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


Visitors who access this page MUST READ Footnote 1 (*F1) in order to get to know of 'the ploys used by the organisers of the lives of the serfs' and how stooges and maligned persons accost & attach themselves to victims and active challengers for other goals than they, at first, promote to those they target. The examples pointed to through the footnote (from one of the elements covered in the content and legal arguments of / for this page) was but one small example of the activities that create plenty of Judas' through the element that Oliver Cromwell used when he sent the representatives of the people packing, out of the Long Parliament [*Link from here to his words]. When reading of the element of : 'To educate the public or victims', as was the alternative venue when the late arrival turned up to deliver a talk to those who gathered for the 'proposed meeting at Mr Len Miskulin's residence, the reader and researcher must consider THAT WHICH TRANSPIRED WITHIN TWO DAYS; which parties and what they engaged in, not to mention the convenient failures of alleged victim-challengers, such as the victim who failed to use and promote the most important evidence, the challenges lodged at court in 'his interests', challenges founded and resting on applicable statutory provisions law <<) against the offending abusers of the courts facilities and then disappeared like a thief in the dark yet kept contact with others.

lawcompi.htm              KEY
Page Changes 20 Jul. 2003

The Law Compilation * Page Created February 1997 *
Please (*Link to plea).
hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)

JOIN others On Line and use your rights. Publish your own Statement of Facts (member's case at the European Court on Human Rights - paves the way) and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (*Link) & ACT, as / or with others, against the offenders. Join them and chip in for the creation of the mass of evidence against the abductors and rapists of Justice. You can then benefit from THE FACTS and evidence that you will help establish. It can all be used in any action, severally or jointly with others, as the case may be . Crimes against humanity are not ruled out when a large number of citizens can come up with evidence and as victims concur and or expand upon on the FACTS STATED & The VIOLATIONS PLEADED as LODGED at the ECoHR, already.

Affiliated Sites For The Above Project / Activities   lbduk.org (group) (*Link takes visitors to  important footnote - information). 

The Statement of facts / Legal Argument by and for the Chairman of live beat dads uk.org. Do not fail to note the rights pleaded  (par. 5.a & 5.b) in the case of a relationship gone astray, merely because the other side felt the urge and need for a change of partner. Thereafter ONE & ALL decided to use the innocent children as the vehicle for use in and for the conversion of assets industries, a division of CIUKU Enterprises!

We invite you to take part in DATA collection in the areas covered by The CAMILA Project. Your own contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are active now & to all others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by using the rights we point to,   assured in law.

IMPORTANT Announcements
Announcement- July 2002

1. Court Proceedings ARE PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. Beware of Mischief Makers operating as and or for the Divide & Rule Brigade.
Do not be misled by self- appointed 'gurus' such as we cover in the  explicit pages /2lipstalk.htm & /chaldep1.htm who aim to serve the Fraudsters Club as in /confraud.htm (the page) either from within or as guided (by the abductors and rapists of Justice) mischief makers / recruits. Such persons come up with all sorts of poor excuses, as to why victims ought not to act as their rights in law provide. (Link)

KEY to page & site
Acts of Parliament
ECoHR Convention Articles
Precedent CASE on COSTS
European Union Law
Page CHANGES - List
HoL Ruling expanded
part x.
part x.

Letters TO - LIST
Home Secretary 12 / 1998
2. Prime Minister - 11 / 1999
3. Prime Minister - 12 / 1999
4. Frank Field MP - 4 / 2003
5. Haringey Council CHEATS
6. Editor of The Times - 1996
CEO Haringey Council 2001
8. Prime Minister - 2 / 2002
9. The Treasury - 2 / 2002
Home Secretary- 2 / 2002
11. Hackney Council CROOKS
12. Edit LEStandard 2/2002
13. Crown Prosecution CPS
14. D.S.S Fraud Department
15. Lord Chancellor Aug.1998
16. Law Society March 2003
17. European Court of HR 03
18. Lap-dog - LIPS fraudsters
19. Minister Work& Pension 01
20. <>

Letters FROM - LIST
1. Council Dreamer
2. Police Dedicated BUT
3. Haringey Council CEO 2001
4. Old Age Pensioner
5. Prime Minister Nov. 1999
6. Lord Chancellor's Agent
7. Solicitor to client Mar 2003
8. <>

Relevant LAW - List
Some Convention Rights -List
Some Convention Rights
4. Haringey Council Dreamer
5. Police Promoting Just LIES 
6. Norman Seeks Information
7. LCD Expose Police LIES
8. An Illiterate LCDpt. Officer
9. ECourtHR September 2003

