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.
Page Changes 20
||The Law Compilation * Page Created
February 1997 *
|HELP US TO
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)
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).
VICTIMS OF THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY MUST
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
invite you to take part in DATA collection in the areas covered by The
CAMILA Project. Your own contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are
active now & to all others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by
using the rights we point to, assured in law.
Announcement- July 2002
1. Court Proceedings ARE
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)
|Site ARTICLES - List
|Site IMAGES - List
|2010 article by Nick Clegg Deputy Prime Minister 23rd November in 'the
to the text for links to and from
||Page revised: June 20, 2012 : Additional material and introduction of links to
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]
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
Navigating through the extensive material: access
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
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]
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 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.
THE THEFT ACT 1968 (extracted from Vol. 12 Halsbury's All England Statutes)
Obtaining property by deception
advantage by deception
(1) A person who by any deception
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 )
(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for
himself or another with intent to cause loss to another:-
(a) Destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any
record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b) in furnishing
information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as
aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be
misleading, false, deceptive in a material particular;
he shall upon conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
(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 )
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;
- dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment; he
shall be guilty of an offence.
Haringey: funds secured as
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
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:-
- False instrument.
- Making a false instrument.
- Acceptance of the instrument as genuine.
- 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
Page 177 - 6.20
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
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
- 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;
- (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]
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
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
- 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]
HIGHLIGHTS IN THE CASE
- "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
- "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].
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
(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.
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
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
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
(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].