h-rtitle.gif (7604 bytes)

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

WHERE IS JUSTICE? Read below:-

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

*Link from here to founder's tribulations in 1972-75 and marvel at the creativity of allegedly honourable officers of Justice and the Law in the mother of all PSEUDOdemocracies

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

'independence of the judiciary to act in contempt of ALL LAW (national and international) in a pseudo-democracy.

*Link from here to proof of the parts the police play in promotion and expansion of the criminal activities instigated, processed and imposed on society by the legal circles. Read of assertions by a typical hypocrite, none other than the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark QPM, when he spoke of FALSE RECORDS / FORGERIES by the legal circles while delivering his famous Dimbleby Lecture on BBC-TV in November 1973, 15 months after he received true copy of THE FORGERY advanced and promoted by the licensed criminals : solicitors and barristers for their evil ends in the case that opened Andrew Yiannides' mental eyes to the realities of life in the United Kingdom, a typical PSEUDOdemocracy. Can anyone enlighten Andrew and the millions of victims of the legal circles WHY NO PROSECUTION of the solicitors & the barristers in 1972 or thereafter?.

  • With such a facility in place (the words we point to above) and arrogant abuse of public office, can anyone assert, or argue, that Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights, was not right to determine that Justice has been abducted and that she is held captive in the dungeons maintained by her abductors who rape her daily in their courts? (>Hence the c reation of www.jusaticeraped.org <)
  • ALL Member States of the European Union are subject to the ruling which visitors, readers and researchers can access in the explicit page /yourrights.htm

*Link from here to the realities - in due course also a link to the warning (indirect but nonetheless very clear) for thinkers to recognise 

  • On 3rd March 2008 >someone's birthday< we released a House of Lords PRECEDENT CASE and reveal deliberations by their Lordships in respect of FRAUD - DECEPTION - CONSPIRACY & IMPLIED LIES BY KEEPING SILENT about any wrong imposed on any other.
  • >>> IN THE MEANTIME we have been naming and shaming a number who know of and engage in much more than just approve wrongs imposed on Mr & Mrs Average, the millions of taxpayers, in our allegedly civilised country / state / province / district of the European Union created by politicians, without reference to the taxed for fraud sucker-serfs, allegedly for the benefit of the citizens from FRAUD & CORRUPTION, among other promotions.

Needless to say the case entailed activities and practices by solicitors as Mr Andrew Yiannides was subjected to, decades later, by an old school friend, Mr Kypros Nichola of Nicholas & Co. in London. Mr K. Nichola bluntly abused the trust placed in him and indulged, in tandem with others, in criminal activities intended to cause the damages that were imposed on the targeted 'serf' by accredited - by the Law Society & Bar Council - allegedly Honourable Officers of the Supreme Court, the courts maintained by successive elected governments in the United Kingdom, one of many pseudodemocracies. In due course another revelation relevant to the arrogant 'inherent jurisdiction', through which to deny, obstruct justice & impose all manner of criminally created states on 'the serfs', who are taxed for the cost of maintaining criminals in public office, in pseudo-democracies.

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

[*Link from here to our exclusive page, covering confidential fraud as arranged THROUGH THE BEST KEPT OPEN SECRET in alleged democracies, European States. Elsewhere the foundations and corner stone upon which the operatives built the societies of their making using the bricks and mortar we cover in this and other pages. The visitor should not be under any illusion that the stars in the theatrical productions, covered in our pages were by any stretch of the imagination 'humans' who were / are gifted with any attributes that distinguish 'true humans' (>thinkers<) from animals.

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

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

family.uk-human-rights justiceraped.org dssfraud.htm confraud.htm dadscare.htm contract.htm converts.htm MensAid
solicitorsfromhell.co.uk chancellor.htm theyknow.htm solfraud.htm sheknows.htm 4deceit.htm convicti.htm forward.htm


*Link from here to evidence. *Link also from here to a case when the abusers of the courts' facilities abandoned their plans for another targeted family

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

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

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

An explicit Affidavit [*L] plus exhibits and
     letters to a Chief Inspector of Police
          one to solicitors
[*L] and another to the Lord Chancellor [*L] evince
               ORGANISED CRIMES
(Access and read the letter to the police in September 2006 [*L])

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

3rd March 2011 added link [*L] to the BBC-TV Dimbleby Lecture in 1973 as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark prepared & presented to the sucker-serfs

breeding.htm          KEY  Changes      10 Jul. 2005

hrbnrsml.gif (1165 bytes) JOIN the Community On Line and work with others for and in the necessary challenges and exposures for the common good. [*Link to Information Page]

The visitor's attention is drawn to the words of Jesus Christ, attributed to Him by the editors / creators of The Gospel according to St. Luke. Access His words to the lawyers some 2000 years ago. Many the dignitaries over the two millennia who shared His views (*Link).


Appeal Page 1
bowcas1r.jpg (57460 bytes)
Appeal Page 2
bowcas2r.jpg (65757 bytes)
Appeal Page 3
Appeal Page 4
bowcas4r.jpg (36277 bytes)
Read below a letter from an illiterate in English senior member of staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
lochan1r.jpg (35533 bytes)
Nothing but the usual waffle from an alleged servant of the public who arrogantly set out to promote and assert a 'constitution' when he ought to know that the citizens in the United Kingdom do not benefit from such a luxury.
  Even worse, if he ever qualified in law, he ought to have known that for over 47 years, by then, successive governments FAILED / DEFAULTED to put on statute an Act of Parliament, endorsing the state's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Visitors must access our comments in respect of the content of the above letter
[*Link to] and an explicit case when the officers and staff at another County Court were indulging in blunt abuse of the courts' facilities BUT, as in the case covered in this page, they were caused to review their mentalities towards the targeted citizens. [*Link] Read the last Order sought on appeal and recognise the RIGHTS THAT WERE BEING VIOLATED BY PERSONS the government, appoints and retains in public office, through other Public(!) Servants(?), at the expense of the citizens' who are systematically defrauded of their properties and rights in contempt of all law. COME back to read again the letter from the illiterate in English Public(!) Servant(?) at the Lord Chancellor's Department (*Link).

MP Writes to Lord Chancellor
mplnovf.jpg (36500 bytes)
Date is of the essence in the case at hand. Needless to say the news that there existed a recording to prove the abuse of judicial chair occupation by the fraud of an alleged servant of Justice &  the citizens was NOT revealed until & after the system was tested all the way. The victim of the evil in control of a pseudo-democracy was well aware of the organised fraud through the courts care of judicial chair occupants. In the circumstances the disclosed recording in the first instance, was an absolute essential.

The letter above is dedicated to two-faced Norman Scarth. Although he did not fall to the evil mongering of hypocrite Johan Foenander [*L] (when the latter telephoned [*L]) he failed to confirm that it was Andrew, the founder of human-rights who set him on track and told him how to use his rights and how to use two recorders in order to secure unadulterated records of any court hearing without the imposed frauds and the high cost of transcripts by the chums of the abductors and rapists of Justice.

bccrdsir.jpg (45707 bytes)
Below images of the 3-page letter to the Court when lodging the Defence & Counterclaim.
bccltl1r.jpg (55678 bytes)
bccltl2r.jpg (90404 bytes)
bccltl3r.jpg (68036 bytes)
The 2 images below are of pages from affidavits settled & submitted by solicitors & barristers in the course of High Court proceedings founded & resting on Commercial Fraud. The victim of the abusers of the courts facilities, the creators of False Instruments, did include the FORGERY which we dedicated to Mr Paul Talbot-Jenkins, also to Mr Maurice Kellett and to Mr James Todd of VOMIT repute. All three alleged experts on legal matters and the parts of the Freemasons in just about everything to do with Public Services, especially the parts of Freemasons for the creation of such states without evidence in support of their assertions. The three (and others) very much aware of the parts that others engaged in while engaging in theatrical productions in courts intended to impress the sucker-serfs they were inviting to such shows. We refer to the criminal activities we expose in our pages. WE refer to persons who changed colours like chameleons when chasing ONLY THE REWARDS under the terms we relate and expose in our exclusive page....   the realities we recognised as was and has been the element of 'subliminal indoctrination' tactics by operatives who made it their business to interfere in the work of genuine challengers who were / are EXPOSING the abusers of courts facilities & public office.
bcclce1r.jpg (59796 bytes)
One of the experts, Mr  Maurice Kellett, was noted to be part of a group who specialised in subliminal indoctrination of 'the serfs'. One and all engaged in suppression of the issue of the billions plundered year in, year out, from the national budget, as covered in the exclusive page he elected to bury in the sand alongside his scull, devoid of 'human' grey matter. Access from here the page where we cover the criminal activities & get to know why such persons are part of a breed & a class of their of their own creation.
bcclce2r.jpg (75736 bytes)






BREEDING GROUNDS  * Page created February 1997* 
undercon.gif (286 bytes) Page Revised: August 04, 2012
Site under reconstruction - ongoing additions and improvements
Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions.

VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY. Our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. 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. 

Visitors / readers please USE the SEARCH facility for any element or word & combination of words for links to pages / list where access to such material can be gained.

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

    The Appeal below is dedicated to Mr Norman Scarth. and all of his associates within the LIPS crowd / mob; also to all of their affiliates and other lovers of the cash under the table arrangements*. [*Link]
    All and everything created by the organisers of the legal system and the courts services* through which the assurances to the criminals who rely on abusers of judicial chair occupation, as Mr Andrew Yiannides first got to know of and experienced during 1969-1976.
    Throughout the period -and thereafter- the Law Enforcement Agencies (the courts & the police) in the United Kingdom established through foul of their public duties and the law recklessness, their arrogant contempt for Parliament's Law and the law-abiding citizens' rights.
    Application of relevant Law to the evidence, such as a blunt FORGERY and plenty of false instruments which the legal circles engaged in creating and promoting as legitimate documents, non existent.
    Promoting such, foul of the law instruments, as they went along, intending, as they did & do, in order to impose, through constructively engineered fraudulent court proceedings damages on targeted citizens.
    Many engaged in such activities, including two court of Appeal Lord Justices, one and all simply working towards the imposition of their New World Order Code of Morals and Ethics, precisely as the abusers of the County court's facilities, below, engaged in and indulged.


