon the used tenants to act outside 'The Law'. In one of the cases 'the tenants were
used' to institute alleged legitimate court proceedings against the landlady and her
agent; the legal boffins in the instance dared allege wrongful eviction, within five
months of the Court of Appeal ruling, the Law Report we publish above. The legal boffins, as parasites, indulged themselves,
irrespective of the fact that the dishonest and thieving debtors had
been assisted, IMPROPERLY, (by the participating in constructive frauds council staff)
to disappear. The disappearance and flight from the CREATED LIABILITIES AND DEBTS just
three days after the offenders were served with a Default Summons. Thousands of pounds of
unpaid rents arising out of alleged failures by Council staff to process and to remit
Housing Benefit to the used tenants. The tenants failing for months to remit rent because,
allegedly, their Housing Benefit claim had not been processed; and the dishonest within
the confines of Haringey Council, confirming the allegations by the used, for constructive
frauds, tenants. All care of public servants administering the CIUKU enterprises.
Council staff and officers
parties to the disappearing acts of the dishonest tenants, to an undeclared destination,
in breach of Scetions of the Theft Acts. Council staff moving
the dishonest tenants to a council property, as soon as the tenants were served with the
warranted Default Summons. Over £4000 in
unpaid rents BECAUSE THEIR HOUSING BENEFIT, ALLEGEDLY, HAD NOT BEEN PROCESSED, BY THE
COUNCIL STAFF, FOR OVER FOUR MONTHS. And the Council staff and officers simply confirming
the alleged failures and defaults. The tenants assaulted the managing agent of the property because he took he took
legitimate steps to protect the rights, in law, of his principal. The tenants causing,
also, criminal damages to properties; they inflicted serious life threatening injuries,
and they caused permanent physical damage and disability to the assaulted agent. The parasitic
legal boffins looking forward to their field days in court, care of constructively
engineered fraudulent activities and the police party to fraudulent misrepresentations
INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO PASS FALSE INSTRUMENTS AS legitimate, sound and acceptable evidence
in support of the misrepresentations; professional criminals at work in CIUKU enterprises.
An affidavit settled by the
victim of the assaults was lodged at court. It was served on both solicitors who were
looking forward to the usual theatrical scripts. One solicitor was acting for the intended victim,
the landlady; the other was acting for the 'used' dishonest tenants. The 'victim of
crimes', the assaulted agent, needed no parasite to represent him. His affidavit and his
actions put an end to the dreams of all, including the attempts to abuse the Legal Aid
Facilities. The
Lord Chancellor will be challenged in due course to look up and investigate, at least
FOUR, case files all of which were issued out of 'the relevant county court' to which the
author of the intimidating letter from Haringey Council alluded, without realising that he
was spilling the beans as to the expectations of all. The agent kept the CoA ruling up his sleeve in the
event the solicitors and the relevant county court officers should proceed with the abuse of legal AID FACILITIES through which to
convert the unpaid rents to alleged legal fees. ALL was instigated by and care
of the dishonest who systematically organise(d) the constructive frauds through abuse of
the Housing Benefit Funds and Council facilities at the disposal of the corrupt and the
corrupted.
DISHONESTY and LIES; deceptions promoted and resting on
alleged regulations and non process of the Housing Benefit Applications because of any one
of a myriad of excuses that council staff and used tenants concoct(ed) as they went
/ go along. Their activities in contravention of Article 1 of the First Protocol
of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We publish below a letter received from a member of staff / officer
operating out of Haringey Council. The author's area of operations was 'tenant relations'.
No doubt, COUNCIL TENANTS, not private landlord and tenant business. The author took it
upon himself to use his office in order to promote and offer 'invisible services to third
parties' through use of council paper and facilities. He was leaving telephone messages
for the agent of the private landlord to contact him. He was asked to write of his
personal interest and or concerns in private rented accommodation, because he was
NOT dealing with council tenancy business, such as his public duties and office covered!
He obliged and wrote assertively and naively, as he did: "... without the sanction of
the court..." thereby exhibiting reliance on the abusers of public office, such as we
were caused to challenge umpteed times. A typical example covered in the affidavit we
publish below; another covered in the Appeal, we also publish below. Institutionalised,
rampant fraud on Mr and Mrs Average who are and remain none the wiser care of the
condescending media barons.
