JOIN the Community On Line and publish
your Statement of Facts (member's
case at the European Court on Human Rights - paves the way) and
the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (link)
and ACT, as / or with others, against the offenders.
Join them and chip in for the creation of the mass of evidence against the abductors and
rapists of Justice. You can then benefit from THE FACTS and evidence that you will help
establish. It can all be used in any action, severally or jointly with others, as the case
may be . Crimes against humanity are not ruled out when
a large number of citizens can come up with evidence and as victims concur and or expand
the FACTS STATED & The VIOLATIONS PLEADED as LODGED at the ECoHR, already.
Sites For The Above Project / Activities lbduk.org (group)
Statement of facts / Legal Argument by and for the Chairman of live beat dads uk.org. Do not fail to note the rights
pleaded (par. 5.a & 5.b) in the case of a relationship gone astray, merely
because the other side felt the urge and need for a change of partner. Thereafter ONE
& ALL decided to use the innocent children as the vehicle for use in and for the
conversion of assets industries, a division of CIUKU
We invite you to take part in DATA
collection in the areas covered by The CAMILA Project. Your own
contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are active now & to all
others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by using the rights we
point to, assured in law.
Announcement- July 2002
Proceedings ARE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR ACCESS TO BY THE PUBLIC. Justice to be
seen to be done. NO SECRET SCAMS and theatrics behind closed doors.
2. Beware of Mischief Makers operating as and or for the Divide & Rule Brigade. Do not be misled by self- appointed 'gurus' such as
we cover in the pages /2lipstalk.htm
& /chaldep1.htm who aim to serve the Fraudsters
Club as in /confraud.htm (the page) either
from within or as guided (by the abductors and rapists of Justice) mischief making
recruits to and for the 'fraudsters club'. Such persons come up with all sorts of
poor excuses, as to why victims should not publish their statements of facts and their
evidence in personal web-sites and use their rights as provided by Law. Such persons
advise victims to ignore the only facility that provides TRULY OPEN COURTS FOR ALL TO NOTE
/ RECOGNISE. Facilities no one can obstruct as the abductors and rapists of Justice and
their stooges seek to maintain for ever and in perpetuity to carry on treating that
citizens as serfs through their established practices. (Link)
3. READ the affidavit we publish in
our pages, as was submitted some years ago in the course of challenging the fraudulent
activities at and through the Local County Court, FOR & IN the Housing Benefit THEFTS
and conversion to legal costs through similar indulgences and practices as covered in this
KEY to page
1. Introduction to Corruption
2. Skeleton / Legal Argument
3. Interesting Research
4. EU Finances Fraud -Thefts
5. BewareOf Mischiefmakers
6. Page ISSUES - more links
8. Judge IGNORES authority
9. Criminals Blackmail Victims
10. Court Records PUBLIC
1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Trustee In Bankruptcy
3. Police Ignore LAW/Victims 4. Solicitors Breach LAW
5. Court Facilities Abused
6. Lawyers SLAMMED
The interesting article below raises many a hope. It is only after
PROPER ACTIONS are taken, as opposed to words published with no real intent to deal with
the issues. The latter transpired in 1998 when the deputy then, and present, Commissioner
of the Metropolitan Police was meant to investigate '"The untouchables" and
grave issues, such as we cover in our pages and victims of crime, as members of the
Community On Line publish details and evidence of.
A revolution in the way legal services are provided is urgently needed after new
research has demonstrated that consumers are still being given a second rate service by
Forty-six per cent of those surveyed by polling group ICM described their
solicitor as "arrogant", "slow", "incompetent" or
No less than 48 per cent thought that the service they received from their
solicitor was poor value for money, while as many as 24 per cent thought that their legal
adviser was positively untrustworthy.
Last year the director General of Fair Trading called for the prompt removal
of the "unjustified restrictions" in Solicitors Professional rules.
The status quo was also attacked recently by a cross-party group of MPs. An early day
motion tabled in May "censured the Law Society for making no substantial progress to
reform these archaic rules".
© FREE Weekly POST, North London, Issue 200 of 30th August 2002
The article / press release as
published, months late raises the simple questions:1. WHY, so late? 2. WHY publish
the report after we pointed to the fact that 3. When a certain person snaps his fingers,
the media oblige and report 'the injustices / crimes the person points to?
In the Daily
Telegraph of 2nd. August 2002 the following realisations:
are like the US's - but they're in the public sector
Analysis: George Trefgarne
says Europe's mismanagement is legendary
YOU MIGHT think that
accounting scandals are as, American as ten-gallon hats and cowboy boots but the truth is
they take place on this side of the Atlantic too. Only instead of being in the private
sector, they are in the public sector. perhaps Europe should be nicknamed Enrope.
MARTA ANDREASEN'S allegations could hardly come at a worse time for Tony Blair and
Gordon Brown. They have committed themselves to decide on joining the euro in the next 10
THE IDEA that bureaucrats and politicians of Europe are on the fiddle and are no
better than the robber barons of Wall Street is hardly a point in the single currency's
DOWN at the No Campaign, they were rubbing their hands with glee yesterday. In an
unfortunate irony, one of the biggest corporate donors to Britain in Europe, the pro-euro
lobby group, was Arthur Andersen, the ENRON auditor.
IN MANY ways, the European scandals are worse. As Mrs Andreasen said: "Unlike
the issues surrounding ENRON and WorldCom, where you can at least trace transactions, you
cannot do so within EU accounts as there is no system in place for tracing adjustments.
Fraud therefore lie hidden within the system undetected and untraced."
IN SHORT, nobody knows for sure how much money is going in one end of the Brussels
machine or coming out of the other.
THE COURT of Auditors, which is responsible for scrutinising the EU's £65 billion
budget, believes that between five to eight per cent is lost through fraud, waste or
incompetence. That adds up to at least £3 billion a year.
ABOUT HALF of the EU's budget goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. In Andalusia
in southern Spain, more than 70 people were implicated last month in an elaborate scam
claiming subsidies for olives that were never grown. Britain's overseas aid is now
channelled through the EU and the mismanagement is legendary. Delivery, said Clare Short,
International Development Secretary, is "the worst in the world".
YESTERDAY was by no means the first time that the EU has been accused of sloppy
financial controls. Three years ago, the 20-strong European Commission led by Jacques
Santer, was forced to resign after a report made allegations of favouritism and
EDITH CRESSON, the former French prime minister turned commissioner, was said to
preside over a dysfunctional organisational climate". She had appointed her dentist
as a scientific adviser and failed to deal with irregularities in a £400 million youth
NEIL KINNOCK was transport commissioner at the time but Tony Blair pushed for his
reappointment because, he said, he was untarnished by the Santer years.