Case No. 9109976 







TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be moved on ........day the ............. day of .......…….. 1992 at ........... to hear an APPEAL on behalf of the DEFENDANT in this action against the ORDER of ...........................… dated 30th April 1992, posted on 6th May 1992 and misdirected in the post notwithstanding previous correspondence with the Court on the issue resting on the Plaintiff's deliberate and deceitful acts on the Court.

AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL are that the Registrar / Judge did:-

  1. At the onset of the hearing on 30th April 1992, after reading the names of the parties to the proceedings enquired of the Defendant if the Defendant was a "Greek Cypriot", which indicated the frame of mind in which he subsequently dealt with the issues raised before him. AND he ignored the Defendant's reply, "Origins Sir, British Citizen since birth".

  2. Upon reading the Defence and Counterclaim he remarked that it was a long document and that the Defendant did not have to Plead all that evidence and other matters. He ignored the Defendant's reply which was, "Nobody can justify or say, later, that certain matters and issues were not raised or adduced before this court".

  3. AND that after reading the said Defence and Counterclaim, which made him aware of the Defendant's intentions on matters pertaining to Breaches of Public Duty by the Police, who were involved at the onset of the initial cause of action, originally Pleaded by the Plaintiff in the alleged Claim against the Defendant, and in Particular Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, the Registrar / Judge himself proceeded to act In Breach of Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and in gross violation of the Defendant's Human Rights, particularly Articles 6 and 14 of the The European Convention of Human Rights, as well as Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

  4. AND further and in the alternative the Registrar / Judge was wrong and or erred when he: -
    (a) accepted the Plaintiff's denial alleging non service of the Defence and Counterclaim on the Plaintiff, AND ignored the documented evidence from the Royal Mail evincing that the Plaintiff and or his wife had signed for the Recorded Delivery of the said document on 16th January 1992, which was effectively served on the Plaintiff as of that date.
    (b) ignored the Plaintiff's remark "I am not really interested in that. To me that is really a lot of rubbish", in reference to the Defence and Counterclaim document which the Plaintiff had been alleging he had not received; PARTICULARLY since the Plaintiff was making that pronouncement when the Registrar / Judge told the Plaintiff that the Registrar / Judge was 'going to give him the Court's copy and the Registrar / Judge will indicate' (on the document he was proposing to hand over) what parts the Plaintiff was to deal with and answer.
    (c) failed to accept the Defendant's suggestion that the Court's copy of the Defence and Counterclaim should be copied first and given to the Plaintiff (upon which suggestion the Registrar / Judge remarked "they will charge you") and that in leaving the Defendant with no alternative, which in essence was not short of an order of Court, but for the Defendant to retrieve from his word-processor and print again the Defence and Counterclaim and to deliver same on the Court, afresh was nothing else but a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to The European Convent of Human Rights; a violation which he ought to have been aware of was also committed by P.c. Gale when he was ordering the Defendant and telling him that the only way the Defendant would obtain the Plaintiff's address (in front of witnesses) was for the Defendant to incur legal expenses.

  5. AND that the Registrar / Judge in refusing to Order the Plaintiff to furnish to the Defendant the name of the woman, the Plaintiff's accomplice, was seeking and attempting to suppress the Pleaded Causes of action whilst at the same time he was overlooking the fact that under the law all citizens are treated equal. And that in attempting to justify his refusal by saying "I am not going to allow this action to escalate out of all proportions" the Registrar / Judge was blatantly overlooking the Pleadings which establish a bona facie case that it was the Plaintiff with his unreasonable behaviour and his dishonesty that brought about the escalation; even worse the Registrar / Judge having read the Defence and Counterclaim pleadings was fully aware that the police, by acting in Breach of their Public Duties, and in particular Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, were thereby escalating the matter.

  6. AND FURTHERMORE that in seeking to push the matter to a trial before the close of pleadings and without a proper Pre-trial Review, the Registrar / Judge was attempting to railroad the action. Also by instructing the Plaintiff as to how to Reply to the Defence and to Defend the Counterclaim (notes on the Court's copy handed to the Plaintiff) he had acted in Breach of Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and in violation of Articles 6 and 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights.

  7. FURTHERMORE by ignoring and failing to make provisions for the video evidence, in the Order Appealed Against, the Registrar / Judge has indicated fundamental failings and unwillingness to deal with the evidence properly. Also in seeking to, and directing the action be set down for a half day hearing the Registrar / Judge has indicated that the County Court is proposing to conduct the Court's business in the way it has attempted to do, so far.


I. An ORDER SETTING ASIDE the Order of 30th April.

II. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to deal with, and Respond to A Notice to Admit Facts which will be served on the Plaintiff under Order 20 after the Defendant receives the Plaintiff's Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim.

III. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to Make a copy of the Defence and Counterclaim (handed to him by the Registrar / Judge) and to return the original with the notes endorsed thereon, to the County Court and

IV. An ORDER Ordering the Chief Clerk of the County Court to make two copies of the Defence and Counterclaim document upon delivery of same to the Court and to forward a copy to the Defendant and a copy to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Also to retain the original with all notes and endorsements thereon in a safe place and to ensure that no attempts are made to make any amendments to the notes thereon prior to or subsequent to photocopying same.

V. An ORDER Ordering the Plaintiff to file at Court and to serve on the Defendant copies of the calculations upon which the Plaintiff relied to substantiate the alleged claim of £5OO pounds.

VI. An ORDER Ordering the Chief Clerk of the County Court to vacate the proposed half day hearing and not to attempt to set down before the close of pleadings and not before there has been a proper Pre-Trial Review.


Dated this the 12th day of May 1992

A. Yiannides
DEPENDANT in Person,
of 65 Abbott's Park Road
DC London E10 6HU

TWO COPIES delivered by Hand to the Court. Extra copy to be served by the Court on the Plaintiff in whatever manner it chooses.

Most interesting and significant the fact that on the very day when the Appeal was lodged at Bow County Court, the Daily Mirror, in reporting the Court of Appeal conclusions in the Judith Ward case, came up with "BLIND, DEAF & DUMB - British Justice, one's the envy of the world". [*Link from here to image of the headline].

Events confirmed by Local Mayor who attended court with the targeted victim of the criminals in control of the Courts. The invitation for the purported hearing of the appeal (published above) was but a typical fraud through the best of scenarios created by the managers of CIUKU Enterprises. NOTE : APPEAL NOT SEALED when the Court returned the completed application to 'the targeted serf', the defendant'. [*Link to demand]

Mrs Denise Luinberg
247 Hainault Road
London E11

My Ref.:- CAAL92
Your Ref.:-

4th June 1992

    Madam Mayor
   Thank you for attending with me Bow County Court on Tuesday morning the 2nd June. Your interest and presence was of immense value to me.
   As I stated to you on the telephone in the late afternoon, after I returned home on the day, I would appreciate it if you will kindly acknowledge and confirm the following facts:-
   1. We arrived together shortly after 10.30 in the morning of 2nd June for the sole (purpose of) hearing of my Appeal at that Court.
   2. My first act was to go to the Court counter where I asked one of the clerks, a young lady, to ensure that the Notice of Appeal which the Court had completed and forwarded by post to me should be duly endorsed with the Court's Seal.
   3. I asked of the same young lady to also seal with the Court's Seal, a copy of my Affidavit and the Exhibit attached to that Affidavit.
   4. The young lady did seal the Notice of Appeal, which the court office had posted to me without sealing same with the Court's Seal. However, she refused to seal the copy of my Affidavit and the attached Exhibit marked "A.Y" saying to me:- "We do not Seal Affidavits and Exhibits"; and I asked you to remember these facts.
   5. The hearing of my Appeal had been listed for 10.30 a.m. at Court No.1 and we proceeded to the first floor where we met Mr Danny McCormack a journalist who was also at Court for the same purpose.
   6. I proceeded to show to Mr McCormack, who I had never met (P2) before, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, a copy of my Affidavit and the attached Exhibit marked "A.Y".
   7. I also showed Mr McCormack copies of letters I had written to the Court's clerk which related to the Appeal. One dated 12th May 1992, when I attended Court to file and lodge my Appeal, and another dated 28th May 1992 when I went to the Court in the late afternoon of that day in order to deposit in the Court's letter box (at the Front door) the large A4 envelope which contained that letter, the attached Affidavit and the bundle of documents that constituted the Exhibit marked "A.Y".
   8. Copies of those letters amongst other letters and the said Affidavit and Exhibit I had also shown to you the previous day.
   9. On the day in question (in the course of the long wait) you read my Affidavit dated 28th May 1992 and perused at length the documents which formed the Exhibit marked "A.Y". This you did in the course of our having to wait for my turn to go into Court.
   10. Whilst waiting a young lady clerk from the Court approached me in order to enquire of me if there was any way the Court could get in touch with Mr Perry (the other party to the proceedings) who had not turned up. And I pointed out to you that the court had Mr Perry's telephone number because it was clearly endorsed on the Summons which had been issued at that very Court.
   11. Later the young lady came over to us to state that the Court was still trying to contact Mr Perry and at that juncture I enquired of the young lady if the Court was going to hear my Appeal and nothing else as I had been invited; she could not confirm---.
   12. When I enquired of her what sort of a hearing it was going to be, she said it was to be "in chambers" whereupon I stated that if it was going to be before Judge Hales, who had already disqualified himself from further dealing in the action I was walking out to proceed with lodging my petition to Strasbourg. Mr McCormack and you saw how I reacted and both told me to calm down. (My reaction was spontaneous because she turned round to you Madam and to Mr McCormack to inform you (after she announced "in chambers") that you (both) could not attend the hearing and also made a remark about Mr McCormack being a reporter.
   13. Mr McCormack and you stayed with me and perused my documents and papers until almost 1 o'clock when you went outside, together, for a cigarette. Later, soon after 1.15 p.m. I found both of you in the cafe across the road from the Court where I informed you that I was told I would be called in at 2 o'clock. After we all had coffees and tea and I had a toast you Madam Mayor and Mr McCormack left as you could see no useful purpose in staying (P3) there.
   14. Late that afternoon I telephoned you to inform you that I was not called in until 3.05 p.m. and that the Court perused the Affidavit and Exhibit marked "A.Y" and that I wished to write to you in order to thank you for the interest you showed but also to confirm for me the events to which you were witness on the day. This I am doing now in the form of this letter, which I will deliver to you personally with a duplicate printout.
   When I call to see you today I would very much appreciate it if you will kindly keep one of the original printouts for your records. And, if possible, to make three photocopies of the printout you will keep for my records, which I would appreciate if you could initial them and for you to sign and endorse each paragraph and or page and the original which I will keep for my records in order that there can be no doubt that all documents are of one and the same text.
   I apologise for being so demanding of you but my integrity was insulted both on 30th April and on 2nd June. When the Court Order arrives or I am handed a copy of it when I call at the Court with Mr McCormack I hope I will be in a position to prove this fundamental point. As a practising Christian and an active member of my Church I have been offended twice and I am most concerned why this should be so. On the first instance it was blatant; on the second it was subtle but nonetheless it will be exhibited in the content of the Court's Order of 2nd June 1992.