NOTE: Consider the above facts; a council 'employee getting
involved in matters that had nothing to do with him, except, the possible offer and use of
his office, for other purposes than his appointment/retainer 'covered'. Cross relate that situation to the introduction of the
Environmental Health Service in the attempts to convert misappropriated and diverted
Housing Benefit Funds in the case covered in the Appeal published below. Court cases and
Appeals following failures to remit rents due to the owners of properties; in the Appeal
case the property occupied by imported tenants; such tenants systematically used and in
use in Haringey, as in other areas in the land of milk and honey; the milk and honey
provided by fraudsters and abusers of public office in CORRUPT
BRITAIN as covered in the Daily Mail investigation and report.
Upon receipt of the letter
the agent simply telephoned and ADVISED the abuser of public office to go to the nearest
public library; to look up 'The Times' Law Report, and to cease interfering in the
affairs and the rights of private landlords. The author was specifically told to cease
dreaming up concocted evictions 'without the sanction of the relevant county court'.
He was informed that the young lady he was alluding to: (a) had
given notice to her landlady, (b) SHE HAD IN FACT MOVED OUT TAKING WITH
HER MOST OF HER PRIVATE belongings, (c) she in fact handed over the
property and (d) the young lady was indebted well in excess of £1000 to
her landlady. He was further told that the fact the landlady had not issued a Default
Summons rested on the hard luck story of the young lady; it appeared to be a re-run of the
circumstances under which the niece of our founder committed suicide; a grossly
indifferent and selfish father whose priorities were his personal grandiose plans and
life-style at the expense of many others. We point
out our guidelines and principle: "In a true Democracy no one has the right to
indulge in whatever rights he assumes for personal gratification / gain / whatever at the
expense of and or the violations of the rights of MANY OTHERS". Sadly in the United Kingdom any individual
is encouraged to act as he or she feels like; individuals acting in breach of Parliament's
Laws, and the violations of the rights of others, generate work for theatrical production
opportunities for the Law Enforcement Agencies, the members of which thus have their
cat and mouse field days as in 'The Police Summons the Victim'* case is qualified
and in 'The Breeding Grounds'* case was contemplated and attempted by the young
policeman who asserted, as an SS officer in Nazi occupied Europe, "You want his
address? Get your solicitor to write to me at the police station". (Note: copy
of the Appeal set down in The Breeding Grounds case can be secured from <camila@human-rights.demon.co.uk>
include 'request copy' in the subject line specifying the case for a response).
In the left column one of the NEWSPAPER
REPORTS covering the facts of life in Haringey, North London. OUR FOUNDER HAD CAUSED
the Daily Mail to commission its own investigation in 1997 in the matter of publicly
funded bodies wasting through fraud* and criminal activities, Social Security
funds. The scams EXPOSED in the local papers followed years of frustrating contempt by
public servants, including the police, and volumes of paper work that was imposed by the
corrupt and the corrupted. Many had been closing their ears and their eyes; they had
nothing to say on the serious issues presented to them. ALL ignored the evidence and the
facts of life within Haringey Council. Certain actions taken were only pre-emptive
activities because of the expressed intention to publish material facts and documented
evidence on the Internet. We informed all that our citizens should get to know of the
abuse of public office and the world can also marvel at the capabilities of the 'used and
tutored dishonest' who subsequently get protected by the corrupt and the corrupt and the
corrupted in the mother of modern Democracy. The documented evidence, masses of letters
etc., can never be erased and or ignored by any decent citizen. The evidence and attempts
predate the exposure by Councillor Peter Forrest who came out of the wood to speak of the
facts of life in Haringey after the FORGERIES relied upon, used and promoted by Haringey
Council staff were referred to the police, as we cover in our pages.
Our founder first became
aware of the facts of life in March/April 1996. For months lies and fabrications
(recorded, audio tapes) attached to inexcusable falsehoods were advanced, promoted
and relied upon by the deceivers and the dishonest within the confines of Haringey
Council. The activities are fully covered by 'The LAW'* document published on our
web-site. In the words of Conservative councillor Peter Forrest: -
"...Councils
like Haringey are clearly a soft touch for employees who know how to.....".