MR KINNOCK was supposed to push through reforms to the commission but, if Mrs
Andreasen's allegations are true, he has failed to do so.
IN EACH of the last seven years, the Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the
EU's accounts because it did not believe they were complete. Even so, this has not stopped
them being approved by the European Parliament.
NOR IS financial chicanery restricted to the European Commission. Yves Franchet the
head of the Eurostat statistics agency, has said there is a situation a bit like ENRON"
as members of the euro struggle to avoid breaching the Growth and Stability pact or the
rules that underpin the single currency.
DESPERATE TO balance the books, the Italian and Greek governments have tried to
borrow money against future sales of Lotto tickets but the commission ruled against it.
HOWEVER, a similarly complicated scheme from the German government where it borrowed money
against the future rents of state-owned railway cottages, was approved.
BEFORE you get too smug, Gordon Brown's accounting leaves a good deal to be desired
IN PARTICULAR, he has used various off-balance sheet devices, such as the public
finance initiative, to hide billions of pounds of government borrowing.
SUCH ARCANE practices affect ordinary people in Britain and across Europe in two
FIRSTLY, according to the Treasury, Britain will contribute a net £3 billion to
the European Union this year.
THE CHANCES are that more than £200 million of this is wasted or stolen and even
subsiding organised crime.
SECONDLY, there is a point of principle. Taxation and public spending touch upon
the very heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
THOSE WHO waste or steal
public money are guilty of not just theft but also incredible arrogance.
AFTER ALL, governments don't have any money of their own. Only people do.
Editorial Comment: Page 3
© Daily Telegraph - Friday August 2, 2002 (scan below)
The article in text form, above, is published for
bookmarks access. We apologise to the Daily Telegraph for changing
the text to a three column setting.
Billions of compensation paid by the state
as a result of mistakes/errors negligence / oversight by public servants. AS YOU READ of
the facts and peruse the evidence with the attached law as breached by the legal circles
and entertained by the courts, YOU DECIDE of the true elements and WHY NO MENTION of the
areas we cover and reported to the Treasury in February 2002, after
we caught an alleged victim collaborating with the abusers of public office in her own
scenarios for crocodile tears and 'the fraudsters' club arrangements for under the counter
and undeclared THEFTS OF AND MISUSE OF TAX PAYERS FUNDS. Read the
affidavit(*4) we settled and submitted to a court
some years ago. We also sent it, as a hint and warning to persons who were seen to be
acting in devious ways and had engaged in undisclosed activities with the shyster who had
engaged in double talk, deceitful activities and in behind the scenes interfering and
maligned tactics, as a typical member of the fraudsters' club (*5).
|| Site under reconstruction - ongoing additions
& improvements Last update: 15 Jun 2012VISITORS
ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we
were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY; our observations and
knowledge of the constructive frauds, in which the LIPS introduction was engaging, made us
accessories if we kept quiet.Many the alleged victims who work towards the implementation
of 'the schemes organised by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. Some
even arrange to end up in prison in order to set up operations and to act as the inmate we
received information of and about from one John Harper who has not updated us on the
issues he reported. You will find the addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages
File. We are sure that you will share with us our concerns and most profound
disappointment at and with persons who adopt and promote activities which they know are
nothing but downright crimes. We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as conscientious law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that
exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET. We emphasise the fact that the scheme could not
possibly be maintained without the readiness of maintenance engineers of the mentality of
charlatans and fraudsters of the LIPS crowd/mob and their affiliate associates managing
other fraudsters club recruits.
Guidelines on Navigating through the
extensive material: access instructions.
The Skeleton Argument,
published below, was lodged at court on Appeal from the order of HH DJ Lethem who sat in
on a case that arose out of:
accounting records entered into by the staff and officers of the Midland Bank Plc
before it was taken over by HSBC Plc.
2. The bank did not maintain the accounts
the victims had with the Midland Bank in accordance with the terms the Claimants AGREED
with the bank and its officers. The citizens were targeted and treated just like all other
victims of institutionalised and organised Fraud & Corruption, care of the Law
Enforcement Agencies maintained by successive United Kingdom Governments. God knows for
how many centuries.
3. FULL PARTICULARS AND THE EVIDENCE will
be published by the victims in their Community On Line web-site. The defendants and
their solicitors had constructive knowledge of the fact that AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATED the
accounts maintained by the defendants. The authorities reported the facts and the
realities to the Claimants - THE VICTIMS - of the defendants and their staff/agents who,
evidently, were/are free to indulge in contempt of Parliament's Law. In view of the afore
stated circumstances, the solicitors, the police and the court established, yet again, the
modus operandi of the 'Merchants Of Misery' © as
acceptable and proper, in an alleged democracy that allegedly rests and is founded on Law
The arguments, below, are BORN OF THE FACTS
stated and supported by authoritative documented evidence. As such the Claimants cases are
FOUNDED & REST ON LAW. The challenges, naturally, arose out of 'the script for more of
the same' as created and elaborated upon by HH DJ Lethem.
Note: The underlined words 'Paragraph +
number' refer to the paragraphs by number in the transcript of the judgement deliberations
that was secured from the court 'at cost', naturally. Milking
the victims, citizens who seek justice in the courts maintained by CIUKU Enterprises,
entails such facilities BY and for the benefit of the administrators of the courts'
service and for the legal circles. Treating the hard working and frugal as Serfs, appears
to be the principle behind the practices. Their motto most certainly must be:
- WE TAKE" - through abuse of
public office, naturally; never mind the law you have been fooled into believing it was ever meant to be applied,
especially for the likes of an outsider, like you. INSIDER DEALING IS THE NAME OF THE
GAME, wake-up, this IS CIUKU Enterprises!
One only has to consider the complacency,
the reckless abandon and contempt for law and evidence by the investigative branch of the
law. They exhibited, in the instance at hand, their capabilities in much the same manner
as in the most graphic of examples, in the "death" of Stephen Lawrence. That
classic case, led to the most revealing of 'inquiries'. It arose out of the practices and
the capabilities of such 'public servants' in our allegedly 'civilised(?) society(!). Of
such TANGENT EXERCISES the main pre-occupation of 'the directors of police investigations'
while criminal activities by the operatives of the legal system keep 'the legal circles
and fraternity', in business.
FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM is big business
in our country and it flourishes always at the expense of the meek and the weak who have
nowhere to turn to because of the arrangements between the operators of the legal system
and the police.