Site ARTICLES - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
Site IMAGES - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
Acts of Parliament
1. Theft Act 1968 - parts
2. Theft Act 1978 - parts
3. Forgery - Counterfeit Act
4. Criminal Justice Act 1988
part 5.
The ISSUES Page-Site
1. Reasons to Publish Order
2. Fraud Vitiates Judgement
3. Misconduct In Public Office
4. Provisions For Victims Exist
5. Offenders Default & Omit
part 6.
part 7.
2010 article by Nick Clegg Deputy Prime Minister 23rd November  in 'the Guardian'.
gen2genr.jpg (179196 bytes)
Link below to the text for links to and from




undercon.gif (286 bytes) Page revised: June 20, 2012 : Additional material and introduction of links to other pages
Site reconstruction with ongoing improvements and additions.

Page first published at *human-rights* in September 1997. A compilation with more material was first published by 'The CAMILA Project' in 1981 and we urge readers and researchers to access the page if only to read Sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1998, we have been   pointing to since 1992, after the managers, organisers and controllers of the Litigants In Person Society, made contact with the creator of this website and founder of human-rights.org under peculiar circumstance. What transpired thereafter can be recognised by grey matter users, after reading the exchanges between two of the members, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander and Mr Norman Scarth : [*Link]  

VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY; our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess; it was such a person who had been wasting our time and securing support through many a crocodile tear.  You will find the addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that you will share with us our concerns and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt and promote activities which they know are nothing but downright crimes. We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as conscientious, law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET. 

THE LAW and Forgeries HOME-PAGE

Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions.

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

(*List of cases when Forgeries & Consequential False Instruments were used)

We publish below a brief for the citizens to know of

The Law

IT IS MOST IMPORTANT that the reader / visitor recognises and accepts the concept and legal argument as developed and presented below by Andrew, the founder of *human-rights*. [*Link from here to the judge's duty AFTER the hearing of a case under the UK's adversarial system]

  • The LAW provides under Section 17 (*Link below) that the 'making of a document that fails to account for a particular fact which is omitted (such as a judge ignoring the evidence or the law applicable) at the time of the making of the document (such as a perverse order), the document in such circumstances is to be treated as falsifying the account or document'.
  • The LAW further provides under Section 17 (*Link below) that a false document leading to gains for the author or another (second party, such as the barristers / solicitors costs attached, even for the need of an appeal) and causing loss to another (third party, such as the clients of the legal circles / courts) can be indicted and upon conviction shall be liable to imprisonment up to seven years. (It does not happen though because those who are responsible for the implementation of the law are part and parcel of the Organised Fraud & Corruption THROUGH THE COURTS).
  • RECOGNISE WHY we published and maintain in our pages the Court Order in the case of Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven where the words "UPON READING THE EVIDENCE" establish the most common factor that is absent [*L] in almost all cases where the judicial chair occupant has only one thing in mind: "HOW BEST TO CREATE and CAUSE THE GENERATION OF INCOME", for the legal circles, the very area in which he/she may still be practising and or from which the defaulter arose to public office.[*Link from here to an explicit invitation by the court to the two opposing legal teams to partake in the perfection of a court order to be read.....]
  • THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE PERSON, who omits such elements and or defaults to address the evidence and or the law applicable in the case before the defaulter, ACTS IN CONTEMPT OF BOTH OR EITHER FACT AND OR LAW APPLICABLE. As such the person is an abuser of position who simply misconducts in public office.

We refer you to definitions and principles of RIGHTS FOR THE CITIZENS as defined by authorities on the issue of THE CONVENTION (European) IN LEGAL TERMS. The rights of the citizens to call upon persons in public office to account for their activities and for those under them should be clear to all citizens, in any 'alleged' democracy. OUR DEMANDS of public servants and public service providers, have been very clear, for over 25 years, as our 'DECLARATION' Challenge, the document you can print from our pages qualifies.[*Link from here to our 'Declaration', challenge them form]

Many the offending who defaulted and default. In fact no one has ever completed, signed and returned our DECLARATION, document! That default in itself constitutes proof that the criminals in control KNOW THEY ARE BREACHING THE LAW! And we are faced with 'greenhorns / tutored mischief-making planted among the genuine victims, coming along to interfere [*L] in our relentless work. The provisions for victims of the administrators of CIUKU Enterprises for challengers who wish to expose the rampant fraud and corruption, feeding the scavenging parasites, through abuse of the legal system and the courts' facilities, EXIST FOR GENUINE VICTIMS & CHALLENGERS who wish to leave a better legacy than the one we inherited from our predecessors. They did not know better or have the means to challenge openly, as we do and can, the Masters & Lords who control the lives of modern day Serfs.