The councillor failed to add "..
do ALSO FOR THEMSELVES that which they do for their employers and for the imported new
citizens that are used to defraud the ordinary hardworking and creative citizens. Thieving
and stealing from those who operated within the law for decades. Stealing from the
creative and frugal WHO HAVE THEIR ASSETS CONVERTED by and through public servants via
INSTITUTIONALISED FRAUD AND CORRUPTION. Converting the assets of targeted sections
of our communities to others and in particular to the new Masters and LORDS in our
neo-feudal DICTATORSHIP. A state operated under the guise of democracy. An
alleged democracy resting and founded on Corrupted Law, and not on Law and Order and
or on the Laws Parliament enacted over the centuries". The addenda, of course, are nothing but our
views resting and founded on the facts we shall be exposing in full as we go along.
It is for THE TWO MINISTERS
in charge of law and order, investigative and administrative, the Home Secretary and the
Lord Chancellor to act swiftly and efficiently. It is for the police who were
instructed to investigate the activities within our legal system and the courts to GET ON
WITH THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES. Crime IS CRIME; the Law, IS THE LAW. Cease treating citizens
with contempt as you treat 'The LAW'. The extensive and succinct Appeal we publish below
qualifies much and clarifies the abuse of the courts' facilities by public servants.
Public servants acting as 'asset stripping authorities' with self appointed rights to
operate outside the restraints of Parliament's Laws at the expense of Mr and Mrs Average.
Misconduct in public office for the benefit of 'selected circles'; fraud and pecuniary
advantage through promotion of undeclared policies from non elected partners in a puppet
state with no government proper. If we are to carry on benefiting from the use of and
allusions to DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments the government must be seen to be acting
as promised to our founder in 1995.
The explicit and succinct
Appeal, published below, covers material that 'members of the self perpetuating cancerous
growth industry', in control of OUR Justice System, habitually and systematically indulge
in. Their circles never challenging the obvious. We did and do.
Read first the last paragraph (J) on page
18; then recognise why our founder's conclusions in 1972/75 and why the references to
CIUKU! All the while we, the citizens, meet the costs of the theatrical productions
through taxes, as contemplated and indulged into and evinced through the content of the
Appeal.
NOTE the fact that copy of
the Appeal was submitted to the Lord Chancellor's office and to the administrators of the
loan facilities recoverable through theatrical productions as directed by second rate
directors and as enacted by third rate actors. The 'administrators' none other than the
Legal Aid Board, the managers of Public funds and 'the facilities' at the beck and call of
the dishonest, the deceitful and THE CORRUPTERS OF OUR SOCIETY; in a nutshell, the
promoters of "The Cancerous Growth Industry" (words in quotes copyright).
CONSIDER, also, the
affidavit lodged at the very court in the matter of the other Housing Benefits 'abuse of
the court's (pardon, relevant 'county court's) facilities by another Local Authority and
the picture becomes clearer. We could of course publish ALL documented evidence at our
disposal and it may well be that we may be forced to do so before the offenders recognise
that their attempts to take us down the paths they set in motion many years ago, with and
through 'their mischief making partners' in constructive frauds and
crimes are not our chosen avenues.
The organised
misappropriation and the distribution of Housing Benefit funds, 'conveniently through
Local Authorities and their well trained in deceptions, dishonesty and Fraudulent
Activities Staff and Officers is the main issue. Public servants retained to serve the
public doing their damnedest best to defraud their masters (the public). Such persons
relying on our bankrupted and corrupted legal system and the operatives from within it, to
endorse their kind of society. A society founded and resting on deceptions and fraudulent
misrepresentations in the promotion of the "Let Barrabas Live And Crucify Christ", policies
by the politically correct, the destroyers of countries and societies (Link)! Thus they create and generate the need for the
services of the corrupt and the corrupted in charge of our legal system, one of the finest
in the world, sadly in the hands of the most contemptible of THE LAW practitioners as can
be adduced through diligent perusal of the Appeal we copy in this
page.
