BETWEEN

HARRY A ROFFEY

CAROLE ROFFEY

AND

HSBC BANK PLC

SKELETON ARGUMENT LODGED AT COURT

AS COVERED IN THE INTRODUCTION BELOW

IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED

NOTE:

1. This document is submitted to Court pursuant to an Order issued by HH DJ Lethem sitting at Tunbridge County Court on 2^nd July 2002 that gave rise to an appeal lodged at the court on ……………………

2. The appeal as lodged at ………………………………… and all 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.

3. Further to the above stated, indisputable and documented facts, HH DJ Lethem sitting on the case placed, by the court, before him on 15^th 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’.

4. The appeal referred to above, was set in motion following additional issues that arose on 2^nd 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 Majesty’s 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.

5. The Transcript of the hearing on 15^th 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 Union.

1. 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 2^nd July 2002.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.).
8. 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 parliament’s law) is also understandable and just as unacceptable. That public servants, who are retained to serve and administer parliament’s law, yet elect to ignore the existence of documented evidence and the applicable law, is not simply unacceptable but condemnable.
9. 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 site).
10. 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.
11. Paragraph 13. Of "..Mr Roffey’s 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 facilities.
12. 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.
13. Paragraph 16 & 17. Of "… reference to the report of Anglian Business Associates …… specifically pleaded …. 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 to-date.
14. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 & 21. Of ".. there was correspondence… 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 court’s 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.
15. 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’.
16. Paragraph 23. Of "…was on demand borrowing…". 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.
17. Paragraph 24. Of " … it seems to me that …. whether or not the account is being misconducted or not.… the law will give effect to the bargain…. 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.
18. Paragraph 25 & 26. Of "…if I look at it in the tort of negligence … It is certainly arguable …. it is probably unarguable…. the bank owed a duty of care … to conduct the account in a good and orderly fashion …. 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.
19. 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. .
20. 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 claimants.
21. Paragraph 29. Of "unsustainable… unsupportable…. memorandum… 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 defendants.
22. Paragraphs 30 & 31. Of "…he accepted … in order to keep the manager happy…. later …. 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 entertained.
23. Paragraph 32. Of ".. if I reach the stage of ….not a case … no reasonable grounds … not going to get home in damages" AND of ." .. breach of contract of tort.. loss of value… vastly overblown…. valuation carried on many years ago… before the notorious housing slump .. purely illusory… ". 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.
24. 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 servants.
25. Paragraphs 35, 36 & 37. Of ".. whether the Roffeys have got home on this aspect …. There is some very good evidence …. a video… 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…. if … able to 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.
26. Paragraph 38, 39, 40 & 41. Of ".. loss of use of the property… 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 this claim … proof … 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 ….in… personal injury claim…. concerns … succeed or not a limitations attack… but …. Limitation is a defence and there is no defence in this case… 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.
27. Paragraphs 42, 43 & 44. Of " Mr Roffey … has an insuperable hurdle…. The Official Receiver. .. looked at section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986… any cause of action …in … these matters would vest in the Trustee In Bankruptcy. … said … 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 … the 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 government’s commitment to protect ALL citizens from such practices and activities.
28. Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 & 48. Of " ..the position is … that Mr Roffey has no claim to bring before this court because his Trustee in Bankruptcy …. 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 Roffey’s claim, but not in Mrs Roffey’s claim". AND of " I .. consider Ms Daubney’s argument … delay. …. 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 Roffey’s case …. My findings… 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 …. in… 3 November 1999. ... life of writ four months… service 4 March 2000". AND of " … both served within period … particulars of claim …Mr Roffey 15 … Mrs Roffey 28 February 2000…. Anglian Business Associates report not… there … I take no point in that respect … writs properly served … a week 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 same.
29. Paragraph 49. Of "… desultory correspondence between parties … very unhelpful. … Lawson Cruttenden... prevaricated… rushed hand-written letters … giving open-ended extension for filing a defence, an extension .. never ever called in to this day…. correspondence petering out …. Nothing in June 2000. … two years after Lawson Cruttenden did anything ….. with this case …. Consider… part 3.4(b) … an abuse .. or some other basis … upon 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 interests’.