THE THEFT ACT 1968 (extracted from Vol. 12 Halsbury's All England Statutes)

Section 15

Obtaining property by deception

Section 16.

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (back to: National Scandal:  pecuniary advantage )

Section 17

False Accounting.

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

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

Section 20

Suppression etc. of documents

  • A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any Will or testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
  • A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another by any deception procures the execution of a valuable security shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and this subsection shall apply in relation to the making, acceptance, endorsement, alteration, cancellation or destruction in whole or in part of a valuable security, and in relation to the signing of any paper or other material (document?) in order that it may be made or converted into, or used or dealt with as, a valuable security, as if that were the execution of a valuable security.
  • For the purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and "valuable" means any document creating, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation of, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation.

Theft Act 1978

Amendment to Section 16(2)(a)

Evasion of liability by deception

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

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

(Back to Haringey: funds secured as Housing Benefit

2-101 Belief in a right to deprive.

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

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

Page 166 - 6.03


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

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

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

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

Page 177 - 6.20

Making a false instrument.

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

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

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

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

Page 178 - 6.22

Acceptance of the instrument as genuine

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

Section 10. (3)

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

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

Page 179 - 6.24


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

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

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


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

Page 185 6.37

Suppression of documents

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

  • "A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces, conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years."
  • The expression "dishonestly", "view to gain…or…Intent to cause loss" and "valuable security" have been dealt with. It will be recalled that an intention to avoid the exposure of previous misconduct is sufficient to constitute a view to gain, and that "valuable security" is defined in such a way as to correspond roughly to the narrow interpretations of the word "instrument" in the Forgery and Counterfeit Act 1981.

2010 and an important approach to the very issues we have been pointing for decades. Below the article published by 'the Guardian' on 23rd November 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg spoke of the very elements on 19th September in the course of the Sunday morning BBC politics programmes, as we set out to point as of that day, in our pages. Read the article and recognise the very issues Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights has been pointing to and raising as of 1978. [*Link above to the very issues in our pages as of 1997]