For ever grateful

Yours Sincerely

Mr Andrew Yiannides
65 Abbott's Park Road
Leyton London E1O 6HU

Letter below countersigned by the Mayor - confirming truth of events witnessed

     Following the arrogant contempt of the rules of procedure >by one and all at Bow County Court<, the letter covering the events of the day, when attending court for the hearing of the appeal, was submitted to Madam Mayor in order for endorsement of the truth of the matters stated.
     The letter with complements to the allegedly Honourable (!) Secretary of the LIPS crowd/mob, Mr Norman Scarth who failed to secure copy of an alleged recording his associates made on the day of the eviction, the original of which, most conveniently and allegedly was lost in the post almost 1 year later >typical promotions by lousy actors<. 

Mayor Confirms Facts Page1maysta1f.jpg (73164 bytes)
First call the SEAL

Mayor Confirms Facts Page2maysta2f.jpg (124160 bytes)
Appeal scheduled for hearing 'In Camera'.

Mayor Confirms Facts Page3maysta3f.jpg (75339 bytes)
Madam Mayor called and informed of proposed action

Clearly stated the fact that a wrong address was given to the court by the builder,    YET SUCH REALITIES IGNORED BY A PUBLIC SERVANT allegedly retained by the state to serve Justice. He obliged 'the targeted serf', by promoting unsupported rubbish, in what was an attempt to create a concluded case. [*Link from here to image of the reckless promotion]  
  • Image of the explicit letter that was delivered to the court with the warranted Defence & Counterclaim Pleadings upon receipt of the fraudulent claim by the criminal who DID benefit from the recklessly inexcusable failures by the police who defaulted to act in typical Metropolitan Police fashion. In so far as the great Metropolitan Police were concerned it was a case of business as usual*. (*F)
  • They fail to act, selectively, and thus they create situations / work for the criminals who are in control of the legal system and the courts. They do so in order to afford the legal circles opportunities to 'fleece the serfs', as they please.
  • The police with fraudulent intentions (as part of the TRIAD  : TRINITY = 1. Judiciary, 2. Legal Circles, 3.  Police) negated in the execution of their public duties, in contempt of the law and not as commanded of them under the terms of their retainers (appointment and maintenance in public office) at the expense of the public, Mr & Mrs Average, the taxpayers.
  • AS with the other members of the TRIAD simply treating the victims of crime, as 'serfs'; the serfs treated as feed for the fodder (fat cats of the legal circles) when the police are called upon to attend as stated where you are linked to from here.
bcclsdcr.jpg (59361 bytes)
Most important that the court be informed of the deliberate WRONG POST CODE given to the Court, BUT of no use, when other agendas are being served by the alleged servants of the law, Justice and 'the serfs'. [Refer below to the convenient failure to correct the fraudulent intentions of the fraudster, intentions that were adopted also by the court staff as the posting to the wrong address established]
The image of the envelope on the right establishes beyond any doubt the intentions of one and all.
bcclajer.jpg (23810 bytes)
  • The endorsements relevant to the postal area / address of the targeted 'serf' need not be pointed out to the genuine victims and to genuine challengers everywhere.
  • We need to point such realities, however, to the mentally blind, deaf and dumb who operate out of the police and the courts, in an allegedly civilised state and society, a typical example of a pseudo-democracy, one that allegedly rests and is founded on principles of law and order. [On the left, image of the note/letter asserting judgement entered, on reliance caused by the misdirected court documents]

bccmpser.jpg (54923 bytes)
The entries evincing wrongly addressed / post codes IN CONTEMPT of the fact that the Chief Clerk was informed of THE OBVIOUS, but court staff INDULGED YET AGAIN.

Reference to ALL, above, includes the fraudsters operating out of Bow County Court at the time; the very persons later indulged so in other matters, exhibiting thereat their participation in activities intended to obstruct and pervert / corrupt justice, when imposing on society the teachings all follow from the vile work created by fraudsters and presented to Ptolemy if Egyp in the Hellenic language, as translated by the fraudsters from some original in the language their forefathers created and were promoting as alleged Holy Scriptures. We shall release more evidence, in the public domain, on the issue of Blunt, Institutionalised, Organised Fraud on 'the sucker-serfs', in general, and more specifically on targeted members of society, as covered in the extract from the published research which visitors, readers and researchers can read in our pages. [*Link from here to an extract from the published research by Stephen Knight in another page where we realte / state facts born of and attached to the activities of False Fronts Operatives, such as the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors >the O.S.S in the United Kingdom : the UK being the mother of ALL allegedly civilised >PSEUDOdemocracies as far as we are concerned<].
The image of the envelope and the content of the letter, below, evince and establish the manner with which Metropolitan Police Officers treat victims of criminal activities and HOW THEY PROVIDE INVISIBLE SERVICES TO CRIMINALS, THROUGH FALSE ASSERTIONS TO THE VICTIMS, especially so when the victims are targeted for denial of rights to protection under the law because the victim / victims have been engaging or engage in challenging abusers of public office. (*F3 - very important footnote)
An undated letter was rushed out by the police AFTER the appeal, above, was lodged at Bow County Court. It is for grey matter users to consider what caused abusers of public office and providers of invisible services while in pursuit of the creation of the New World Order Code of Morals and Ethics as the parts of the same circles re-established, through their involvement in the creation of the land of milk and honey, when abuse of the Housing Benefits facilities were indulged into by alleged servants of the public & all because of the need to finance the creation of the multicultural melting pot in the United Kingdom.

   Readers and researchers should consider the date of the events, when the police were called upon in the first instance, and the additional criminal activities the rogue builder indulged in, with his mates, on visiting the victim at his residence, at which time the police were, yet again, called upon to exercise their public duties.
   All visitors, victims, readers and researchers are urged to read very carefully the material FACTS STATED IN THE DEFENCE & COUNTERCLAIM DOCUMENT, also in the APPEAL warranted after an abuser of judicial chair occupation indulged in gross violations of the victim's rights to protection under national and international law.
   No one should ignore the fact that the victim was Defendant for the purposes of the fraudulent claim as arranged by the rogue builder who instigated the County Court Claim with Court staff guidance and assistance.
   No visitor / reader should ignore the fact that the rogue builder benefited from much. All and everything care of contempt of the law applicable to the stated facts through blunt abuse of judicial chair occupation, not forgetting the participation of Court office staff, such as Mr Bolton who ignore contemptuously everything he was pointed to and later had the audacity to write of destruction of the alleged application for judgement >allegedly on default grounds; the alleged judgement that conveniently was entered by some phantom judge because allegedly the targeted sucker-serf failed to act 'upon receipt of the Summons that was conveniently posted to a wrong postal area... AS THE USED stooge builder engaged in.

Post frank evinces date when letter was rushed out to the victim of allbccdrenr.jpg (26408 bytes)
Contempt for the rights of citizen to protection under the law, the last thing on the mind of all manner of servants of the law and the citizens who have been wronged or imposed upon by CRIMINALS who benefit from the protection of alleged public servants such as the author.
Absence of date evinces intent, by the author, to mislead and rely on any of the abusers of judicial chair occupation who simply elect to ignore the obvious, as was the case with the Recorded Delivery posting to the rogue builder*. [*L] bccdrltr.jpg (23424 bytes)
Below, on the right, image of the communication received by the targeted serf, from Bow County Court. The letter materialised after the Defence & Counterclaim was delivered to the court with the explicit 3-page letter linked to [from here] in the margin panel on the left, above.
  • The arrogance of the person* [*Link] who forwarded convenient bad tidings was beyond the pale.
  • The promotion of false instruments CONCOCTED & CREATED by alleged servants of Justice WITHOUT ANY HEARINGS (when such instruments are served on the sucker-serfs) happen to be but everyday 'happenings'.
  • Of such 'creations' the service of Justice in the thoroughly corrupted court services that CIUKU* Enterprises [*Crimes Incorporated United Kingdom Unlimited] developed over the centuries.
  • All and everything Organised for the Serfs, for the sheeple, in our allegedly civilised Democracy, as arranged by the legal circles and alleged officers of Justice (solicitors, barristers and judicial chair occupants with the police party to it all through highly questionable failures and defaults in the execution of their public duties).   
bcclajer.jpg (23810 bytes)
Link from here to the letter, above, posted to the targeted serf, by the police officer who failed to exercise his public duties and did nothing (IF AT ALL) UNTIL / BEFORE THE DEFENCE & COUNTERCLAIM was lodged at BOW COUNTY COURT..... and failed to ever serve any copies of official documents in support of the promotions by the fraud of an alleged officer of Justice and the Law. > NOTHING UNUSUAL as the Metropolitan Police established way back in 1969-1978 when A BLUNT FORGERY was created as the vehicle FOR PERVERSION OF JUSTICE, INCOME GENERATION by and for the legal circles who recklessly promoted A FORGERY when relying on abusers of judicial chair occupation, all the way and up to / inclusive of two Lord Justices at the Court of Appeal. [*Link from here to images of material facts stated in affidavits settled by solicitors as endorsed and used by Barristers in a case of COMMERCIAL FRAUD]   




The right to reply, to justify behaviour and activities covered in our pages, is assured to any one we name and write about. We will publish excuses & whatever is submitted to us by persons named in our pages. We will use our rights and publish also any legal argument that may arise out of any submissions we receive. 