In February 2002, we reported blunt
constructive frauds, on the budget, to the Treasury; the criminal activities through the
courts' services, as we cover in our explicit pages. The government, appears to have taken
steps in the right direction by appointing the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng to the Treasury. We
look forward to the government delivering upon the promises it made in 1995, whilst in
opposition. The issues that members of the *human-rights.org Community On Line* state and
publish, with the evidence in support, as in the case attached to the Skeleton Argument,
below, cover and arise out of blatant and arrogant
criminal activities for theft and conversion of assets /
properties in breach of national and
HARRY A ROFFEY
HSBC BANK PLC
SKELETON ARGUMENT LODGED AT COURT
AS COVERED IN THE INTRODUCTION BELOW
IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED
- This document is submitted to Court pursuant to an Order issued by HH DJ Lethem sitting
at Tunbridge County Court on 2nd July 2002 that gave rise to an appeal lodged
at the court on
- The appeal as lodged at
subsequent communications and exchanges from and with the court are subject to
clarification and justifications by the Court, and the participants in the proceedings, on
the following issues:
2.1 The proceedings were issued out of The High Court, the Queens Bench
Division, Bristol District Registry, by a firm of solicitors (Lawson Crutthenden & Co.
of 10-11 Grays Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD) under Claim No. BS950367, who were acting for
the Claimant, Mr. Harry A Roffey. A claim in respect of the same causes of action, against
the same defendants, was issued by the claimant Mrs. Carole Roffey. The solicitors acting
for Mr Roffey thereafter undertook to act also for Mrs. Roffey.
2.2 Conveniently the aforesaid firm of solicitors did nothing and acted
in concert with the Defendants solicitors, who themselves conveniently defaulted to act as
the Claims that were served on their clients commanded.
2.3 The aforesaid clearly evince the usual practices that amount to nothing but
organised set-ups for fraudulent activities, by the legal circles at and
through the courts, in contempt of the law, and in particular Article 29 of the Combined
Treaties of the European Union.
- Further to the above stated, indisputable and documented facts, HH
DJ Lethem sitting on the case placed, by the court, before him on 15th March
2002, and notwithstanding the aforementioned realisation, HH DJ Lethem determined that the
targeted claimants should not qualify from any assistance for the purposes of
the matters before the court on the day. On application
to the court, the instigator and organiser of the scenario (as planned for and
imposed, through defaults, on the claimants, by the legal circles) HH DJ Lethem
determined that they should be free to walk out of their creation after appearing in a
secret session before HH DJ Lethem. The aforesaid paving the way for the usual practices
by the legal circles who invariably benefit from the established free for all
activities many a citizen are dumped in by the free to act outside the law, abusers
of the courts facilities, as endorsed and promoted by persons who purportedly act as
public servants and as alleged impartial adjudicators in the courts as maintained by
the Lord Chancellor and his department.
- The appeal referred to above, was set in motion following
additional issues that arose on 2nd July 2002, as a consequence of and to a
hearing by and before HH DJ Lethem. The issues commanded and call for additional
clarification by the Court Manager and the Court itself, in view of the fact that:
4.1. Documents issued by the court were under the heading The Tunbridge Wells County
Court, business, that commanded and command clarification as to how and when an
application and in particular which party applied for and secured transfer of the actions
/ claims to the County Court and when.
4.2. In respect of the above, further and ADDITIONAL issues arise and command the
attention of the court. A full account is called for as to how an assumed County Court
(claim / case) number and a High Court (case) number are/were covered and as a result of
when, what and which preliminaries, if any, and who determined amalgamation and or hearing
in common of the issues that arose, following the convenient arrangements and defaults
between and by the legal circles over a period of almost two years of asserted and
relied upon inactivity that led to the scenarios before HH DJ Lethem.
4.3. The aforesaid further command that the issue of how an application that was clearly
endorsed and accepted by the Court staff (rubber stamp: Her Majestys High Court Of
Justice District Registry Tunbridge Wells) when lodged on 3:11:99) was/is used for
the purposes of hearings(?) before HH DJ Lethem and presumed to ever have been part of any
County Court claim/case.
- The Transcript of the hearing on 15th
March 2002, that eventually was secured (after long delays) evinces the facts stated above
and command justification and explanations by the court and the Lord Chancellor in respect
of the issues raised above and covered below in respect of the appeal warranted and called
for following the arrogant activities of and by persons who ignore statutory provisions,
act in breach and contempt of the law and violated the rights of the Claimants assured in
national and European Union Law in addition to International Treaties and accords that
successive United Kingdom Governments subscribed to for and on behalf of Her Majesty and
the United Kingdom citizens.
SKELETON & LEGAL ARGUMENTS
ARISING OUT OF THE PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES
PERTAINING TO RAILROADED/HIJACKED COURT PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION TO TERMS USED:
- The term defendants hereinafter includes the staff, the officers and
all persons who acted and are acting as agents for and in respect of the defendants HSBC
Plc, the successors in the business of Midland Bank Plc.
- In view of the fact that the claimant Mrs. Carole Roffey was dumped, as an abandoned and
targeted victim, by the solicitors who purportedly had acted in the interests of both
claimants, the submissions hereto are to be treated as submissions by both claimants who
object and resent the presumed rights of and by public servants, to discard by the wayside
statutory provisions that cover and apply to the activities the legal circles indulged and
indulge in, in contempt of the law, national and international.
- The submissions hereto are lodged at court by, for and on behalf of both claimants. Copy
will be served on the Official Receiver who was not contacted by the solicitors who were
acting for the Claimant Mr Harry A Roffey, for it appears that the Official Receiver has
set himself up as an obstructer to justice and as an accessory and abettor to the
inexcusable and unjustified, if not downright fraudulent activities of the defendants and
the solicitors. All acting in contempt of the law that provides for the protection of
citizens who reside within the area of and or individual member states of the European
- The appeal, whether treated, by the court, as a straight appeal or as an application for
leave to appeal, is found and rests on substantive grounds of law that applies to the
facts, the events and the activities pleaded and stated to and as a result of events that
arose at and in the court below. In particular the following issues arise under the
headings, for each paragraph of the judgement delivered by HH DJ Lethem on 2nd
- Paragraph 2. The court and in particular HH DJ Lethem was fully
aware of the circumstances and the conditions imposed on the claimants by the solicitors
the claimants had retained and instructed on the matters before the court. In the
circumstances, all failures to address the issues arising out of the events and facts
stated, constituted and constitute denial of rights and access to unadulterated and
natural justice, through contempt of the law put in place by parliaments for the
protection of the citizens from crime and criminals.