We add and point out that the staff and officers of
'the relevant county court' DID strike out the COUNTERCLAIM in the other case we refer to
in our pages. Another Local Authority, in that instance, was to benefit from 'suppression
and attempted burial of 'the rights in law' of the targeted and intended victim'. Those
liberties gave grounds to another Appeal, which we could publish along with all other
warranted communications AND THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, attached to that case. It is
partially covered through one of the submitted affidavits, that we publish in our pages.
OVER TO THE MINISTERS responsible for the safeguarding of
the rights in law of our citizens. We demand and look forward to justifications and
responsible answers for the criminal, in intent, activities of public servants indulged
and indulge in, in pursuance of undeclared Robin (robbing) Hood (under-cover) activities.
Over to the Media Barons
and their editors; the mammary gland promoters; the suppressors of material facts from
the electorate, who are persistently called upon to be more productive and more
competitive in order to meet the GREED of the parasites who, allegedly are serving
Parliament's Laws and the long suffering public, the 'serfs' who are dubjected to such
corrupt practices by public(!) servants)?) in an allegedly civilised state that allegedly
rests and is founded on law and order.
CEASE TREATING CITIZENS WITH CONTEMPT and or
as illiterate serfs of the Middle Ages. You are NOT our elected Masters. Nor are you our
Lords, by any stretch of your, or 'the partners' in Institutionalised Crimes, imagination.
The citizens, demand the protection of 'The LAW', from the crimes we cover in our pages.
NOTE:
- Details of the parties and the County Court, the
staff and officers of which indulged relentlessly, for and in the thefts /
misappropriation of rents, owing to targeted private landlords, are detailed in the scan
images of the pages factual documents / evidence in the column on the
left.
- Other documented evidence is published in other
pages.
- More will be published in explicit and extensive
pages for Council staff and Police activities with convenient defaults to prosecute the
criminals who engaged in the thefts of other peoples moneys. Funds being used to meet the
salaries of parasitic 'public servants'.
- All in a day's work for the promotion of CIUKU
Enterprises.
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 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 arbitration following
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 Court 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 proceeded to ignore
the purpose of the hearing for the day and indulged in ‘NEW directions’ as per Order Appealed 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 Arbitration 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
hijacking 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 through 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 Plaintiff 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 except 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 contemptuously 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 remains 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 justifiable demand of
the Court on 27 July 1998 for Judgement in the sum of
£
4808.00
17. 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 theatrical 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 Silverman arose to
public office. At no time either party to
the proceedings objected to the Arbitration procedure and in the circumstances District 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 June 1998and 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 Silverman 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 Counterclaim 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 established through the
filed documented evidence and District Judge Silverman was wrong to disregard 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 hijacking (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 Plaintiff 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 while seeking to
introduce his own ‘scenario’ in the case at hand, or with intent overlooked the
Defendants' liabilities he ought to have entered judgement for the Plaintiff, who is owed
the sum of £4,808.00 which any person with common sense, let alone a judicious person
recognises, IF in any breach of contract could and can be used for the needs of the
property. Every one from the Defendants 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 against) 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 obviously did not wish and
or desire 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 in the case 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 was 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 hijacking and
railroading of the Arbitration hearing which he attempted to shelve (through the Order 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 proceedings) 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 hijacking and
railroading what was NOTHING but an Arbitration Hearing (as the parties attended Court
for) HE DISQUALIFIED himself from acting in
the case. (Hijacking 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 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 hijacking, 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.
(f)
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 ‘suggested’ 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’.
(g) 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.
(h)
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 hereto obstructing access to the property while
relying on Court officers (such as Deputy District Judge Kolbe) to abuse office and obstruct and violate rights of
access to Justice and Property, public servant negating in his public duties, to
block and obstruct access to the property by summarily dismissing the application for
an Order ordering the Defendants to cease obstructing authorised contractors and the
members of staff of the managing agents to attend to the problems complained of by the
Defendants and for the managing agents to execute their contractual obligations to the
Plaintiff in the management of the property that belongs to the Plaintiff, not to
the Defendants, not to the Local Authority and or any other inclusive of the offending
and obstructing persons who have so far acted in breach of their public duties, the rules
of procedure and the rights of the plaintiff which they grossly violated at will and for
other ulterior motives as herein above and below pleaded and stated.