This page and the above documented realities are dedicated to all abusers of our time, and in particular to the evil-mongering fraudster, Johan Michael Richard Foenander; also to his soul mates from within the LIPS crowd-mob and to all charlatans who allegedly care or are concerned about the men they draw in their nets. Among them agents / managers / controllers / organisers of the * UKMM * - the United Kingdom Men's Movement. Leading lights of the UKMM, attempted in 1998, to suck into their fold, Mr Andrew Yiannides, by sending an unsolicited letter with enclosures to the founder of human-rights.org (NGO). They acted so, because they assumed that they were addressing an idiot at the time. Their unsolicited invitation to Andrew, caused our founder to contact their leaders and they were asked to furnish specific information; letters to that effect were forwarded but typically, they failed to comply, like all charlatans and ostriches, when confronted with legitimate demands. IMPORTANT: Only the craft-y operators 'managing' the LIPS crowd/mob could have furnished to the UKMM Andrew's address, and, between them, the fraudsters exposed their parts in the Organised Assaults On The Serfs and the families of 'targeted serfs'. The passing on of information between two recognised set-ups, one of which (LIPS) was in possession of the targeted serf's address, must have benefited from 'advance information as to the plans of CIUKU Enterprises for the targeted founder of human-rights.org. Readers and researchers should access from here the FAX communication from Andrew Yiannides to Mr. Paul Talbot-Jenkins. Paul T-J, an alleged victim-challenger, was recognised to have been a * fraudsters club recruit *, one who made it his business to project and promote the usual subliminal indoctrination scripts aimed at hooking new victims to the promotions such maintenance engineers engage in. They do so, in order to suck in new victims of the system and thereafter coerce and use them for the cash under the table facility as stipulated in the exclusive page, all visitors can access from here. Every recognised 'fraudsters-club-recruit' who was pointed to the arrangements and the facility for rampant fraud on the taxpayers, through abuse of the courts' facilities, followed by the corruption of conditioned morons / programmed robots, failed to ever refer to, point to and even worse avoided to address the issues we cover and point to in the page, as if the cholera / black death.

The case that disclosed nothing wrong to the experts within the Lord Chancellor's office and Department. Read the briefly stated facts and judge for yourself after accessing a typical response* from an illiterate in English acting for the Lord Chancellor [*L].

With extracts and references to other Cases

This is the case with a cowboy building contractor. I was, and to this day I remain, the victim of that contractor; also the victim of Public(!) Servants(?) who saw fit to, and persistently abused and attempted to abuse Public office. All were acting so, in order to assist other Public Servants who had acted in Breach of their Public Duties; all were indulging in gross Violations of  Human Rights. Rights to which our Government subscribes to, some of which even made it (eventually) to the statute books and are enshrined in National Laws. The case was before a County Court, the Court 'very conveniently' featured in an article of 'The Times' newspaper at an opportune moment (*Link to the article image and note the date). Pronouncements made in that article in no way reflect reality Because Practice was (and remained for years) Far Removed From Preaching.

That builder, contracted to do specific repair works but defaulted to act as had been agreed. After securing more than the specified moneys in advances (because of promises to finish in two days) he threatened and even attempted to incite two of his workers to use physical violence in order to extract more funds from me; this after their workmanship had proved to be poor and the contractor had been told to make good the bad works. The contractor elected instead "to steal, by taking away" (to an unknown destination without consent) properties of mine. Those acts of theft the police permitted and acquiesced; (they had been seen and called earlier because of the threats to life and property:- "I will blow you and your properties to pieces"). AND the young police constable, who was attending, also refused to order the contractor (whose calling card was lacking) to give any address where he could be contacted  and for legal proceedings to be served, if he was to carry on as he had demonstrated. The constable,  took the contractor away and spoke to him in private, then declared, "You want his address? Get your solicitor to write to me! These events were witnessed.

The contractor thus encouraged, in the evening of the same day, accompanied by two others came to my residence where, ones again, he threatened me and in the presence of my wife and two children attempted to attack me with a roundels bat. I avoided being embroiled in acts of physical violence (I do not subscribe to the use of any force) and I was telephoning the police when he threatened my wife and children with the words:- "We will petrol bomb you and burn you alive". Those threats were followed by damages to our house and the smashing of a ground floor window pane. Earlier I had taken steps to make the contractor/thief realise that he was not going to get away with what he had embarked upon, with or without help as I had warned him. By the time the police arrived, that evening, he and his mates had gone away. Full particulars from my wife, our children, and myself were given to the police.

A few days later the contractor had no option but to return the properties he stole. Even at that stage he refused to give any address and went as far as to threaten me with legal proceedings he was proposing to institute in respect of alleged non-payment for the works he and his mates had carried out. His allegations did not reflect facts and such threats / intimidation after he had become aware that he could not treat me as he would have liked (and had been encouraged, by the police). Amongst the steps I had taken were photographic and video evidence of the bad works carried out by the contractor and his workers / mates. The police evidently had defaulted to arrest and or charge him for any of the acts he had indulged upon against myself, against my family and my properties, in furtherance of their colleagues' failures and their exhibited mentality towards me and my family (those who had been briefed and called upon, from the onset, in my efforts to contain matters within the law). I had, in the meantime, contacted and briefed solicitors. Later I received a letter from the contractor giving me notice of an intended County Court action, by him! Yet again he failed to disclose any address where I could send my response to his allegations. His persistence necessitated further investigations by me and reference, yet again, to the police because of the threats to my wife and children.

He did issue, weeks later, a County Court Summons, claiming the maximum he could allege under the Small Claims Procedures indicating that he was relying on an automatic arbitration, ruling. When the Summons reached me it was blatant that he was seeking to act fraudulently in the course of the proceedings which, as he had stated in his letter earlier, the County Court staff Had Advised Him To Institute. The Summons was endorsed with a wrong postal area for my address, despite the fact that he had correctly addressed his letter, to me, earlier. Because of 'the wrong post-code factor' I received the Court Summons late; I therefore elected to enter and serve my own Defence and Counter-Claim. Therein I specifically pleaded the belated serving of the Summons (essential pleading in the circumstances; most solicitors would dismiss that factor as irrelevant and immaterial and would not plead it in the court proceedings [*Link from here to such provisions]). I delivered the documents personally to the County Court, well within time from the date of service. The following day I telephoned to ensure these had reached the right Court officer.  In a covering letter I specifically drew the Court's attention to the late arrival (misdirection in the post) because of the wrong postal area given to the Court by the building contractor.

bcclsdcr.jpg (59361 bytes)
Image of the covering letter referred to in the text on the right, in the first paragraph.

When the Summons reached me it was blatant that he (the builder) was seeking to act fraudulently in the course of the proceedings which, as he had stated in his letter earlier, the County Court staff Had Advised Him To Institute. The Summons was endorsed with a wrong postal area for my address, despite the fact that he had correctly addressed his letter, to me, earlier. Because of 'the wrong post-code factor' I received the Court Summons late; I therefore elected to enter and serve my own Defence and Counter-Claim. Therein I specifically pleaded the belated serving of the Summons (essential pleading in the circumstances; most solicitors would dismiss that factor as irrelevant and immaterial and would not plead it in the court proceedings [*Link from here to such provisions]). I delivered the documents personally to the County Court, well within time from the date of service. The following day I telephoned to ensure these had reached the right Court officer.  In a covering letter I specifically drew the Court's attention to the late arrival (misdirection in the post) because of the wrong postal area given to the Court by the building contractor.

Months later I received my documents, including my letter which was specifically addressed to the Chief Clerk of the Court [*Link from here to evidence]. Attached to the returned documents was a Court Memorandum stating that a Judgement had allegedly been entered for, and by, the contractor! Upon receipt I telephoned the Court and demanded a meeting with the Chief Clerk; I stated that I was to make my way to the Court and I expected him to specifically make time for me,

before the day was over. Eventually, when I met with him, he asserted that it was too late and that there was nothing he could do!  I told him that not all citizens are feed for the fodder ("you should have seen a solicitor ..." he advised!) .  I then pointed out to him that the Court has powers to set aside any judgement secured fraudulently and or through deceit on the Court itself (in fact the Court has powers to bar the offending party from further proceedings). I warned him that unless he saw to it that the Court exercised its duties properly I would act. I demanded that a copy of the declared Judgement/Order be forwarded to me (no such document had to that date reached me!). I asked also for a copy of the application for judgement, by the contractor, "alleging and resting on default grounds" (this was important because of the wrong postcode and because of the advise he had received from court staff);  there are more revelations and documented facts on the issue of "the application for Judgement on alleged Default Grounds". I had, from the onset of the meeting, shown to the Chief Clerk both of the envelopes in which the Court's staff had posted:- (a) initially the Summons and (b) subsequently my letter, the Defence and Counter-Claim documents; (copy for service by the Court to the building contractor). Both envelopes were endorsed with other postal areas to which both had been routed and re-routed before eventually reaching me. I also pointed out that it took the Court's staff a very long time indeed to return my documents and I questioned the return of the letter addressed specifically to him. The documents, I pointed out to him, were actually delivered by me to the Court only one day after the alleged "judgement" had been entered!