- Paragraph 3. Acknowledgement of the existence and reference to
the bundles of evidence lodged, referred to and perused by the court, introduce the
element of: "Due and diligent consideration of the weight of the evidence" in
support of the undisputed and unavoidable fact that the defendants relied on false
accounting in the first instance, as pleaded in the Statements of Claim. In addition, the
discovery of and disclosure to the claimants, by authorities on the issues, of the fact
that the defendants were overcharging and mismanaging the accounts of the claimants led to
the institution of the proceedings/claims against the defendant and a challenge for and a
test for the operators in control of the law enforcement agencies.
- Paragraph 6. The offers referred to by HH DJ Lethem, were
subject to the terms and conditions as contracted subsequently, and not as selectively
misrepresented in the judgement, appealed from. Reliance on the use of and the
misrepresentation of just one of the contracted terms, that allegedly gave rise to
implementation of an on demand term was and remains an abuse of the relied
upon term, and the reliance was and remains blunt contempt of the applicable law that
covers the use of false instruments leading to demands with menaces, harassment, threats
and intimidation, AS A RESULT OF THE FALSE ACCOUNTING SCHEME deployed by the defendants,
as discovered and reported by the authorities who investigated and reported, to the
claimants, the bank account records as maintained by the defendants. The report of the
professional experts, the authorities referred to was in the bundles of documented
evidence and in the circumstances no justifiable grounds and or reasons subsist upon which
to state, plead or rely on any alleged legal and or judicial services to the
citizens, especially as organised and dispensed with by the participants in the
scenarios covered in the instance at hand. Furthermore any attempts to further ignore the
documented evidence, the authoritative report covering the false accounting practices as
indulged into and or as recklessly were maintained by the defendants and any attempts to
ignore the provisions of law (Theft Acts) will constitute obstructions to justice.
Reliance on constructively engineered mistakes and or on the usual
manifestations by the legal professions in order to deny access to untainted justice was
and remains unacceptable and leads to conscious participation in activities used as
obstructions to justice, that in themselves constitute criminal offences.
- Paragraph 7. The contractual obligations of the claimants were
subject to normal business transactions and the banking / loan facilities that were
established over a number of years, as conceded by the defendants and referred to by the
court. The properties secured, as referred to in the judgement, were not put at risk
because of poor business performance. The properties were targeted, by the defendants and
conversion to and for the benefit of other parties was only through and
because of the mismanagement technique and the false accounting schemes the defendants
indulged in and or recklessly maintained, as alleged professionals. No participant in the
original scenario, as orchestrated by the defendants, denied and or disputed the findings
and the report that led to the institution of the proceedings. No participant in the
subsequent scenarios following the report of the authorities, on the accounting practices
of the defendants, ever disputed the report and or offered to make good the mistakes that
were not in accordance with the terms offered by the defendants and as accepted by the
claimants and as contracted between the parties hereto. No consideration for the
afore-stated facts appears to have been part of the deliberations in the judgement as
delivered by HH DJ Lethem. In the circumstances the solicitors appear to have relied on
endorsement of their practices, by the court, in and through the usual manifestations
where any other but the crux of the matter is of any real consideration by the lower
courts (refer to 4.3 above) in our country.
- Paragraph 8. The defendants assertion that the claimants
could not carry on servicing the loan facility, as contracted, was and remains ill
founded. All parties who endorsed and or adopted that view are called to strict proof that
such was the case. (Refer to Elman v- Myers HoL case 1939/40 ). Ignoring the
authoritative reports by the professionals retained by the claimants, subsequent to the
constructively engineered theft of properties, through use of and reliance upon false
instruments is the centre piece of the present manifestation as entered into and deployed
by the legal circles in contempt of criminal law and European Union law attached to and
pertaining to provisions for the protection of all citizens, who reside within the
European Union, from fraud and corruption.
- Paragraph 9. Reference to the stated facts that the defendants
had used and or relied on false accounting in order to bring pressure to bear on the
claimants and were caused to act as induced and forced to do as the defendants
demanded through intimidation, harassment and threats with menaces, and only because of
the security and leverage powers the defendants held on the claimants, who were not aware,
at the time, of the mismanagement of the bank accounts maintained by the defendants, in no
way constitutes diligent reference to the facts and the law applicable to the
indisputable and documented facts in the instance at hand. Refer to printout of the
explicit pages published on the Internet (pages 1 - 7 and in particular the paragraph
covering the duty of the judiciary in the British legal system at the top of page two.).
- Paragraph 10. Of "
they determined on a course of
action to put him out of business". The claimants made it abundantly clear that there
exist audio recordings whereby an agent/member of senior staff, in the employee of the
defendants, stated to Mr Roffey that indeed the objective of the defendants had been to
cause the claimants to act as the defendants had determined. That the police ignored
expert and professional authorities on the creation and use of the false accounting
technique and the resultant instruments used by persons stated to have targeted the
claimants properties may create excuses for other public servants to turn a
blind eye, is understandable and unacceptable in a civilised society stated to be resting
and founded on principles of law and order. That the legal circles ignore the law and
provisions of the Theft Acts, in order to create work for themselves and to generate
through civil proceedings income for themselves (by acting in contempt of
parliaments law) is also understandable and just as unacceptable. That public
servants, who are retained to serve and administer parliaments law, yet elect to
ignore the existence of documented evidence and the applicable law, is not simply
unacceptable but condemnable.
- Paragraph 11. Of " After the service of the notice of
demand in November 1993" and the persistent use and reference to the allegedly
legitimate demand, as if justified and legitimately used within the context as
accepted by the claimants, at the time, because of the false accounting instruments
in no way constitutes proper and legitimate reference to the scenario imposed and as
created by the defendants. Furthermore use of the aforementioned event implies assumed
reliance by one and all to hinge on the event, the date and the time referred to as if a
legitimate basis for the assertions and the promotions of the legal circles as evinced in
oral exchanges, correspondence, the transcripts attached to the proceedings and in
particular to the succinctly stated reliance in paragraph 15 of the judgement
deliberations, hereto below. The aforesaid reliance rests on false grounds and is in
contempt of the explicit provisions that parliament put in place in respect of matters
borne of concealment, deceit, misrepresentation (fraudulent or otherwise) and especially
as regards to matters arising as of date of discovery and confirmation of errors and
mistakes that previously were not known to the party claiming and or were concealed by the
party against whom claims are and can be lodged only after discovery of the actionable
wrong. (Refer to the pages published at and printed from the human-rights, Internet web
- Paragraph 12. Of ".. there is a certain amount of
evidence to show that she was in very vulnerable health, and secondly that she went into
hospital very shortly after the events
.". There can be no doubt as to the facts
stated and covered by HH DJ Lethem, just as there can be no dispute that the claimants can
rely on a precedent case whereby the Court of Appeal determined that a police woman who
was being taunted by her colleagues, was awarded well over two hundred thousand pounds for
her hurt feelings, a far cry from the suffering, the physical pain and the
agony imposed on the claimants by and through the vile and unacceptable activities of the
defendants. Furthermore there can be and arise no issue of any attempts to further
discriminate against the claimants through breaches of national law and furtherance of the
denial of rights in contempt of Articles 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Article 1 of the First Protocol of same.