AND THE
PLAINTIFF WILL SEEK THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:-
A. The order of District Judge Silverman allegedly made
on 20th July 1998 and drawn on 27th July 1998 be declared void (if the alleged date
20th July 1998 endorsed thereon be declared an error and justified as such) a FORGERY on the grounds that there was no hearing on 20th July 1998 and or
a mistake in law because of the District Judge’s failings, errors, mistakes on the Grounds that the Court
was duty bound to proceed with the Arbitration as had been set down for the day and that
the document be rescinded
and removed from the records unless District Judge Silverman and or any other can justify
the non event and alleged hearing on 20 July 1998. AND
that District Judge Silverman ought not to have
ignored the fact that the Plaintiff HAD complied with all directions, and did, serve, did
file and did adduce all warranted evidence in support of the originating cause of action.
The cause of action that remains and is FOUNDED ON NON PAYMENT OF RENTS. that THE issue
before the Court WAS AND IS THE DEFAULT SUMMONS; THE
CLAIM BEING THAT of non payment of rents, for which the Plaintiff was entitled to a
hearing proper of the matter before the court on 27th July 1998; the liability by the Defendants in the sum of £4808 which was
established through the submitted and filed evidence at Court, which evidence the
Defendants and their legal experts had every opportunity to challenge yet failed to do so
AND IN THE PREMISES THE PLAINTIFF was and is entitled to enter Judgement in the aforesaid
sum of £4808.00
B. An Order that unless the
Defendants submit to the Plaintiff certified copies of any other remittances (than those
relied upon by the Plaintiff) supported by a sworn duly sworn statement / affidavit and or
statutory declaration, within 14 days of the day of the hearing of this Appeal that they
be barred from any defence in the matter of the claim which is founded on the failure to
pay rents as provided for under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements, and that they also
file at Court such other evidence in Support of any other remittances and or payments in
the bank account of the Plaintiff as they had undertaken to do. AND in the event that they fail to do so within
fourteen days of the date of the hearing of the Appeal and Order sought, that their solicitor and or the Defendants by
themselves do justify their failures to admit that no other remittances and or banking
were made by them (in respect of the
period covered by the Schedule of account filed by the Plaintiff at Court) as of 9th June 1998 and that the solicitors
(purportedly representing the Defendants) do themselves make good by way of interest to be
charged on the established (unless challenged and
established as paid / banked funds) balance which interest they should of themselves remit
to the Plaintiff arising out of and because of the reckless and indifferent manner with
which they treated their clients liabilities established through the submitted documents
they received; and to further justify their
attempts to apply for Legal Aid in matters arising out of a Default Summons, founded and
resting on the failures of the Defendants to remit and or bank rents due under the Tenancy
Agreements.
C. That in the event the
Defendants fail to adduce to Court any evidence in support of any other remittances and or
banked by them funds before the hearing of this appeal and or at least three days before
the hearing of same that the Court do enter Judgement in the sum of £4,808.00 already
established and claimed as owing and outstanding and that the said sum be paid to the
Plaintiffs forthwith, in order that the Plaintiffs and their
agents (i) a full report on the state of the property, (ii) prepare full photographic and
video evidence as to the maintenance of the property (relied upon and alleged by the
Defendants) (iii) the Plaintiff by himself and or through his authorised agents
and representatives to attend to all problems with the property and with his rights in law
and as provided for under the Tenancy Agreements. And that in the event that the
defendants may seek leave to amend their pleadings and submissions to Court for and in
respect of any alleged Counterclaim (which they may be advised to proceed with at this
juncture) that their solicitors give security for costs in respect of any proposed and or
alleged Counterclaim they may wish to allege and or proceed with on behalf of the
Defendants.
D. That should the Defendants
of themselves seek leave to submit any amended Pleadings in respect of the claim against
them that they should first and foremost meet ALL costs,
outgoings and damages by way of lost time arising out of all work incidental
thereto, by whosoever and howsoever incurred arising out of and since the institution of
the proceedings founded and resting on NON PAYMENT OF RENTS, a simple Default Summons used
and diverted in many an avenue and direction by for and on behalf of the Defendants for
and in respect of the undeclared policies, in which the Plaintiff was and is
not a participant and or party agreeable to and or
responsible for, because of the status and circumstances of the Defendants. And in the event that the Defendants and or their
solicitors should wish to proceed to prepare and amend pleadings resting and founded
on any alleged Counterclaim, they should also through and by their solicitors
(who owe duty of care to the Court) jointly
and severally give security for costs in respect of same.