    Is it possible to be progressive when the public coffers are empty? My answer is yes. Certainly the crisis in the public finances means making some sharp choices. But it also forces us to be clearly means to be progressive. With less money, we need more focus.
   The need to make choices is revealing an important divide between old progressives, who emphasise the power and spending of the central state, and new progressives, who focus on the power and freedom of citizens. Labour risk being on the wrong side of the divide. They are becoming the conservatives of British politics, defending outdated approaches rather than looking forward to a new, progressive future.
    Old progressives are straightforwardly in favour of more state spending and activity. On this analysis a state spending 50% of GDP is more progressive than one spending 40% - while a government spending 60% would be more progressive still. This is clearly nonsense. The question is not how much money the state is spending, it is how it spends it. The real progressive test for any state intervention is whether it liberates and empowers people.
    I reject the idea that it is more progressive to pay off the deficit more slowly than to act decisively. Delay means higher interest rates on mortgages, more money going to bond markets to service the debt and a bigger burden for taxpayers, both now and in the future. Nor is there anything progressive about saddling the next generation with our debt. Progressive politics must also take into account fairness between as well as within generations.
    Old and new progressives also take a different approach to tackling poverty and promoting fairness. Old progressives see a fair society as one in which households with incomes currently less than 60% of the median were to be, in Labour’s telling verb, "lifted" out of poverty. The weakness of this approach is that significant resources end up being devoted to altering the financial position of these households by fairly small amounts - just enough, in many cases, to get them above the line. But poverty plus a pound does not represent fairness. It represents an approach to fairness dominated by the power of central state to shift money around, rather than to shift life chances.
    The other weakness of this approach is that it pays insufficient attention to the non-financial dimensions of poverty. Of course it is better to have more money, even if only a little more. But poverty is also about the quality of the local school, access to good health services and the fear of crime. Tackling poverty is clearly about money, but it is also about ensuring access to the services that promote a better quality of life, and wider life chances.
    As well as being too narrow, this approach is too static. Social mobility is what characterises a fair society, rather than a particular level of income equality. Inequalities become injustices when they are fixed; passed on, generation to generation. That’s when societies become closed, stratified and divided. For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is. This difference is at the heart of many of the arguments that have taken place about the fairness of the decisions taken in the spending review.
    The highest profile studies of the impact of the spending review have used just one measure - income - at just one point in time. As such they provide valuable information. But they take no account of the value of public services. The government’s E7bn investment in the early years, in a pupil premium, and in more help getting poorer students into higher education does not blip at all on the radar.
    That is why the government’s own analysis, which did include services, showed a different picture, one which showed the richest fifth losing the most from the spending review and the poorest fifth losing less. The government’s decisions to protect NHS funding, increase schools funding and provide additional early-years provision all channel resources towards the poorest. It is not that the snapshot, income-based analyses are wrong. They simply provide only a partial analysis of a comprehensive spending review.
    There are big differences on tax, too. Ed Miliband told the Guardian yesterday that the UK is a "fundamentally unequal society". I agree. He also says that "for some people the gap between the dreams that seem to be on offer and their ability to realise them is wider than it’s ever been before".
    Again, I agree. The UK is unequal in precisely the way he identifies - in terms of social mobility, life chances and opportunity to move ahead. As well as investment in policies that promote social mobility, this implies a radical reform of the tax system. New progressives want to reshape the tax base fundamentally, towards greater taxation of unearned wealth and pollution, rather than of people. Within weeks of coming into power, the coalition government had increased the income tax threshold by £1,000 to £7,475 and raised capital gains tax, by 10 percentage points to 28%. We are also committed to increasing the share of government revenue raised from green taxes.
    Rather than focusing on social mobility, Miliband grasps at the retention of the sop top tax rate as his solution. I’m not sure that the members of his own front bench agree with him about this. It is a classic example of old progressive myopia, making a shibboleth of one aspect of the tax system rather than looking at it in the round. Britain’s tax system needs real reform, not political posturing.
    But perhaps the acid test for being progressive is political pluralism. New progressives are instinctively pluralist in their approach to politics. The triumph of one tribe over another is not the singular purpose of politics. Herbert Morrison famously said that socialism could be defined as "whatever the Labour party does". But progressive politics can never simply defined by what certain people or parties do - it is defined by the manner in which they do their politics. In particular, new progressive politics is defined by an openness to parties working together.
    For the Liberal Democrats, this is the kind of politics we have been campaigning for for decades. The Conservatives, under David Cameron, have, to their credit, embraced two-party working with integrity. For obvious reasons I think Labour and, dare I say it, the media - are still struggling to come to terms with it. Our political culture has become attached to binary "winner takes all" politics, with political argument seen as a zero-sum game, always with one winner and one loser.
    Labour is in danger of being left behind, of becoming stuck in an anti-pluralist rut. When we practice plural, coalition politics, they cry foul. If you see every compromise as a betrayal, you will never understand plural politics and will certainly never be able to engage in it. But 1 am convinced that even in these difficult times, the prospects for a plural, new progressive politics are bright.

Nick Clegg is the deputy prime minister. This is an edited extract from his Hugo Young lecture, to be delivered at Kings Place in London tonight. Read the full version, and join the debate on Comment, is Free from 6pm

The Law

(support - Solicitors - A Precedent case on inflated COSTS)

Case Law - Myers -v- Elman on appeal before the House of Lords (1939/1940) < Wake up fraudsters-club-recruits, read below
The case that eventually lead to the Wasted Costs provisions some five decades later while solicitors were indulging in much more than just reckless indifference but blunt abuse of the courts' facilities in concert with barristers and court staff and officers. We shall be including typical cases in the column on the left, in which instances the victims were genuinely concerned about the free-for-all activities the legal circles indulge in, in contempt of criminal law, as the compilation above covers. [*Link from here to the page where we published better particulars & material from the House of Lords with deliberations by their Lordships on issues of:- (a) conspiracy (b) deception (c) silence of knowledge on criminal activity intended to cover up damages or cause damages to third parties, (d) direct or implied lie intended to defraud any other   *Link also from here to image of a letter from Lord Irvine, to a Member of Parliament in December 1999]