In the meantime (FIVE MONTHS ON) the police had failed to institute any proceedings against the fraudster for the criminal damages to our home and the threats to our lives and home. The threats caused us to live elsewhere for a few days and had introduced a tense atmosphere in our lives, with arguments between me and my wife who was persistently demanding of me to capitulate to the fraudster’s demands. (there are other DOCUMENTED REVELATIONS of what happened after that meeting with the County Court chief Clerk)

Following our meeting the Chief Clerk wrote to state that he had referred the matter to the District Judge, at the close of business on the same day, and that the judgement against me was set aside. (what of my succinct letter, when serving my Defence and Counter-claim which should have indicated to the Court's staff they should and ought to conduct the Court's business diligently? WHY post it back? TOO LATE? NOTHING!!!!

Image of the letter & the envelope as received from the Chief Clerk.
bcc92jsa.jpg (144625 bytes)

This part, adjacent to the image on the left, was not part of the original 'Breeding Grounds - case', the stated facts and realities many received copy of, including the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng and the Legal Action Group, as covered in the Stephen Lawrence page at this website, to which interested visitors can link from here.
    On the left, the letter received from the Chief clerk as covered above. The chief clerk, Mr. P. D. Bolton, interestingly was informing the targeted 'serf', Mr. Andrew Yiannides, that the Judge had agreed to set aside the judgement : - on "the courts own motion".   (Really?)
    Amazingly, the 'judge' determined that the 'serf should attend court for an arbitration hearing, simply to defend a claim concocted by the rogue builder, apparently approved by the judge, who 'discovered the court's own motion powers' (when questionable activities are indulged into by parties to the proceedings, including solicitors & barristers) also determined that 'the targeted serf's extensive COUNTERCLAIM attached to the DEFENCE document submitted to and served on the court month's earlier, was of no concern or interest to Justice or to the court as organised and managed by Public Servants and presumed Servants of the Law & Justice. It was clear that reliance on the *facility* for NO RIGHT TO APPEAL, any ruling and judgement from arbitration hearings WAS the new approach!
    Even more amazing was the revelation added by hand, reading: -
' P.S. I had asked the Registry Section manager Miss Green to locate the Plaintiff's N14 request for judgement, however, it transpires that those documents have since been destroyed'. (WOW, such promotions following every other Arranged Default and Obstruction thus far, what next?)   

FOR A FURTHER THREE MONTHS the police were failing to come up with any answers to my demands for clarification and or any information as to the position regarding the criminal proceedings they should and ought to have instituted from the onset. The Detective assigned to the case delayed taking a statement from me under various pretexts; he also defaulted to attend to my wife and children in order to take statements from them, even though he, his colleagues, and his superiors had been made aware of the stress in the family because of the threats to petrol bomb us. That detective, in the course of some EIGHT MONTHS, had come up with a number of assertions about the use of postal areas "as, how and when it suited the cowboy contractor's intended purposes". The detective's statements and pronouncements were inexcusable at the very least; one could also surmise as incompetent if not deliberate excuses with intent for the creation and promotion of ulterior motives. Officers of the Court had, in the meantime, issued directions proposing to deal with the claim against me by way of arbitration (No Right Of Appeal) even though I had raised my repeated objections. Coming up to that hearing I investigated further as to the alleged:- "easy to make errors on postal areas to someone who only moved to London recently!" (the promotions / assertions by the police). I even took photographs establishing:-
(i)    that the use of a wrong postal area, for the contractor's residence
(which the contractor gave to owners of equipment, when he was hiring such) could only have been deliberate. I informed the police of such facts and produced the photographic evidence which their idiotic assertions prompted / caused me to secure.  The photographic evidence qualified that there EXISTED street signs on the building where the builder and his family were residing, other street signs also existed along the very road; furthermore HE (the builder) HAD GIVEN, to the Court, the right postal area for the purposes of his Court Action!!! and
(ii) the contractor was living at home contrary to police assertions such as "he no longer lives there, he has left his wife".

The Court having failed to serve the Defence and Counter-Claim document on him I was left with no option but to serve it by post on him.

bccrdsir.jpg (45707 bytes)
Proof, The Defence and Counterclaim had been effectively served on the builder as of the date delivery was signed for.

YET the Court subsequently FAILED TO ENTERTAIN applications from me for an Interim Judgement justified and resting on Default grounds after the building contractor had failed to enter any defence to my Counter-Claim. I WAS OBLIGED (because I was left with no option) to issue and serve a Court Summons on Notice before the date of the fixed "arbitration" hearing. It was essential for me to secure peaceable service of that Summons SO I asked the police to attend in order to avoid any violence and or physical encounters with the contractor. He was at home, as I had first established. When I served the Summons on him he threw it and kicked it in the presence of the attending policeman who, interestingly, stated to the contractor: -
"I don't know what this is all about mate".
I called at his local police station where I raised the issues out of those events. AND the issue of the allegedly long lost contractor
(throughout asserted by my local police as information from his local police station). Following a telephone conversation between the two stations I was told that the contractor would be arrested and taken to the Magistrates Court under a warrant of arrest, which was issued after he failed to attend Court. BY THAT DATE I had never been informed of any proceedings, applications, hearings, etc. I had simply been told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. Throughout that period my local police were failing to respond to my telephone calls and letters and all persevered in their failures to take any statements from my wife and my two children or neighbours.

AND the Court subsequently FAILED TO ENTERTAIN applications from me for an Interim Judgement justified and resting on Default grounds after the building contractor had failed to enter any defence to my Counter-Claim (*Fxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). I WAS OBLIGED (because I was left with no option) to issue and serve a Court Summons on Notice before the date of the fixed "arbitration" hearing. It was essential for me to secure peaceable service of that Summons SO I asked the police to attend in order to avoid any violence and or physical encounters with the contractor. He was at home, as I had first established. When I served the Summons on him he threw it and kicked it in the presence of the attending policeman who, interestingly, stated to the contractor: -
"I don't know what this is all about mate".
I called at his local police station where I raised the issues out of those events. AND the issue of the allegedly long lost contractor (throughout asserted by my local police as information from his local police station). Following a telephone conversation between the two stations I was told that the contractor would be arrested and taken to the Magistrates Court under a warrant of arrest, which was issued after he failed to attend Court. BY THAT DATE, interestingly, I had never been informed of any proceedings, applications, hearings, etc at any Magistrates Court. I had simply been told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. Throughout that period my local police were failing to respond to my telephone calls and letters and all persevered in their failures to take any statements from my wife and my two children or neighbours in respect of the visit at my residence with the ensuing threats and damage to our property.

When attending the scheduled "arbitration" hearing I went prepared with the photographic, video and other documented evidence. I was also accompanied by the most pertinent witness to:-
(a) the works,
(b) the verbal agreement,
(c) the young police constable's behaviour and assertions / directions / order and INTENTIONS evinced when he was COMMANDING ME To Spend MY Money With Solicitors!! A Small claim against a fraudster!! Unrecoverable solicitors costs!!
That police constable's behaviour amounted to BLACKMAIL and gross violation of my human rights. THE USE OF MY PROPERTIES (stolen / deprived use of) AND MONEYS, without impositions (especially outside the law) by the state and its agents or servants, is a right I HAVE (GUARANTEED UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION). In Court on that day the District Judge was interested in my origins(!) and got the right reply: -
"British Citizen since birth".
He elected to accept falsehoods from the fraudster who proclaimed he had not received the Defence and Counter-Claim documents (Recorded Delivery postal service - signed for).

The District Judge THEREAFTER chose to disregard: -
(a) the Recorded Delivery slip issued by the post office;
(b) even worse he chose to disregard a letter from Royal Mail which was backed with a true photocopy of the recipient’s signature.
And the District Judge proceeded to issue NEW directions indicating as and how he would have liked for the action to proceed, RAILROADING IN EFFECT THE COURT ACTION to the predetermined course staff and court officers had embarked upon from the onset. More on this last point because he even saw fit to make notes on the Court's copy of the Defence and Counter Claim FOR THE FRAUDSTER HE HAD TAKEN UNDER HIS WINGS before handing it to him). When I asked how soon it would be before I received the Court's Order, in writing, he stated:-
"When they have dealt with it" (the office).

At this point I refer to the "fraudulently entered Judgement" which was DELIBERATELY POSTED LATE by staff at the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court (covered in a letter to Mr P Cozens; supported by the attached evidence, document No. 9; note the dates thereon please). Other serious issues indeed arose on that day at the County Court.

Upon receipt of the written Order I entered a properly drafted Appeal STATING all causes and GROUNDS for Appeal including my rights in International Law (European Convention on Human Rights) and the violations of same at and by a Court of Law [*Link from here to the content of the appeal and the first of the four images in this page].

On the very day when I served / lodged my Appeal at the County Court, my local police, who by then had been ignoring me for nearly TEN MONTHS, made several attempts to telephone me (ansaphone calls registered that day 12, BUT NO MESSAGES LEFT!!. This was while I was out attempting to get minority, local and community papers interested in the case, armed with copy of the appeal, you can access above. I also visited our Local Authority's race unit.