E. And for an Order
ordering the Defendants and their solicitors to justify their failures to come forward
with any defence in respect of the unpaid rents as claimed AND WAS ESTABLISHED by the
Plaintiff through the submitted documented evidence and that all costs, outgoings and
damages howsoever caused to the Plaintiff, his Attorney and his agents leading to the
demanded of the Court Judgement in the sum of £4808 be met by
the Defendants forthwith and as herein above demanded even if the Defendants be granted
leave to proceed with the preparation of any amended pleadings which they may care to
introduce with any alleged Counterclaim which they may care to advance rely and promote at
this juncture with the leave of the Court.
F. That the
Defendants solicitors and District Judge Silverman do justify to the Lord Chancellor’s
department the attempt to abuse Legal Aid Funds for and in respect of a case arising out
of non payments of rents (contractual
liabilities) as claimed by the Plaintiff in the
first instance and subsequently established through the documented evidence filed at
Court. And that District Judge Silverman do
justify to the Lord Chancellor’s Department any alleged Defence that he personally was
satisfied exists and or ever existed in the case and that he should qualify his personal
satisfaction if through DILIGENT reference to the pleadings and to the submitted and filed
affidavits and the documented evidence attached thereto which he ought to have referred to
before purporting to act in any judicious capacity, and not simply indulge in scripts and
scenarios for the ill intended proposed theatrical production
resting on a Forgery and void
Order. The PUBLIC DUTY and office of District Judge Silverman on 27 July 1998, commanded
of him to deal with the Arbitration Hearing as the Court had set down on 13 May 1998
(never mind the obstructions and the obvious to disclose and furnish the documented
evidence that established the Plaintiffs case). HIS PUBLIC duty commanded that he dealt
with the purpose of the hearing as set down and not to delve in and or promote undeclared
policies and or divert the case in other avenues because of OTHER ULTERIOR MOTIVES as
herein above qualified and quantified. HIS DUTY and
Public office on the day commanded that he dealt DILIGENTLY with the pleadings and
submissions served and filed at Court; and that he paid particular attention to the ‘particularity’
with which the CLAIM FOR THE UNPAID RENTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. HIS DUTY WAS to deal with the CLAIM established and
not to indulge in straw clutching exercises to salvage the
corrupt practices indulged in at the expense of property owners, for
and in the interests of undeclared policies and the usual income generating practices in
the interests of the circles from within which he arose to Public Office. HIS DUTY AND PUBLIC OFFICE COMMANDED THAT HE SERVED
JUSTICE; nothing else, on the basis of the invitation of the parties to the Court, the ARBITRATION HEARING as set down by the Court; DEAL with the EVIDENCE AVAILABLE, and enter
Judgement.
G. For an Order
that in the event District Judge Silverman fails to qualify his adopted attitude that he
should also explain away if consequential problems (with the property) arising out of non
payment of rents by the Defendants constitute grounds upon which to found rest and plead
any breaches of contract by the Plaintiff in this instance; at all material times with all
due consideration and DILIGENT references to the Pleadings served and filed at Court, by
the parties hereto; and specifically the pleadings by the Defendants in respect of alleged
maintenance and repairs to but no evidence in support of such, followed by and with
the attached breaches of Public Duty with the reckless indifference by public bodies and
servants, to the violations of the rights of the
property owners in
pursuit of undeclared policies by, for and in the interests of the Local Authority and
others.
H. That the
failure by District Judge Silverman to order the Defendants to meet the costs attached to
the proceedings to the date when District Judge Silverman by himself and on his own did
attempt to grant leave to amend pleadings be pronounced a gross error AND breach of procedures. And that it further be pronounced a deliberate and
intended act of Discrimination and a violation of the relevant provisions of the European
Convention on Human Rights also as provided for under National and European Law and that
the failure to adhere to the rules of procedure if it pronounced either an error and or
mistake and or oversight by District Judge Silverman, and that the
Defendants be granted leave to amend and waste Court time, abuse of Legal Aid facilities
and additional time by the Plaintiff, then the costs of the Plaintiff be met by the
Court itself whose officers have done nothing but violate the rights of the Plaintiff who
at all material times acted within the Court's directions and with the rules of procedure.