  • "An order for discovery required the client to give information in writing and on oath of all documents which are or have been in his possession or his power, whether he is bound to produce them or not, but a client cannot be expected to realise the whole scope of that obligation without the aid and advice of his solicitor, the latter has a peculiar duty as an OFFICER of the COURT carefully to investigate the position, and as far as possible, see that the order is complied with. THE SOLICITOR CANNOT SIMPLY ALLOW THE CLIENT TO MAKE WHATEVER AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENTS HE THINKS FIT, NOR CAN HE ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CAREFUL INVESTIGATION OR SUPERVISION." [*Link from here to a page where we point to the fact that a solicitor accepted from and promoted FOR the other side, to his client, a blunt FORGERY while fully aware of the fact that such a document, as the false instrument (one that was also forged after the creators of it realised they had endorsed it with the wrong year) he was handling and promoting to his client was a false instrument].
  • Singleton J. found that both Mr Elman and his clerk, between whom he found himself unable to draw any distinction, "knew a good deal about the matters in question," and that they had "as a result of a deliberate policy adopted in Mr Elman's office," in the conduct of the defence, and in relation to discovery, "increased the plaintiff's difficulties, added to the expense, and obstructed the interests of justice," he held Mr Elman guilty of professional misconduct as a solicitor and an officer of the court, and he made an order stated in the first paragraph". (*FXXXXX)
  • "If this is a correct view no doubt it would follow that the solicitor ought not to be ordered to pay costs unless he has himself been guilty of disgraceful conduct; and it would follow that however negligent or obstructive or improper his conduct of the proceedings as solicitors has seemed to be, whatever the injury has been inflicted on the other party, or parties to the litigation, he has only to show that he left the whole matter in the hands of a clerk and he will then escape the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to costs".
  • "Misconduct or default or negligence [*Link from here to page / CoA precedent case on misconduct] in the course of the proceedings, is in some cases sufficient to justify an order. The primary object of the Court is not to punish the solicitor, but to protect the client who has suffered and to indemnify the party who has been injured."
  • "The particulars given before the inquiry directed by Singleton J. began included two matters, first, the filing of defences by his two clients which he knew to be false, and, secondly, that he prepared and advised and permitted his clients to make and file affidavits of documents which were wholly inadequate and false."
  • "The swearing of an untrue affidavit of documents is perhaps the most obvious example of conduct which his solicitor cannot knowingly permit. He cannot properly, still less can he consistently with his duty to the Court, prepare AND PLACE A PERJURED AFFIDAVIT UPON THE FILE". [*Link from here to a page where we point to the fact that an allegedly Honourable officer of the Supreme Court, a solicitor PERSONALLY SWORE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT and the victim of long ongoing criminal activities did nothing.... both noted to be engaging in typical scenarios as from instigation of the original fraudulent intentions leading to the arrangements FOR REWARDS to persons who co-operate with the organisers of the RAMPANT FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS, as we cover in our exclusive page linked to from here]
  • Criminal "A further observation should be made here. Suppose that in such a case the client swears an affidavit of documents which discloses nothing relating to the frauds alleged in the statement of claim and suppose that the solicitor has previously given his client full and proper advice in the matter but has no good reason to suppose that the affidavit is untrue, it may be asked what else ought the most punctilious solicitor to do? My answer is nothing at the time. But suppose that before the actions comes to trial, facts come to the knowledge of the solicitor which show that the original affidavit by his client as defendant was untrue and that important documents were omitted from it, what then is the duty of the solicitor? I cannot doubt that his duty to the Plaintiff, and to the Court, is to inform his client that he, the solicitor, must cease to act for the client. HE CANNOT HONESTLY CONTEMPLATE THE PLAINTIFF FAILING THE ACTION OWING TO HIS CLIENT'S FALSE AFFIDAVIT, THAT WOULD, IN EFFECT, BE TO CONNIVE IN A FRAUD AND TO DECEIVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE". [*Link from here to additional material from the case and the deliberations by their Lordships
    *Link also from here to the evidence in the case that opened Andrew Yiannides' mental eyes to the criminal activities ongoing in the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom. At the time his solicitor, an old school friend, one Kypros Nicholas of Nicolas & Co., an alleged Christian (who, as it turned out years later, was / is an ardent practitioner and follower of the teachings from the most vile of works ever to have been misrepresented to mankind) set about promoting a blunt FORGERY to his client and was advising him to abandon his case of an Open & Shut case of Commercial Fraud].

From the Administration of Justice Act 1960, we read

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

(1) .... had no reason to suspect that the proceedings were pending,
or that such proceedings were imminent, as the case may be.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing such matter as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section if at the time of distribution (having taken all reasonable care) he did not know that it contained any such matter as aforesaid and had no reason to suspect that he was likely to do so.

(3) The proof of any fact tending to establish a defence afforded by this section to any person in proceedings for contempt of court shall lie upon that person.

12.- (l) The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except in the following cases, that is to say-
    (a) where the proceedings relate to the wardship or adoption of an infant or wholly or mainly to the guardianship, custody, maintenance or upbringing of an infant, or rights of access to an infant; (NOTE: The operative word, here, is INFANT)
    (b) where the proceedings are brought under Part VIII of the Mental Health Act. 1959, or under any provision of that Act authorising an application or reference to be made to a Mental Health Review Tribunal or to a county court;
    (c) when the court sits in private for reasons of national security during that part of the proceedings about which the information in question is published,
     (d) where the information relates a secret process, discovery or invention which is in issue in the proceedings;
    (e) where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceedings or of information of the description which is published.
     (2)  Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, the publication of the text or a summary of the whole or part of an order made by a court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication.
    (3)  In this section references to a court include references to a judge and to a tribunal and to any person exercising the functions of a court, a judge or a tribunal; and references to a court sitting in private include references to a court sitting in camera or in chambers.
    (4)  Nothing in this section shall be construed as implying that any publication is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this section.