- Paragraph 13. Of "..Mr Roffeys business was sold to
his sons at an under-value which is alleged to be £200,000.". The aforesaid sale was
with assistance and through participation of the defendants. They provided the sons with a
loan facility that was no different in terms of the funds called for, than the funds the
claimants themselves had committed themselves to and with the defendants. The aforesaid
facts and the funding facilities, allegedly to a failing business introduced
additional elements the defendants cannot escape and or run away from, unless there be
further and additional abuse of the courts facilities, by the legal circles, through
contempt of the documented evidence supporting the facts stated. In the alternative
contempt of and for the law applicable in the case at hand may prove to have been and be
the case. The defendants will be hard pressed to explain and or justify how an allegedly
failing business was to service the same loan facility at a higher rate of interest. The
claimants to all intents and purposes were being charged eight and a quarter per cent -
three percent above base rate. The sons were induced to contract at a higher and fixed
rate of interest, ten point four-seven per cent. In the circumstances either the
defendants were anticipating collapse of the business and aiming for the conversion of the
second property through the additional service costs (imposed higher rate of interest) or
their staff and agents were acting recklessly and irresponsibly by being called upon to
justify risk capital facilities to the sons of the claimants and or to the
claimants the defendants the obvious discrimination in the provision of similar
- Paragraphs 14 & 15. Of the reliance and use of the dates
referred to, as the alleged cut-off dates for the purposes of Statutory Limitation, the
claimants plead their rights as covered by Sections 14 and 32 of the Limitations Act 1980,
and the Latent Damages Act 1986.
- Paragraph 16 & 17. Of "
reference to the report
of Anglian Business Associates
. but it was not
served". The aforesaid facts, as stated, introduce the element of constructive
knowledge, the defendants benefited from. In the circumstances no reliance can be placed
on any other to aid and or abet the defendants and or their legal representatives for
failing to ensure that they had a defence to the claims against them (by conducting their
own investigations, in respect of the pleaded higher than as contracted rates of
interest, charged to the claimants accounts) and or that their clients acknowledged the
wrong practices and or the mistakes of their clients, as pleaded, and that they offered to
make good their mistakes and or errors. By the same token the defendants solicitors
will be hard pressed to justify and or explain away their own defaults and omissions
unless by virtue of acquired knowledge that their clients had acted as the claimants
pleaded but they were entitled to benefit from the protection afforded them by virtue of
the attempted and indulged into fraudulent court proceedings that arose out of the
convenient defaults, omissions and arrangements at and through the co-operating, in the
scams, members of the legal professions and circles, as evinced in the proceedings
- Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 & 21. Of ".. there was
it fizzled out in June 2000,
. granting the defendant an open
ended extension for the filing of the defence
. The aforesaid may well constitute an
abuse of the courts processes by officers of the Supreme Court, who are licensed by the Law
Society to act in such fashion and manner as the Office for the Supervision of
Solicitors endorses and promotes through defaults and arrogant omissions care of the
police and invariably persons who act in a judicial capacity and elect to ignore the
documented evidence and the law applicable, in cases taken before the courts only to be
treated in much the same fashion and manner as the case and events / practices attached
hereto, establish and evince. Of "
he pleads the various agreements
not surprisingly Ms Daubney in her statements says that is not admitted
" . The
pleaded facts and the claims arising rest and are founded on documented evidence. No
amount of prevarication, misdirection and reliance on abuse of public office can change
the facts or suppress the evidence in the instance at hand. A simple examination of the
report prepared and submitted by Anglian Business Associates and a preliminary hearing on
that simple element should suffice in the instance at hand. All other issues are
consequential and arise out of the pleaded mismanagement of the bank accounts, and the
higher rates of interest charged / debited to the accounts by the defendants. Servicing
justice ought not to be through wild dances around the mulberry bush but identification of
the elements that isolate and extinguish all other immaterial factors that are
introduced and or created by the legal circles, simply for the generation of income and
the corruption / perversion of justice as in the instance at hand.
- Paragraph 22. Of "
that is an allegation which must
be tested at trial
. & either Anglian
got it right and the bank got it
wrong & it would be for a trial judge to decide, having heard the evidence &
whether this has a real as opposed fanciful prospect of success
". No amount of
beating about the bush, waffle and or evasive tactics can remove the central issue that
rests and is founded on simple arithmetic and calculations of interest as it applied at
all relevant times can divert the action and claim into other areas. Any hearing as to
evidence, AFTER establishing the validity or not of the claimants case. Such a
hearing will only be warranted in respect of any disputes as to the manner in which the
calculation of consequential losses and damages shall be determined as to validity and
extent. No fanciful juxtapositions apply and or can be considered as legitimate areas
calling for judicial investigation.
- Paragraph 23. Of "
was on demand
". Normal banking practices applied and apply. Only as upon good cause
and reasons use of the aforesaid term. Resort to such a measure only as a justifiable
measure and not as an excuse for targeting the properties of clients in breach of
contracted business arrangements and or in breach of national law as herein and above
covered (refer to 8). Of ".. feels he should have been given
. time to
.". The aforesaid establishes the simple fact that the claimant was simply
convinced that the defendants were correct in their representations, founded and resting
on the balances of the bank accounts maintained by the defendants. In the premises the
claimants are entitled to expect and demand of the court that the Defendants and or their
solicitors duly consider the submitted report, as prepared by Anglian Business Associates,
and that the defendants, through their solicitors, either agree or dispute the figures as
presented by ABA.
- Paragraph 24. Of "
it seems to me that
whether or not the account is being misconducted or not.
the law will give effect to
. as per the terms
". The aforesaid assertion implies that HH
DJ Lethem ignores the word and term misconduct in a legal context and or that
reckless abandon by banking institutions was/is acceptable to the public at large and that
the business community in the United Kingdom is made up of morons who are naïve enough to
sign up to implied and or chameleon type terms that can be misinterpreted and or given
different coloration than what is normally acceptable and not the foundation for
unconscionable bargains that can be rendered void when used by the unscrupulous in order
to secure unfair advantages at the expense of the unsuspecting and or persons who
subsequently are treated by persons who act as alleged judicious persons in
the manner exhibited by H H DJ Lethem.