I. That the costs
attached to and arising out of this Appeal be met by the Defendants and or out of Public
funds in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff has been obstructed in the
prosecution of his legitimate rights to property (rents - funds- moneys are property) by
public servants unless there be evidence produced to the satisfaction of the Plaintiff,
his Attorney and the Court by and or before the date of the hearing of the Appeal that the
Defendants had and or
have any evidence to supplement what has been credited to the Defendants (in the served
and filed Schedule of rent account); remittances and banking by them in
the Plaintiff’s bank account. And that in the event that such evidence did and or does
exist that the Court should Order the Defendants solicitors to meet the
costs of the Plaintiffs, costs and
damages, consequential to and for failing to make any submissions as of 9 June 1998 and electing to waste the time of the Attorney for the
Plaintiff in collusion and or in complicity and or in common purpose and cause with others
intending to protract and promote through new scripts and scenarios the deliberately
imposed waste of time and reckless impositions on the Plaintiff and his Attorney through
the usual manifestations of the corrupt and bankrupt legal services maintained in the
United Kingdom through the self regulating and self perpetuating corrupt bodies (possible
contraventions of Article 13 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
J. And for an
Order ordering the Chief Clerk of the Court to prepare copies of the pleadings and in
particular copies of both affidavits from Andrew Yiannides with the attached exhibits
thereto ‘A.Y.1’ and ‘A.Y.2’. And that
the chief clerk of the Court be directed to submit the copies to the Investigation
Department of the Department of Social Security in Leeds (The Plaintiff's Attorney CAN
provide the Court with the address). The Court to move itself in the right direction (not
as District Judge Silverman wrongly indulged in, on 27 July 1998) because of the fact that officers and the
staff at Haringey Council knew the property owner was receiving (albeit occasionally) only £145 per week
(as the declared by the Defendants Housing Benefit received) when in fact they were also
aware the Department of Social Security (allegedly) was
remitting £165 per week to
the Defendants. ONLY idiots and conscious accessories to fraud keep
quiet IF NOT PARTY themselves (refer to the investigation by the Daily Mail of 30
June1997). The implication is clear “IF
the property owner was to receive £
145
per week why were the officers and the staff of
Haringey Council content to invite and or allow the Department of Social Security to fork
out and remit, week in week out, £165 per week? And even as much as £177.58 per week
which fact can be adduced THROUGH DILIGENT REFERENCE TO THE
DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS.
K. And for an Order ordering the Defendants Not to Obstruct the
Plaintiff's agents, contractors and or any other authorised, by the Plaintiff, person and
or persons from attending the property (as provided for under the terms of the Tenancy
Agreement).
L.
And for an Order, ordering the Defendants not to attempt and or seek any
impositions on and or to enter into any new agreements with the staff of Haringey Council
to remit and r forward Housing Benefit remittances to the Defendants themselves directly,
ad that the Defendants do ensure that such remittances are to be forwarded to the
Plaintiff's authorised agents. And that the Defendants do attend to all matters
raised with and by the Plaintiff's agents in accordance with and under the terms of the
Tenancy Agreements. And that the Defendants do raise any matter they may wish to have
dealt with and attended to in respect of the property with the authorised agents and
representatives of the property owners in the first instance.
Dated this the
.............. day of ................... 1998
For the
Plaintiff .....................................
Andrew Yiannides
To the Court
and
To the
Defendants
To the Lord
Chancellor’s Office
To the Legal
Aid Board
The Authorised
representative:
Andrew
Yiannides (L.A.G)
c/o Diamond Lettings
365 High
Road
London N22 4JA
In the Edmonton County Court
Case Number ED 802079
============================
APPEAL
BY THE PLAINTIFF
============================
Andrew
Yiannides (L.A.G)
Diamond
Lettings
365 High
Road
Wood Green
London N22 4JA
Link to: Haringey
Council Local Authority Staff, Violations
'The LAW' The FACTS
Link to: The
Police - Forgeries Stephen Lawrence - our Challenge
Revised: September 24, 2009 |