The following day I received a call from the Chief Inspector at my local police station, who informed me of the previous day's attempts to contact me. He then told me that the detective in charge of the case, had written to me. Some days later I received a letter that was lacking dates and was in fact posted on the very day I lodged my Appeal at the County Court.

I wrote to the detective seeking clarifications and he responded in a letter by stating that he had arranged for the arrest of the contractor, after I went to serve the Summons on Notice in the presence of the police (the day of the telephone calls between the police stations). Some days later I received also an alleged Judgement from my local Magistrates Court proclaiming a Judgement against the contractor (the Judgement I refer to, in my letter to Mr P Cozens, the Chief Clerk at the local Magistrates Court) and that Judgement / Order was endorsed with a date of the day following the service of the Summons (in line with the detective's statement in his second letter). I then wrote to the Magistrates' Court seeking clarifications. In a response I was informed that the Judgement had allegedly been entered some TWO MONTHS BEFORE the date endorsed on the judgement order which, in any event, was ALSO posted AFTER MY NOTICE OF APPEAL was served and filed at the County Court!! (Convention Rights, Violations, pleaded).

The above facts, all of which are evinced in letters and public records, disclosed and evince more than enough. IT WAS BLATANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SCRATCH MY BACK SOCIETY WAS IN OPERATION (alleged Court hearing / order in line with the detective's assertions) AND EVERYTHING, MIRACULOUSLY AFTER THE LODGING OF THE LODGING OF THE APPEAL WITH EXPLICIT PLEADINGS. Worse was the fact that the police had allegedly charged the contractor only for the smashed window pane and not for the damages to the brickwork. EVEN WORSE still, the police had failed to charge him for the threats to our lives and property, nor for the demands with menaces, nor for extortionate demands, nor for blackmail, etc., etc. AND that person, apparently, even got an absolute discharge!!!! so that he can feel free to indulge so again and again; (Imagine that cowboy builder doing work for elderly persons? A matter I raised with the County Court chief clerk in the course of our first meeting). NO WONDER I WAS KEPT IN THE DARK BY THE POLICE, all those months. Intriguing was the fact that although the alleged Magistrates Court Judgement was entered some FOUR MONTHS earlier no such notice was sent to me and NO ENFORCEMENT had taken place in respect of the value of the smashed window pane. I re-iterate 'for the window pane ONLY', as if the contractor, the police, the Court and or some state agency had made secure our property for the night and that it was they, the public servants who subsequently obtained and fitted the replacement window pane. SUCH FAILURES DISCLOSE(D) ENOUGH. [*Link from here to an explicit Judgement covering 'intentional wrongdoing' and consequential damages].

On the date set for the hearing of my appeal (More about County Court Failures on the issue of setting a hearing) I attended the County Court accompanied by my local Mayor [statement secured >link above< in this page] and a free-lance reporter. NEITHER of those witnesses were allowed to attend the "hearing!" which was delayed well into the late afternoon. I could have insisted that they be allowed to attend the "private" (behind closed doors) hearing(!) by stating that one person was my McKenzie advisor and the other was to keep notes of the proceedings for me. I chose not to; because it was more important to me, at that stage, to have evidence of denials and obstructions to Justice; it was immaterial if such acts were indulged into selectively and or simply in order to create conditions leading to assisting other Public Servants; those who had failed abysmally to conduct themselves within the guidelines of their respective Public Duties and in accordance with the National Laws they are meant to serve and uphold; also in contravention of International Law. In the course of the "Hearing"(?), which the Judge conducted as and how he would have wished, the Judge attempted and sought to suppress and ignore the PLEADED VIDEO EVIDENCE. He also sought to impose other terms leading to unrecoverable costs and expenditure (small claim, BUT DIRECTIONS for expensive Surveyors Reports; as if the CONTEMPORANEOUS photographs and video EVIDENCE were not enough). At this stage I should add that there are Court provisions which were denied to me all along, just as the interim Default Judgement had been. EVEN worse the judge attempted on a number of occasions to misinterpret the agreement between the contractor and myself because the contractor had used the words "I was employed by" in his Particulars of Claim. I repeatedly had to point out to the Judge that the builder HAD STATED ALSO fixed jobs and fixed sums!. (i.e. "Do Not Rely On That To Deny To Me Justice") Upon receipt of the new Directions, after that "hearing!" of my Appeal I followed up on work I had started with the Lord Chancellor's Department. In a specific letter I stated:- "Can you imagine the state of British Industry if one and all were free to indulge uncontrolled and unsupervised?". This after the usual assertions of non interference in the Courts' business by the Department; the much revered "independence of the Judiciary, and the Courts". In response to my comment a special department came into existence. There followed telephone conversations and letters. Specific letters from me were sent to that department. One was sent as an OPEN LETTER; with it another, CONFIDENTIAL. The Department was challenged and, I stated that I paralleled the case with that of a person who goes to a hospital with a broken leg BUT the doctors there seek to induce a fatal heart attack. I made it clear that whilst the County Court and its officers were in a position to review their mentality to the small claim (broken leg) I was also determined to take the matter of their attempts to deny justice through railroading attempts, and to obstruct me in the quest of my rights (fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory judicial system) to Strasbourg; hence my reference to heart attack for which I reserved and had the right to attend another hospital (Strasbourg in their case). Only a fool would and should rely on the likes of those who indulged, to be judges on themselves and the practices of their colleagues.

  • When attending Court, on a subsequent date, to exchange documents (in accordance with the Appeal Judge's directions) I went prepared with other legal documents I had prepared (more revelations).
  • A new District Judge was on the bench. The new District Judge (had read all of my communications; so I was informed) used the occasion to enter Judgement for me and took into account the Counter-Claim, the evidence I had prepared, and considered also the time lost in pursuit of my rightful claims through the Court, in respect of the initial and subsequent causes of action that had been pleaded* and claimed by me, in the first instance (part and parcel with the defence) [*Link from here to provisions - Rules of Court - in respect of further and additional causes of action AFTER a Summons is issued and served].
  • When I was asked, of the hours involved in the preparation of all the paperwork and the other documented evidence, I stated that the paperwork was dictated and necessary because of my interest in a Judicial System that ruined my business and almost destroyed me as a person, years earlier.
  • I explained that the 'legal experts freely adduced and used FORGERIES FOR THE PERVERSION OF JUSTICE. Such criminal activities were indulged into by the legal circles, "barristers" and "solicitors" with "the blessings and conscious acquiescence, of their criminal activities", by High Court Judiciary, all the way to the Court of Appeal: "The Jewel in the Crown - Case".
  • I was asked if my work and research was likely to lead me to a career in law and I stated that it was not my wish to rub shoulders with criminals, but to expose them. That is why I spent years in researching and studying law and court procedures expending in the process time and money since it had become apparent it was the only way to move forward in a Democracy when something is wrong.
  • IT IS THE ONLY WAY OPEN to force those responsible (in our instance the Houses of Parliament) to act in order to protect the public, the victims of a judicial system where individuals feel free to indulge in order to create income generating conditions for themselves and their circles, through abuses of the Courts' processes whilst denying and corrupting justice.
  • I pointed out to the District Judge that the forgeries, I had referred to, took place in the High Court before the 1981 Forgeries and Counterfeit Act; (NOTE: Criminal activities are not subject to Limitations) in other words at a time when the 1913 Forgeries Act was in force.
  • The earlier Act had provisions for forgeries at Court and on Court documents as well as books of records (such indulgences did take place) and I had such evidence.
  • The Lord Chancellor's Department,
  • the Police, (various police stations area Commanders)
  • Scotland Yard Fraud Squad
  • and their Complaints Department;
  • also the Director of Public Prosecutions,
  • Abuses of the Courts processes had come to light, I informed the District Judge, in the Mary Winch Affair and in my work I had come across a case wherein those in charge of it had attempted to similarly indulge (dispossess a person from his home, THROUGH ABUSE OF THE LEGAL AID FACILITIES. (see copy telegram attached).
  • CONSCIOUS if not deliberate obstruction, denial and perversion of Justice.
  • Abuses of the Court’s processes had also come to light in the Judith Ward case.
  • FORGERIES had come to light in the I.R.A ‘bombers’ case who were imprisoned because of scientifically proven FORGERIES (false / falsified records) by the police.

In this instance, "The Breeding Grounds - Case", the practices and aspects of how one and all (from young policemen and their officers, to County Court staff and the Chief Clerk, through to Magistrates' Court staff and the Chief Clerk) all are seen to be learning through observation and FAILURES TO CHALLENGE malpractice and indulgences COVERED UP BY THEIR SUPERIORS. Thereby all begin to treat such activities as acceptable and NORMAL. And thus they learn how to obstruct, deny, pervert and corrupt Justice. In this case alone the police and Magistrates' Court staff and officers have lent themselves to fabricated material, FORGERIES intended to mislead and to support falsehoods. Such acts from trained persons retained by the state in the investigative and administrative branches of Criminal Law. None can plead ignorance of the criminal law and those documented activities, safe perhaps rely on their superiors and colleagues to assert "case not proven" by ignoring the evidence just as the District Judge blatantly indulged into on the day of the 'arbitration hearing'! It is immaterial and irrelevant if when issuing directions on that date it was hoped that solicitors might get their chance for a cut in the cake (as attempted and urged by the chief clerk, the Judges and the Lord Chancellor's Department subsequently, hoping that I would be naive enough to part with the evidence, never to see it again). The documents advanced and indulged into by the police and the Magistrates' Court staff and its officers ARE FORGERIES intended to deceive.