- Paragraph 25 & 26. Of "
if I look at it in the
tort of negligence
It is certainly arguable
. it is probably
. the bank owed a duty of care
to conduct the account in a good and
. Crediting and debiting
the correct figures".
Negligence? Limitations Acts! Endorsement! Not condemnation for undisclosed and
implied rights arising out of chameleon terms! as presented by HH DJ Lethem?
The simple fact IS AND REMAINS that if as reported and presented by Anglian Business
Associates, the defendants HAD mismanaged the bank accounts and thus they were
manipulating the figures and balance to the accounts. Through such activities LEADING TO
THE DEMANDS WITH MENACES, the intimidation, the harassment and the threats that induced
the claimants to act as they pleaded, thus to appear as voluntarily and or willingly
TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THEIR ASSETS, AS IMPOSED through the scenarios created by the
defendants, to the detriment of the claimants. That being the case all other
juxtapositions and scenarios, are but inexcusable and unjustified scripts for income
generation in the interests of the legal circles who invariably silver line their pockets
through never ending court applications and appearances as created by the very circles.
- Paragraph 27. Of ".. it is not fanciful to allow those
claims to go before a trial judge
.. to make of it what they can". The facts of
the case against the defendants rest and are founded on the events covered in the above
paragraph. No other scenario but the issue of acceptance or not of the core element and
whether the debits and credits to the accounts were in accordance with the terms of the
contract endorsed by the claimants. The aforesaid elementary and primary issue is but the
starting point any diligent servant of justice was and is bound to consider first and
foremost. All other juxtapositions are but the usual income generation practices by and
through the courts, the abusers of the legal system. .
- Paragraph 28. Of "..whether pressure was applied
the reality .. they were put into a forced sale situation
. They sold at much less
than the property was worth". Recognition and acceptance of the aforesaid need only
be considered as secondary issues AFTER THE DEFENDANTS are invited and or caused, by the
court to attend to and or to deal with the primary issue, whether or not the defendants
maintained the accounts in accordance with the terms they contracted with the
- Paragraph 29. Of "unsustainable
meeting & Mr Roffey
going to sell the
property". Ill conceived assertions founded on the need to maintain a constant check
on the valuation of the property in order to ensure the bank was more than adequately
covered. Memorandum notes NOT ENDORSED by the claimant, as factual and or genuine, not out
of context, assumed to be contemporaneous records, cannot be used in any attempts that are
intended to create and generate theatrical productions in contempt of the single core
issue and element, namely the debits and credits to the accounts maintained by the
- Paragraphs 30 & 31. Of "
order to keep the manager happy
. In fact the entry had been
fabricated" AND of " .. authenticity may be challenged at the trial".
Irrelevant and immaterial when accepted and or established that the defendants were not
debiting and crediting the bank accounts in accordance with the contracted terms. The
arguments in the above paragraph apply. The core element and the ONLY REAL ISSUE, simply,
the accounts maintained by the defendants. The issue will not and cannot be catapulted
into oblivion, nor can the issues arising thereof be suppressed and or be ignored through
misdirection and or through attempts to deny and obstruct justice as indulged and
- Paragraph 32. Of ".. if I reach the stage of
no reasonable grounds
not going to get home in damages" AND of
." .. breach of contract of tort.. loss of value
valuation carried on many years ago
before the notorious housing slump .. purely
". Not as illusory as the attempts to suppress and ignore the
indisputable facts through tangent exercises and manifestations that were instigated and
promoted by the legal circles. Unless the defendants and their legal representatives can
come up with either a genuine and supported through properly drafted accounts, pertaining
to the bank accounts credited and debited in accordance with the agreed, as contracted,
terms and through such challenge the report by Anglian Business Associates the defendants
and their legal representatives should land on terra firma. The claimants are not relying
on members of the legal professions who systematically partake and collaborate in the
tangent exercises, such as entered into and entertained in the instance at hand. The
claimants rely on the facts of their case and the law applicable.
- Paragraphs 33 & 34. Of "
the bank would have
.. exercise their Law of Property Act powers under the charge
APPLICABLE ONLY if such action was justified and legitimately secured and not as a result
of the scenarios and the constructively engineered demands with menaces (and much more)
and or as a result of the activities reported by Anglian Business Associates born of the
core element and issues that the defendants and the legal circles seek to suppress and or
catapult into oblivion through abuse of the legal system, care of accommodating public
- Paragraphs 35, 36 & 37. Of ".. whether the Roffeys
have got home on this aspect
. There is some very good evidence
to form a view of what the property was
. worth". AND of
forensic accountant looking at the business" , AND ".. It may be
that expert evidence will be there
what the experts think
form a view after the length of time has expired". IMMATERIAL and irrelevant. If the
case against the defendants, as borne out by the qualified experts submissions and
reports upon their investigation of the accounts maintained by the defendants, is
established as all indications are (and none more obvious than the attempt to kill the
action at birth) re-instatement to and in a similar property at the time of offer for
settlement would be the only logical and practical solution as opposed to the usual jobs
for the inner circles and activities through the courts.
- Paragraph 38, 39, 40 & 41. Of ".. loss of use of the
that is a very slim claim
unlikely to succeed at trial
. it is
a case which does disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
does have real
not fanciful prospect of success " AND of "
to a certain extent
in many respects
mirrors that of Mr Roffey.
.area it differs in
claims for personal injuries
essentially the breakdown in her health
Following the sale of the Roffeys home.." AND of "
big difficulties with
relating to experts applies again.
if that report
comes back in the negative
.. it is perhaps unlikely to succeed any further .. if in
the positive then perhaps it would." AND of "
difficulties with her case
personal injury claim
succeed or not a limitations
. Limitation is a defence and there is no defence in this
it is premature
.to decide the case on the basis of limitation".
CONSIDERATIONS for the unlikely and probable AND NO CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHY NO DEFENCE as
arranged between the collaborating in the convenient arrangements legal(? )
activities(?) experts(!) at perversion and corruption of justice through tangent exercises
and anything but the core elements and issues in any given action and court case, as in
the case at hand, a typical example of the capabilities and the practices by the
manipulators and abusers of the legal system.