    1.   Visitor, you have been linked to this footnote for very important reasons. IF YOU ARE GENUINELY CONCERNED & A VICTIM OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES and of any one of the multitude of allegedly organised groups of victims allegedly challenging the very circles that most probably ruined your life, breathe fresh air - by acquainting yourself with the evil forces at work behind the scenes.
     The group we were pointing to (above) was one of the many that made contact with us, after one Duncan spread the news around that he had 'discovered the associated web-site *human-rights.demon.co.uk*, which, website, we shut down in March 2006.
[*Link from here to the page where we relate & publish relevant evidence]
     No sooner had he passed the word around and the manager / controller of the Live Beat Dads dot Org (lbduk.org) website, one Dave Ellison, put Mr Andrew Yiannides (the founder of human-rights (NGO) in touch with the designer and creator of the lbduk.org website.
     The designer was none other than the victim of the divorce industry one Len Miskulin who HAD MADE THE NEWS because of his EXTENDED HUNGER STRIKE due to the fact that he was not allowed access to the two boys his partner gave birth to. Apparently the gestation vessel moved on because she wanted to change her dildo.
     On visiting 'the victim', Andrew noted that on the wall of his room of operations (computer room) there were plenty of photographs of the two boys and the majority of them were with a loving father playing with them on some beach or in their 'home', but without any photographs of a similar nature with the lady of leisure who gave birth to the two boys.
     A large print of 'the discarded dildo', a skin and bones figure reminiscent of the holocaust victims the world's serfs have been bombarded with, for well over 60 years was gracing the wall above his computer.
     Mr Yiannides was informed that it was one of the pictures used by the Daily Mail when they published an article about fathers who spend Christmas alone and 'benefit' from Court Orders NOT TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR 'THEIR' CHILDREN, as usually are the general directions from the courts care of the use of the gestation vessels, the Eves.
     Within two weeks Duncan moved on after arguing with Mr Yiannides that it was the women who were the cause of the problems and NOT the courts, nor the solicitors / barristers / Social workers who ARE USING THEM as we have been pointing out for years.
     In the meantime, Len Miskulin informed Mr Yiannides that Dave Ellison had been engaged in regular meetings with Dr. K Badsha of the Environmental Law Centre, up North, and they had been discussing Mr Yiannides' input by way of pleadings and challenges to the court and to the criminals who were using the gestation vessel, in Mr Miskulin's case.
     Because Mr Miskulin informed Mr Yiannides that he HAD LODGED AN APPLICATION to the court seeking an Order for DNA tests, in order to establish paternity of the two children, Mr Yiannides asked for further information. Mr Miskulin stated that the second boy born of the gestation vessel bore a close resemblance to a restaurant owner, who had close relations with them (Len & the gestation vessel).
     He clarified that for a while the gestation vessel worked as a weekend waitress at the restaurant. And the court, apparently, had been ignoring the application for months, almost a year.
     WITH SUCH INFORMATION at hand Mr Yiannides settled an explicit application to the court whereby the victim was presenting the offending abusers of the courts and USERS OF THE GESTATION VESSEL with a straight CHALLENGE: Heads I Win & Tails You Loose'.
     Anyone gifted with some grey matter in their skull would have picked up on the challenges (placed before the family court) and would have distributed the news far and wide, that such a challenge had been lodged and filed at the Royal Courts of Justice, for the Rampant Corruption (of societies) Jockeys to deal with.
     Not one of the alleged group leaders, individual challengers, not even the victim Len Miskulin did anything in that area.
     However, one John Charville and one George Macauley (the latter, Chairman of the United Kingdom Men's Movement - more about that false front in due course) and the former, an alleged legal guru, the lighthouse beaming legal wisdom to Mr G Macauley along with Mr Macauley's associate one Barry Worrall (one of the many defaulters who received the straight forward invitation to co-operate in and for A MOST IMPORTANT APPLICATION to Strasbourg) started posting emails to Mr Andrew Yiannides. [*Link from here to evidence in respect of the invitation and the Petition to Strasbourg in 1997].
     In each and every posting Mr John Charville was quoting from 'precedent divorce cases' & interestingly all from  various & different each time, United State courts.
     Such were the 'gems promoted by the genius' whom 'Macauley & Co.' were promoting as their source of legal canon balls'.
     The exchanges with John Charville, by and large were in private email postings and from the onset John Charville was pointed to the page http://www.uk-human-rights.org/englishlaw.htm (NOTE please that we have since expanded on the footnote input).