As can be noted from the letters sent to my Member of Parliament and to the Chief Clerk at the Magistrates Court, where the builder was allegedly prosecuted for criminal damage (the smashed window pane only) no enforcement of the alleged Judgement at that or any other Court ever took place. This failure alone, indicates to highly suspect circumstances and it is highly questionable if the police ever really wanted to prosecute that criminal; the 'suspicion' is justified because of all the other collective failures and acts entered into and indulged blatantly by the police, who were relying throughout on the abuses at the County Court to create conditions to Justify their unwillingness to exercise their Public Duties. The Magistrates Court officers may have attempted to assist the police in the advancements of falsehoods, but the police never even attempted to charge the builder for criminal damages UNTIL AFTER THE COUNTY COURT HAD BEEN FORCED TO SET ASIDE THE ALLEGED DEFAULT JUDGEMENT (that alleged Judgement was nothing else but a constructive fraud). It is indeed remarkable that the criminal is stated to have benefited from an "absolute discharge". In other words the police computer records will more than likely carry no records of any the indulgences the builder embarked upon with the assistance and through encouragement by the police themselves.

Any attempt to justify the delayed posting of the Judgement from the Magistrates Court for two months on grounds for a Means Application and or hearing is suspect. In any event the alleged order granting him time and in particular the AMOUNT AND THE FORTNIGHTLY periods, indicate to a person receiving funds on that basis. That issue alone indicates to the police NEVER HAVING INFORMED THE COURT OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE between the CONTRACTOR and his victim. In other words the police suppressed evidence pointing to a criminal who was claiming and receiving state benefits WHILST at the same time he was proclaiming in the County Court proceedings other building contracts and hiring of equipment by him. And the police HAD BEEN INFORMED that the criminal they saw fit to protect and aid had been receiving, as he had demanded and insisted, payments in cash. Payments that he acknowledged in the course of the County Court proceedings.

Fortnightly income statement to the Magistrates Court indicates to a person receiving Social Security Benefit! A building Contractor! A person receiving more than that from PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!

Such is the deplorable state of affairs in our country. National and International Laws are Freely Violated. And Public Servants use their public offices to serve their own ulterior motives if not undeclared Government Policies. And the closing comment observation has to be seen in the context of the SYSTEMATIC FAILURES by Senior Government officials and Ministers' Offices, if not the Ministers themselves to address the issues arising out of repeated complaints to their Offices.

Such Failures can only suggest reliance on the continuance of the systematic, uncontrolled and unchecked ABUSES OF THE COURTS' PROCESSES BY AND THROUGH THE MUCH REVERED INDEPENDENCE OF OUR JUDICIARY. [*Link from here to the facility we reveal whereby the judiciary are used as the protection racket Godfathers by the State / Government and anyone who can afford their invisible services on tap, through the right connections].

London 1993.

COPYRIGHT. Application for the use of material from "The Breeding Grounds - case" can be secured only for the use of the material in respect of Court proceedings by ANY citizen within the United Kingdom and or for the citizen's presentations to the authorities; to public servants who NOW have no excuse but to deal with the widespread corruption and the abuse of the legal system by "those who appear to be licensed* [*Link] to act and operate outside 'the law'* [*Link].

PLEASE NOTE that within weeks of a challenge and additional information furnished to the Lord Chancellor's office, through my Member of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor announced the Schooling of 1800 Circuit Judges on Racism* and racial awareness inclusive of different cultures.

PLEASE NOTE ALSO that within two weeks of an explicit appeal, covering the usual indulgences at a county court, copy of which was delivered to the Lord Chancellor's office, the government, through the Lord Chancellor. announced the Bill of Rights, in 1997. In the meantime and for years on we have had charlatans and 'fraudsters' club recruits' (*Link) ranting about alleged contributions and changes in the law; one such person was Norman Scarth, who self proclaimed himself to be 'Our hero' (see his work/book 'Cause For Concern'). *Link to the evidence and NOTE WHAT CAUSED THE ANNOUNCEMENT for the Bill of Rights in 1997. Read first the last Order sought on appeal and then read the pleadings as lodged at court. The reader / visitor, might then recognise what was at work in 1992.


FOOTNOTE common to most web-pages at this website
MOST IMPORTANT:- In October 2010, the coalition Government's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' the mothly legal banter magazine, specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves from cases of (small-fry) fraud and he asserted that he was making that element his department's priority*

*Link from here to the evidence.

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, WHAT the coalition of the Con-LibDems, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY WILL IN FACT ATTEND TO THE RAMPANT FRAUD, and IF IT WILL DEAL with the criminals who abuse public office, especially when faced with appropriate submissions and claims that will be delivered in due course. Visitors/readers are urged to read the article published in the London Evening Standard, as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in 2003
*Link from here to the article we reproduce in another webpage and consider "Why tolerate the arrogance of the legal circles who had and have the audacity to assert to the lawmakers that they, the lawmakers have nothing to do with the law"?
While there, above it, the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. ALL alleged victim-challengers who contacted Andrew Yiannides, by the time the letter was sent to the Minister, received copy of the letter just as they received copies of other letters submitted to government maintained Ministers and other official appointees to public office. Accessing the material pointed to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in truly democratic states. The above in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such civilised and, within the law, approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by governments, the explicit challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of alleged victims of the legal circles to have ever contacted us.

*Link from here to our explicit submissions to (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) and, the Home Secretary. We acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged victim whose only interests were (i) the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides.

Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998

*Link from here to the letter

& note the results evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do

*Link from here to the evidence we point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system fraudsters who were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers / organisers of the LIPS crowd / mob..


    1.    Lest there be any doubts as to THE PARTS THE CRIMINALS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ENGAGED / INDULGED IN, FROM THE ONSET IN THE INSTANCE AT HAND, the victims of such evil practices, the readers and the serious researchers are pointed to the simple fact that the very criminals (court staff and officers) had been too eager to promote a judgement that allegedly had been entered by the court, against the targeted victim (the serf with no rights to protection under Parliament's and International Law, Treaties and Accords). *Link from here to image of the letter received from the Chief Clerk after he was challenged for promoting 'inability of the court to act. NOTE the hand-written addenda after the letter was printed & before posting the Chief Clerk's response to the challenges. Such were the promotions advanced by the Chief Clerk of the Court when the Court returned the targeted serf's submissions to the Court (the Defence & Counterclaim with the covering letter pointing out the 'convenient wrong address used by one and all) because, as the Chief Clerk asserted, judgement had been entered BY THE COURT on Default Grounds (presumably on application by an illiterate in law who presumably relied upon / used such grounds for the requested PHANTOM JUDGEMENT, order of which was NEVER PRODUCED by the criminals in charge and in control of the SERVICES TO JUSTICE & THE LAW at Bow County Court, Stratford, East London). 
    2.    Andrew Yiannides dedicates the appeal published in this page to Mr Norman Scarth and to all of his associates and their affiliates, *as stated in the paragraph above the appeal, to which victims, visitors, readers and researchers can link from here. All had been informed of the appeal's content, under what circumstances and HOW THE CHANGE OF DIRECTION BY THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE WERE CAUSED. All had been informed of the CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE LAW mentalities of officers of the law from within the police and the courts' service. All were informed of the explicit appeal and the fact that copy of it had been posted to Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, at the House of Lords. All had been informed of the oral exchanges with an arrogant senior officer from within the Lord Chancellor's office. The said officer attempted to advise Mr Yiannides and asserted to Mr Yiannides that he could not Petition the Council of Europe (Human Rights Commission), at least not before the case (as pleaded and appealed) had been processed through the Home courts, all the way to the House of Lords. EVERYBODY HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE WAY the promoter of the usual waffle was challenged by Andrew Yiannides, especially Mr Peter Hayward, Mrs Philomena Cullen, Mr. Roger Jones, Mr Panos Koupparis, Mr Peter Prankerd, Mr Paul Talbot-Jenkins, Mr Maurice Kellett, Mr Norman Scarth, Mr William Spring, Mr Nick Haralabidis, Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven, Mrs Eva Adshead, Mrs Marisa Sarda, Mr Colin Peters, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, Mr Terry Ewing, Ms Ormila Bhopaul, Mr Ashok Mahadjin, Mrs Veronica Beryl Foden, and Mr James Todd, to name some whose parts in endorsement and promotion of the rampant constructive fraud imposed on the taxpayers we partly cover in our pages. *Link from here to a FOOTNOTE in another page where the challenges are related. All interested visitors and readers, especially victims of the legal circles and the Law Enforcement Agencies, should access from here the paragraph where we released / publish scanned copies of a Court of Appeal case which Mr Norman Scarth, (the self promoting hero and lover of the facilities for fraud aplenty through the abused court facilities) accessed through the Internet facilities. All should access the evidence and note the date when 'the hero' accessed and printed the Law Report; all should note the date of the Court of Appeal hearing. All should note what elements, from the reported case,  moved 'the hero' and prompted him to note / highlight as worthy of consideration by others who were likely to receive copies from 'the hero'. READERS who bother to access the footnote pointed to SHOULD THEN CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS PLEADED & CHALLENGED IN THE APPEAL, lodged at Bow County Court, years earlier, and published in this page as part of the evidence in support of Mr Andrew Yiannides over two decades earlier and as evidence in sup[port of his conclusions as to who responsible and which parties / elements behind the rampant fraud on the taxpayers and the corruption of society in a pseudodemocracy. 
    3.    *Link from here to the page where we point to a case when the creator of this website, Mr Andrew Yiannides was the victim of ORGANISED FRAUDULENT COURT PROCEEDINGS, AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE over a decade earlier. At the time the legal circles indulged in setting down and serving a false Defence and thereafter engaged in the creation, procurement and promotion of a blunt FORGERY, which they presented as if legitimate and acceptable in law, for the purposes of the High Court proceedings, despite the pleaded realities and the contemporaneous evidence handed to the promoter of the FORGERY. Promoter of the FORGERY no other but the solicitor who was acting for and on behalf of the targeted victim of the original fraudsters and of the police and the legal circles subsequently. Through promotion of the FORGERY (as an an allegedly acceptable instrument) all relied on abusers of judicial chair occupation, all the way to the Court of Appeal to impose the damages all intended to be the end of the matter, as Counsel for the fraudsters (defendants) had the audacity to represent to the judges through endorsement of an affidavit that was lodged and court and copy was served on the team acting for the targeted victim of all. One and all, especially the solicitors & barristers who were acting for and on behalf of the victim of the initial Commercial Fraud, expected in the first instance (when the FORGERY was misrepresented to the victim) to cause the victim to abandon his claim against the fraudsters who simply were benefiting from invisible services, by and from alleged Officers of the Supreme Court (solicitors, barristers and judges); also officers of Justice (the police).
1.    Evidently no one has EVER BOTHERED to consider the relevant factors that apply to such scenarios. No one APPEARS TO BE CONCERNED (all Public Servants apparently just Part & Parcel of the Organised Crimes Against Humanity in an 'alleged civilised', Democratic State).Such disinterest irrespective of the words of many a dignitary, including the words of Jesus Christ to the lawyers of his day, as included in 'The Gospel According to St. Luke' by the editors of the New Testament. (*Link to a quote from the French Jurist Charles .Louis Montesquieu, NOTE: His very words HINT at the services on offer by judicial chair occupants, ALL IN CONTEMPT OF THE LAW).  
    4.    The victim of the criminal activities the builder engaged in, RECOGNISED AS OF THE MOMENT THE POLICE CONSTABLE (who was called to attend the premises) ASSERTED THAT THE ISSUES REPORTED (and complained of and about) WERE CIVIL MATTERS. That fraud of an alleged officer of the Law and Justice was simply promoting the ORGANISED DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITIES constituting the 'serfs' of the United Kingdom, as in all other pseudodemocracies. The victim happened to have been a follower of, one who adhered to the religious following of the mainstream indigenous population of the United Kingdom, a Christian and a Greek Cypriot, a Hellene at that; one whose origins hailed from the civilisation that was targeted 2300 years earlier, by the creators of the alleged creator of all and everything, the followers of such creativity (the teachings born of and attached to the alleged creator of all and everything) set about creating the societies of their own making; societies & states allegedly founded and resting on principles of law and order, SUCH AS THE CONSTABLE was engaging in through contempt of Parliament's Laws and his public duties. The very ways of the powers that be, were also seen to be active and in full force AS OF THE INSTIGATION & SERVICE of the ill-founded claim by THE ASSISTED CRIMINAL, the fraudster, Stephen Norman Perry. 
    5.    XXX 
    6.    XXX 
    7.    XXX 
    8.    XXX