- Paragraphs 42, 43 & 44. Of " Mr Roffey
. The Official Receiver. .. looked at section 306 of the
Insolvency Act 1986
any cause of action
these matters would vest in
the Trustee In Bankruptcy.
in the course of argument
. Not every
cause of action
but THESE CAUSES of action do." AND of ".. in 1995 Mr
Roffey was made bankrupt
. Subsequently discharged
. we have a case where the
abuse of action is vested in the Official Receiver
. There is a letter from the
Official Receiver ..dated 28 June 2002
to the Chief Clerk of this court
parties have seen it." AND the O.R "Mr Roffey has given no indication that he
wishes to provide the Official Receiver with the necessary funds for legal advice
concerning the claim. The Official Receiver is therefore not in a position to involve
himself in the proceedings or take any steps regarding the possible assignment of the
right of action." AND OF " So as the matters stand today the Official Receiver
is not prepared to take over the case, neither is he prepared to assign the claim to Mr
Roffey!" SO THE ABUSERS OF THE SYSTEM are home and dry as far as we are
concerned today and there exists no law to protect the victims of Constructive
Frauds in the United Kingdom and never mind the Provisions under the European Union and
our governments commitment to protect ALL citizens from such practices and
- Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 & 48. Of " ..the position is
that Mr Roffey has no claim to bring before this court because his Trustee in
. Will not do anything about it unless he gets £1,000 in order to
instruct TLT of Bush House, Bristol". AND of " ..on that basis
. I accept
what Ms Daubney says
. in Mr Roffeys claim, but not in Mrs Roffeys
claim". AND of " I .. consider Ms Daubneys argument
Argument not in relation to Mrs Roffey but as an alternative ground for Mr Roffey
if... wrong about the Official Receiver in relation to Mr Roffeys case
as follows in relation to the delay point."
AND of "
very briefly.. history of action.. 20 October 1999.. issued claim.. two weeks before
expiry date on demand 4 November 1993, . .limitation 4 November 1999. Mrs Roffey
3 November 1999. ... life of writ four months
service 4 March 2000".
AND of "
both served within period
particulars of claim
Mrs Roffey 28 February 2000
. Anglian Business Associates report not
I take no point in that respect
writs properly served
before expiry of life
". VERY NEAT. Anything and EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO EVADE
THE CORE ISSUE. All conveniently arranged by the legal circles and PUBLIC SERVANTS who act
in contempt of the rights of their masters!!! Abductors of the lives and rights of the
citizens and collaborating through convenient defaults and omissions and failure to apply
relevant law to the facts known to persons who know of the law and intended use of
- Paragraph 49. Of "
desultory correspondence between
Lawson Cruttenden... prevaricated
giving open-ended extension for filing a defence, an extension
.. never ever called in to this day
. correspondence petering out
. Nothing in
two years after Lawson Cruttenden did anything
.. with this case
an abuse .. or some other basis
which the just disposal of the proceedings is likely to be obstructed." DISPOSAL ?
JUST ? PROCEEDINGS ? All wrong words in wrong context. Bluntly abused when DILIGENTLY
considered in respect of the events and the scenarios created by the legal circles and
public servants retained and maintained by the state to serve justice and no other
- Paragraph 50. Of "Mr and Mrs Roffey cannot get round the
fact that NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
.it was only when application was made
. Solicitors Lawson Cruttenden tried to get themselves off the record.
solicitors wrote to court saying .. writs were never really meant to be serious
. Bank would succeed in striking out the claims
front of me
. Extraordinary letter to exhibit to an application
. Looked at all
correspondence from Lawson Cruttenden .. and that letter
. Had no chance to hear
Lawson Cruttendens side of things
prepared to accept .. some real indications
. Cause concern
whether the Roffeys were properly served by Lawson
Cruttenden". BLUNT ARRANGEMENTS LEADING TO CLAIMS AGAINST solicitors, as hinted at in
the deliberations. Solicitors who systematically engage in the constructive frauds
industry through contempt of the law and an abundance of defaults and omissions with a
good measure of the practices graphically stated by a public servant, retained and
maintained at public expense for and in the service of justice!
- Paragraph 51. Of ".. the Roffeys
unaware of it
Ms Daubney aware of it
authority to back up what they say
. the case of
Corbin v- Penfold claimant diligently went to solicitors
. Solicitors failed to
prosecute the case
. Application under section 33 of the Limitations
Act ..Court of Appeal
sins of the solicitors should not be visited on
the clients, all else being equal
". MORE OF THE SAME, the creation of tangent
actions and exercises care of long established practices with and for plenty of
alternative remedies in order to maintain the asset stripping, enterprising operatives
through many a fraudulent activity in business / work.
- Paragraph 52. Of "
I would take exactly the same
. difficulties with delays
. Ms Daubney is right
. Not possible for
to get on with matter.
Residual duty on claimants
expecting to see the defence
out what bank were saying
. It was incumbent on Mr and Mrs Roffey to make
find out what was happening
. not satisfactory responses
see the file
. No suggestion
that .. emergency has
impinged upon their approach to this case during that two year period
what does tell
against Mr & Mrs Roffey
people of some dynamism
huge amount of
directed to the police
. concerning grievances towards the
harness small part
to this case
would not find
themselves in the predicament that they are in today." GREAT! DO INSTRUCT SOLICITORS.
CHASE THEM! VISIT TO SEE THE CASE FILE! CHASE THEM! YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE LET DOWN! FORGET
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THE POLICE HAVE OTHER PRIORITIES! LEAVE THEM TO THEIR OWN DEVICES LIKE
THE LEGAL CIRCLES! CHASE
THE SOLICITORS! Hasnt anyone informed HH
DJ Lethem of the Elman -v- Myers case? The House of Lords ruling in 1939-1940. Showcase
material, you know. A meaningless ruling and OVER 40 years before it made THE rulebooks
and legislation adopting that COMMON SENSE RULING!!! It arose out of reckless and
FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES BY SOLICITORS! And another 20 years in the wilderness THAT INVISIBLE
ACT OF PARLIAMENT, like other Acts of Parliament and Statutory instruments.
- Paragraph 53 & 54. Of "
all the more the case
where a party... the last possible minute
. Writs issued within days of the primary
. served less than a week before
writs expired". AND of
"..as much time as permitted under the rules
incumbent upon a party to
. with due diligence
if they do not, problems will emerge
are very real problems in relation to this case." PARTY? PARTIES IN CONTROL OF COURTS
AND LEGAL SERVICES? PARTY? PARTY TO PROSECUTE? REAL PROBLEMS?