30. Paragraph 50. Of "Mr and Mrs Roffey cannot get round the fact that NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. ….it was only when application was made …. In December 2001 …. Solicitors Lawson Cruttenden tried to get themselves off the record. … solicitors wrote to court saying .. writs were never really meant to be serious writs… and …. Bank would succeed in striking out the claims … letter in 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 Cruttenden’s 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!
31. 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… struck out…. Application under section 33 of the Limitations Act ..Court of Appeal…. said … 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.
32. Paragraph 52. Of "… I would take exactly the same view…. difficulties with delays…. Ms Daubney is right…. Not possible for claimants … instructed solicitors… expected… to get on with matter. Residual duty on claimants…. Knowing… expecting to see the defence…. Find out what bank were saying…. It was incumbent on Mr and Mrs Roffey to make inquiries… find out what was happening…. not satisfactory responses….. go see the file… change solicitors…. 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 correspondence… directed to the police…. concerning grievances towards the bank… harness small part… energy… 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… CHASE …THE SOLICITORS! Hasn’t 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.
33. Paragraph 53 & 54. Of "…all the more the case where a party... the last possible minute…. Writs issued within days of the primary limitation…. served less than a week before … writs expired". AND of "..as much time as permitted under the rules… incumbent upon a party to prosecute…. with due diligence… if they do not, problems will emerge… there 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 PARTIES?
34. Paragraph 55. Of "… evidence will turn on recollections…. meetings… back in 1993…. conversations in December 1993…. Mr Roffey acted under duress…. Who was there… what was said…. Precise circumstances…. Matter of recollection…. Mr Steens going to the Roffey property…. Conversations at that time… liability aspect… turn upon …. recollections…. members of the bank have left…. retired… memories .. fading… 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????
35. Paragraph 56 & 57. Of "…further difficulties for the experts… expert valuer... to try and judge… property worth in 1993…. forensic accountant to… and work out…. a business in 1993…. not easy task… passage of time… producing further information documents and….." AND of "…problems… engendered… by... submissions today… some… documents fabricated…. part of records .. meeting January 1993… fabricated.. not… issues pleaded…. 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?
36. 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 over-riding objective …. such is the delay … the bank are not on an equal footing…. Mr and Mrs Roffey will be able …..to give their account… the bank 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…. some… of their witnesses’ memories are fading….. there must therefore be that prejudice for them…. 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?
37. Paragraph 60. Of ".. saving expense… best part of afternoon… dealing with case…. reading through…. a case not even…. out of the starting block….. additional expense….. to remedy some of the problems…. considerable…. sight of the fact that the potential claim is as much as half a million or more….. very significant case…. one should lightly strike out…. 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…. CONTEMPT…. CONTEMPT…. FOR THE EVIDENCE?
38. Paragraphs 61 & 62. Of "…over-riding objective…. Ensure case …. dealt with expeditiously and fairly…. one thing that can be said…. case …. has not been dealt with expeditiously…. dealt with very slowly….. produced an unfair result for the defendant…." AND of " …must think about…. share of the court’s resources… the problems this case has got itself into already…. likely to produce a significant drain on the court’s 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.
39. 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 claims out….". PART 3.4(b) specifically provides: " that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s 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;
    (d)   ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
    (e)   allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. 

THE 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? [*Link from here to a House of Lords precedent case, Andrew Yiannides had up his sleeves for years while looking into the blunt criminal activities ongoing in the courts, such as what elements and which parties have been maintaining the system as is for centuries / millennia; and in particular, in the United Kingdom, as of the days when the Law Enforcement Agencies -the Police & the Courts- exhibited their contempt for Parliament's Laws and provided invisible services to criminals operating in and out of the courts].

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! (*F)

ALL in contempt of the rights to a fair hearing AND DELIVERY OF UNADULTERATED JUSTICE of no consequence to the administrator?

Dated the …………… day of September 2002

Signed …………………………………………H A Roffey

Signed ……………………………………....…C Roffey

Mr Harold A Roffey
And
Mrs Carole Roffey
Of:
The Roof
4 London Road
Flimwell
East Sussex
TN5 7PG

Copies to:
1. Lord Chancellor.
2. Home Secretary
3. The Prime Minister
4. Chief Constable of Kent

EU scandals 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 months.
  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 favour.
  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