     The genius was simply asked to read the first FOOTNOTE at the above page in order to benefit from free education. The element simple : Ongoing the European Community / Union the overriding and SUPREME AUTHORITY IN LAW was to be European Law. And there was a charlatan promoting otherwise, causing Mr Yiannides to enquire of John Charville, in the course of their private exchanges: "Are you going to introduce precedent cases from Mars, next?'.
     The genius then moved on to postings through the lbduk yahoo group which Len Miskulin & or Dave Ellison had been operating, as owners / controllers, of the group.
     The Charville postings were nothing but direct attempts intended to discredit Mr Andrew Yiannides who carried on with the exchanges as if just personal email postings, irrespective of the fact that John Charville's output was received by persons who subscribed to the group and were not receiving Mr Yiannides' responses and SUBMISSIONS.
     Mr Yiannides DID NOT JOIN THE lbduk YAHOO GROUP (for reasons that were not stated to the owners/controllers who, as was the case with the LIPS crowd/mob, the fact was that as of the Summer of 1992 Mr A Yiannides was investigating and researching the reasons, such as what elements and type of persons are responsible for the ongoing 'fraud on & corruption of society through the courts'). The decision to research and investigate 'organised groups and what / who behind them' was taken after the managers / controllers of the Litigants In Person Society exposed their real and true aims for the group they were leading, directing, managing, controlling AND FOR WHAT ENDS THEIR PERSONAL GOALS. [*Link from here to an explicit page created around the content of a letter from their great hero, their allegedly Honorary (presumed Honourable) Secretary, Mr Norman Scarth. The letter was written after the author exposed himself and the practices of the group he was working with and for, as an accomplished FRAUDSTERS CLUB RECRUIT, for the umpteenth time).   
     Mr Yiannides' responses, however, to the rubbish promoted by Mr John Charville, were posted to Len Miskulin and to Dave Ellison.
     In conversations with the former,<> Mr Yiannides was invited to join the group and he was informed that the latter had expressed the view that : "Andrew Yiannides is perfectly entitled to reply to 'the Charville postings", disseminated as these were (through their group) world-wide.
     Len Miskulin was told that Andrew Yiannides had his reasons for NOT joining their group. Neither he nor Dave Ellison recognised that THEY WERE BEING TESTED, as to their real intentions and worth as alleged challengers who were ready to blow the lid... while they were ignoring the issue of the application at the RCJ, whereby the legal circles WERE BEING CHALLENGED IN A WAY THAT PROVIDED THE GALLOWS for the users of gestation vessels.
     In the meantime the ongoing meetings & exchanges up North between Dr. K Badsha and Dave Ellison progressed to meetings, in North London, between Dr. Kartar Badsha, Len Miskulin and Andrew Yiannides at a flat maintained by the ELC in Kentish Town.
     As a result of the ongoing exchange of ideas it was agreed that all known contacts, organised groups and individuals, should be invited to take part in setting up a central office of information. The objective of the proposed centre was to be : "To act for all affiliates and members, groups and individuals, as a Press & the Media information Centre, for Press Releases, and to maintain a register of all ongoing court cases and challenges lodged with Public Services and Ministers'.
     For the purposes of the meeting Dr. Kartar Badsha travelled to Debden, Essex, accompanied by a colleague from the ELC and offered to pay for a meal for all attendees who travelled to Len Miskulin's residence, where the meeting was taking place.
     Among the early arrivals was Mr Shaun O'Connell who in the course of the preliminaries and the getting to know one another exchanges he was handed copies of submissions to government and in particular the Prime Minister, by Mr A Yiannides, after he was afforded the opportunity to read a copy of the letter from the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng back in July 1995. The letter qualifies in the first line that it was sent, by the Parliamentary Spokes-person on Legal Affairs in the House of Commons for the opposition, in response to submissions by Mr Yiannides to the leader of the opposition, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair.
     Because of the work by Mr A Yiannides and the facility available to victims of the legal circles and the courts, to STATE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, on the Internet, in tandem with other victims / complainants as a united front under the common factor OF & FOR  HUMAN RIGHTS Mr S O'Connell stated that he was going to join the human-rights.org Community on Line. He stated that he recognised that the only way to make headway was 'to disgrace the offenders, who were abusing public office and the courts' facilities destroying people, not just financially but as humans, in the process.