CREATED BY WHICH
- Paragraph 55. Of "
evidence will turn on
back in 1993
. conversations in December
. Mr Roffey acted under duress
. Who was there
what was said
. Matter of recollection
. Mr Steens going to the Roffey
. Conversations at that time
. members of the bank have left
pushing on for 10 years
. Getting there". HOW TYPICAL, DOCUMENTED
EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, TUTORED ACTORS AND THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS the
favourite ploy of the directors! RECORDS OF THE ACCOUNTS AS PREPARED BY THE PROFESSIONALS
IMMATERIAL!!!! OFFENDING ABUSERS OF TRUST & USERS OF FALSE ACCOUNTING FOR PECUNIARY
ADVANTAGE AND BLUNT THEFTS OF PROPERTIES FREE TO INDULGE AND BENEFITING THROUGH CRIMINAL
ACTS AND THE COURTS NOT INTERESTED IN THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE? JUSTICE? DEMOCRACY founded
and resting on Law & Order????
- Paragraph 56 & 57. Of "
further difficulties for
expert valuer... to try and judge
property worth in 1993
forensic accountant to
and work out
. a business in 1993
. not easy
passage of time
producing further information documents and
AND of "
by... submissions today
. part of records .. meeting January 1993
. but arguments about the veracity and reliance
of the document that came into being years later
.huge difficulties with case.".
EXPERTS? WORK FOR THE INNER CIRCLE? EXISTING RECORDS OF BANKING ACCOUNTS CONTEMPORANEOUS
REPORT IRRELEVANT??? RECORDS REPRESENTING WHAT THE BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBITING UNDER
THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, SHOVED IN THE FAMILY CLOSET, or THE DARK
CORNERS OF THE MINDS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES and even HH DJ LETHEM? PROPOSALS AND
SUPPOSITIONS FOR THEATRICAL SCRIPTS! CONTEMPT FOR DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE AND AUDIO RECORDINGS
OF MEETINGS? JUSTICE?
- Paragraphs 58 & 59. Of "
Ms Daubney asking me to
. Final sanction open to a judge
Top Rank -v- Beguzi makes it very clear .. it
is only if I consider that there is no option but to strike out
.. should take
that course in pursuance of the over-riding objective." AND of ".. the
. such is the delay
the bank are not on an equal
. Mr and Mrs Roffey will be able
..to give their account
are not going to be able
. Bank will not be able to
. Some of it is oral
some of their witnesses are not working for the bank any more
witnesses memories are fading
.. there must therefore be that prejudice for
. additional prejudice
arguments about fabrication of documents
difficulty getting expert evidence through.". OVER-RIDING OBJECTIVE? JUSTICE ABDUCTED
BY AND THROUGH THE LEGAL CIRCLES? CONTEMPT FOR EXISTING CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTED
EVIDENCE? EXPERTS? CONTEMPT FOR THE FACTUAL RECORDS such as THE CONTRACTED RATE OF
INTEREST AND THE DEBITS AS THE BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGING THE CLAIMANTS
ACCOUNTS? EXISTING DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE SHOVED IN THE FAMILY CLOSET? MEMORIES FADING?
CONTEMPT FOR AUDIO RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS? NEED FOR THEATRICAL SCRIPTS
AND PRODUCTIONS THROUGH EXPERTS?
- Paragraph 60. Of ".. saving expense
best part of
dealing with case
. reading through
. a case not even
of the starting block
.. additional expense
.. to remedy some of the
. sight of the fact that the potential claim is as much
as half a million or more
.. very significant case
. one should lightly strike
. expense.. is relative
expense of the case will be vastly increased
because of the delay in the matter." EXPENSE? TIME? ALL IN EVADING THE CRUX OF THE
MATTER AND THE ONLY ELEMENT THAT ESTABLISHES THE WHOLE CASE? EVADING AND IGNORING THE
DEBITED INTEREST TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS? CONTEMPT
- Paragraphs 61 & 62. Of "
. Ensure case
. dealt with expeditiously and fairly
. one thing
that can be said
. has not been dealt with expeditiously
with very slowly
.. produced an unfair result for the defendant
." AND of
must think about
. share of the courts resources
problems this case has got itself into already
. likely to produce a significant
drain on the courts resources." OVER-RIDING OBJECTIVE? A PERVERSE RULING
THROUGH CONTEMPT OF THE CORE ELEMENT, THE DEBITED INTEREST AS OVER-CHARGED AND
OVER-DEBITING BUSINESS ACCOUNT FOR LOAN FACILITY BY THE DEFENDANTS IN BREACH OF THE
CONTRACTED TERMS THAT ARE RECORDED IN CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS? EXPEDITIOUS? IGNORING THE
CORE ELEMENT, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WARRANTED, BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES AND SUPPORTS ALL OTHER
QUANTIFIABLE GROUNDS AND CAUSE OF CLAIMS? EXPEDITIOUS? BY SEEKING TO CREATE AND ENCOURAGE
THE USUAL CONSTRUCTIVELY ENGINEERED TANGENT ACTIONS? UNFAIR RESULT FOR THE DEFENDANT?
INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE AND ARROGANT CONTEMPT FOR THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE
BASIS AND FOUNDATION FOR ALL CLAIMS.
- Paragraph 63. Of "
the Draconian power that I am
asked to exercise
the over-riding objective
the defendant has succeeded on
their application in relation to part 3.4(b)
the delay rendering claims of abuse of
process and obstructing the process of justice, and on that basis I will strike both
.". PART 3.4(b) specifically provides: " that the statement of
case is an abuse of the courts process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just
disposal of the proceedings; or
" THE OVER-RIDING OBJECTIVE PROVIDES:
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing
(b) saving expenses
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate:
i. to the amount of money involved
ii. to the importance of the case
iii. to the complexity of the issues and
iv. to the financial position of each party;
(c) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(d) allotting to it an appropriate share of the courts resources while
taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
ISSUE PERTAINING TO IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE IN TERMS OF THE BLUNT ACTIVITIES BY THE LEGAL
CIRCLES, AS EVER IN PLACE AND OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE COURT?
ON THE SAME FOOTING THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF EACH PARTY ALSO
IRRELEVANT TO THE COURT, and in contempt of the rules promoting the age-old practices as
if non-events albeit as blunt as ever.
COMPLEXITY? When only one single element establishes and covers all?
Expeditiousness definitely of no concern to the court!
AND the provisions for determination of a preliminary issue
out of the window!
ALL in contempt of the rights to a fair hearing AND DELIVERY OF
UNADULTERATED JUSTICE of no consequence to the administrator?
day of September 2002
Mr Harold A Roffey
Mrs Carole Roffey
4 London Road
1. Lord Chancellor.
2. Home Secretary
3. The Prime Minister
4. Chief Constable of Kent
Back to Page KEY