Link to:   Lord Chancellor's Dpt.    Judges Schooled on racial issues
Link to:- The CAMILA Project   h-r Home Page   Judges independent of, FREE to ignore The LAW
Link to:- Typical Response from Lord Chancellor  The LAW   Frank Cunningham-case

  Back to Home Page 

The creator of this website was inviting victims to access URrights & join him there with other victims to expose & challenge abusers of trust & public office until the providers of the facilities >ning.com< introduced new terms and conditions for the provision of the facilities. Access from here and read of the imposed states by the brains behind ning.com and consider only one element "WHY OBSTRUCT & HINDER THE DOWNLOAD of the existing material at URrights.ning.com >the intellectual properties of the creator of that presence on the Internet and those who joined him there? Read below of the unacceptable conduct and behaviour by the reckless abusers of trust, who set out to obstruct and blackmail the creator of URrights.ning

Persons who are genuinely concerned and object to the ways they were / are being treated by alleged servants of the publicand the law >in any PSEUDOdemocracy, or whatever states / conditions they are subjected to< by abusers of public facilities and public office >as we cover in our web-pages< should contact webmaster@human-rights.org for information relevant to the creation of similar facilities for INFOrmation on URrights, for facilities for URrights EUrope and for a NETwork of URrights activists.

  • APOLOGIES to friends and persons who could not access URrights following the recent changes by the providers of the facility (ning.com) Andrew Yiannides created and used the portal to create the presence on the Internet for the group of victims / challengers who joined with him to expose and challenge the arrogant and blunt abuse of public services in all allegedly civilised societies > PSEUDODEMOCRACIES <.

  • The changes related to the introduction of charges for the facilities, included the facility for ning.com to archive the material at URrights; also the facility to download the archived material to the creator's system (computer) while the creator and his group of friends considered which of the level of charges and service the group was to adopt.

  • HOWEVER the creator, Andrew Yiannides, WAS UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL and all attempts to engage the providers and their staff in reasonable explanation as to WHY THE FAILURES TO CONNECT / DOWNLOAD from the ning.com servers THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL, were contemptuously ignored.

  • Emails to the Publicity, to the Promotion, to the Public Relations, also to the Chief Executive's Office merited no response whatsoever from anyone acting for ning.com

  • In the circumstances Andrew will appreciate any information related to the problems covered above. Andrew will also appreciate any information relative to exchanges with or email postings, from ning.com to existing members.

  • EXISTING URrights members, victims of the legal system, victims of solicitors and the courts should access the updated pages at .org/solicitors.htm and .org/solfraud.htm by using the links from the list below.

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

.org/1999dfax.htm .org/1ofmany.htm .org/2lipstalk.htm .org/4deceit.htm .org/absolute.htm .org/abusers.htm
.org/account4.htm .org/actors.htm .org/actors2.htm .org/adoko.htm .org/bankers.htm .org/beware.htm
.org/blunket1.htm .org/chaldep1.htm .org/confraud.htm .org/contract.htm .org/convicti.htm .org/courts.htm
.org/corruptcourts.htm .org/crimesin.htm .org/dreamers.htm .org/evesused.htm .org/evilones.htm .org/famfraud.htm
.org/govolso.htm .org/guesswhy.htm .org/len.htm .org/mauricek.htm .org/media.htm .org/solfraud.htm
.org/solicitors.htm .org/someplan.htm .org/someploy.htm .org/thefacts.htm .org/theproof.htm .org/thenerve.htm
.org/twisted.htm .org/uaccount.htm .org/ukmm.htm .org/uwatchit.htm .org/watchit1.htm .org/yourtax.htm
  • Every single person we name and expose in the above pages elected to ignore THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT (to 'the serfs' = 'the taxpayers'), THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC FACILITIES. All were/are relying on the Intellectual Prostitutes, from within the media, to keep it all in the family closet.
  • All, as typical twin-tongue hypocrites carry on complaining about the media for failing to report & for suppressing the facts and the realities they allegdely reported to the hard of hearing, to the otherwise committed angels blowing their silent trumpets for decades, all ready and gearing to welcome the expansion of the New World Order.
  • Of such parts the contributions from and failings of the persons we name and expose, AS IF THEIR OWN SILENCE, THEIR FAILURES  & THEIR BLUNT OBSTRUCTIONS to the work and other actions by the creator of this website, Andrew Yiannides, treated by one and all as if non-existent with the exception when the wily Norman Scarth, set off to abuse the trust he was allowed to benefit from, while his parts and questionable activities / performance were under scrutiny, specifically after HE FAILED to publish the full transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing HE WAS ALLOWED TO RECORD* [*Link from here to the food for thought page created by Andrew Yiannides, in the first instance].
  • Not one ever bothered to address the issues we expose in the explicit page, despite the fact that we have been pointing all of our contacts, since May 1992, to it all.
  • Visitors, readers and researchers are urged / invited to access and read the letter which the Hon. Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, Mr. Norman Scarth sent to the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, reproduced in the page .org/4deceit.htm* [*L]
  • The author's statements, such as 'what for and why seek additional assistance', thereby spelling out his parts as a lover of it all.
  • Common sense dictates, that he should have directed his request to his partners in deceptions aplenty, one & all engaging in fraudulent misrepresentations AND NOTED TO HAVE, WILFULLY, BEEN SUPPRESSING, FROM THE TAXPAYERS, THE FACTS OF LIFE RELATIVE TO THE RAMPANT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES as the failure of all to co-operate as covered and pointed to at:- [*L]. One and all fallen to the facilities for fraud aplenty on the taxpayers and the corruption of illiterates in law, the conditioned victims of the legal circles & courts who fall to the blackmail element attached to the REWARD for keeping the realities away from the taxpayers; just like the media and the Ministers responsible for the application of long existing law to the criminal activities we cover in our pages, do.
  • All the while one and all were / are engaging in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page, which page the author of the letter which Mr Norman Scarth sent to Andrew Yiannides, afforded us the opportunity to address the issue of the contributions of his partners and affiliates in fraud aplenty on the taxpayers; despite the reminder one and all, named in the new page simply shoved it all in the dark corners of their devoid of grey matter skulls, their perverted / corrupted mind(s)

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

ACCESS:  http://www.justice-uk.human-rights.org/ (For an important message at this Community-on-Line web-site) & thereafter,
Access also http://www.law.society.complaints.and.human-rights.org/ (Judge instigates Fraud On Tax Payers - he knows not the difference between 'imposed' & 'no undue influence'). APOLOGIES FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THIS WEBSITE.It appears that the beneficiary of the work, both for applications to the courts in the United Kingdom and the submissions to the European Court for Human Rights* [*Link from here to the Statement of Facts submitted to the ECoHR], arranged with the providers of the free web space to erase the Intellectual Property of Andrew Yiannides, the founder of the human-rights Community-on-Line, without any reference to the creator of the website and owner of the Intellectual Property!
鼯font> Copyright subsists on all material in our web-site, owned by the authors of same.
Visitors can refer to these pages in any non commercial activity, so long as attribution is given as to source. License to use, for commercial or other specific use of the material, shall have been secured in writing first, from the owners of any property and material from these pages. No material shall be reproduced in any form and by any means without prior agreement and or license in writing from the copyright owners. The Press are invited to contact us if they wish to publish material in the Public Interest, As We Do.
For any problems or questions regarding this web-site contact:  webmaster