     Dr Kartar Badsha and his colleague left early because of the long drive home, soon after the meeting got off the ground. Mr Saun O'Connell offered to keep the minutes and everything was progressing towards an understanding of and for the foundations for the proposed centre of information when a late arrival, without asking for sight of the minutes, to acquaint himself on the progress of the meeting he set off delivering a talk on how to make applications to court and how to address the judiciary in the process tapping on a book of procedures, etc.
     Mr A Yiannides was familiar with the activities of the ELC and that these entailed 'educating the public'. And because in the course of the meetings in London the element of 'educating the public' was spoken of and recognised as the issue at the heart of almost all organised groups operating as 'Registered Charities', Mr. Yiannides considered it proper to enquire, of the new arrival, as to the new development.
     Mr Yiannides begged to ask for an explanation, as to the reasons for 'the new venue'. As far as he had been informed and concerned, the item was not on the agenda for the meeting he was invited to attend that evening. Amazingly Mr Len Miskulin reacted in a manner that did not befit the reasonable grounds for the justifiable request of the new arrival. (To be continued, *Link from here to the explicit page relative to the Len Miskulin case, and note the challenges to the courts which not one of the alleged leaders of the fathers / men  victims of the divorce industry ever promoted or bothered to address. DESPITE THE RESULTS ONE & ALL EVADED THE ISSUES AS IF THE CHOLERA).
    2.   *Link from here to the cause and reasons why Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights spent years researching & investigating the arrogant constructive fraud imposed on the citizens through abuse of the courts facilities, following the introduction of A BLUNT FORGERY INTENDED & USED TO PERVERT & CORRUPT JUSTICE. Indeed we shall be pointing to an arrogant invitation to a High Court Judge, through a deposition (Affidavit* : *link from here to the obvious invitation to the judiciary by the legal circles) which Counsel endorsed and it was submitted to / lodged at Court; through the said affidavit the invitation to judges (at the Royal Court of Justice) to deny rights and to obstruct Justice to the targeted Plaintiff and victim of COMMERCIAL FRAUD. One and all, simply relying on constructively engineered FRAUDULENT COST CREATIONS through which to grind the victim of fraud down. Visitors, readers and researchers should prepare themselves for more revelations AND CHALLENGES IN & THROUGH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, in respect of the arrogant criminal activities & practices by solicitors, barristers, the police and many an alleged servant of the public during and after the legal circles indulged in the aforesaid CRIMINAL ACTS FULLY INTENDING TO DEFRAUD Mr. Andrew Yiannides of his rights and properties. Mr. Yiannides, as the proponent of the human-rights.org Community on Line has had to put up with many a foul act and evil promotions by converts-to & lovers of the system of operations, including persons who joined the Community on Line, persons who benefited from much more than simply assistance in the problems they were facing in the course of court proceedings. In the circumstances, some of the evidence will presently be released in the public domain, because such evil persons were and have been relying on the abductors and rapists of Justice to carry on ignoring the law applicable as of the first instance when Mr Yiannides HAD TO RESORT TO COURT in order to seek his rights at law; rights allegedly that were / are assured in law also through the European Union too. It remains to be seen how the defaulters who failed to take on board the warnings, which rulings and judgements, such as the House of Lord ruling we were pointing to for years and the deliberations we release / reproduced in another page on 3rd March 2008. The additional material, from the very case, to which the *link from here takes one, should be considered by ALL FRAUDSTERS-CLUB-RECRUITS who abused the generosity of Mr. Andrew Yiannides are reconsider their parts and evil activities which they full well knew & know to be ARROGANTLY ORGANISED & IMPLEMENTED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES leading to the corruption of the conditioned, the ill-informed, the ill-advised and programmed robots (non-thinkers : not humans) of their mentality as persons who adopted the New World Order Code of Ethics and morals
    3.   Consider reader the case pointed to (from the paragraph above the paragraph from which you were referred to this footnote) and RECOGNISE THE BLUNT CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW by Lord Justice Buckley and Lord Justice Orr. Both simply ignored the blunt FORGERY and proceeded to act as invited by the criminals (both set of legal teams) who set about to USE THE CASE OF THE ORIGINAL FRAUD as a vehicle through which to silver line their pockets while operating as arrogant accessories and abettors to the original fraud*. [*Link from here to the page where we publish true copy of the FORGERY and the additional evidence that clarifies and establishes the fact that both legal teams were operating outside the law as seasoned criminals].  
    4.   xxxx 
    5.   xxxx 
    6.   xxxx



...Return to HomePage 

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