NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be moved on ..............day the ........... day of  ............................. 1998 at .....................  to hear an APPEAL on behalf of the PLAINTIFF in this action against the ORDER of District Judge Silverman, allegedly made 20 July 1998 and drawn on 27 July 1998 whereby the said District Judge or some anonymous person is alleged to have heard a fictitious application by and on behalf of an unnamed party on 20 July 1998 and the aforesaid District Judge electing on 27 July to act in contravention of every principle of law, National and International and in breach of procedure and practice rules failed and refused to deal with the arbitration hearing set down for the day electing instead to highjack and railroad the case as herein-below appealed on substantive grounds.

AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL are that:-

1.       The Order allegedly issued on 20 July 1998 is but a forgery of the most offensive kind, in that there was no hearing and no application set down for the Court to deal with any aspect in the case on the alleged date safe the arbitration hearing set for 27 July 1998 which the Plaintiff attended Court fully prepared after complying with the directions issued by the Court on 13 May 1998. And that any reference to an alleged hearing of the parties is fictitious and a non event in law and a figment of the imagination of the author and or publisher of the Order Appealed against. District Judge Silverman is called to strict proof of any notes made by him and to refer to the affidavits and the attached exhibits filed at Court on behalf of the Plaintiff and in particular the affidavit dated 27 July 1998; the Defendants knew full well what they were Summonsed to Court for; so did the District Judge and the solicitors purportedly acting for the Defendants as of 9 June 1998. The monologue and directions indulged into by District Judge Silverman simply represents the latest of the obstructions to Justice from within the Court as in other instances when applications to the Court arose and were warranted in the prosecution of the claim by the Plaintiff; summarily dismissed through utter disregard for the need of the applications and the evidence submitted to the Court, giving rise to a demand of the Court to explain away and or justify the failings and the attempt by District Judge Silverman to change the direction of the case, safe unjustified and inexcusable attempts to generate income for the legal professions through abuses of the Courts processes as are now to be investigated in higher places on substantive grounds; refer to the headlines Daily Mail Thursday 30th July 1998.

2.       The hearing listed for 27 July 1998 was an Arbitration hearing as the Court directed on 13 May 1998, copy of which directions is attached hereto. The parties did not appeal and or object to the matter being set down for arbitration following the the directions of 13 May 1998. District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to seek new impositions at that late hour, two and a half months late  because of other ulterior motives, as herein below qualified. 

3.       The Plaintiff DID COMPLY with the directions of the Court, inclusive of filing and service of two affidavits dated 29th June 1998 and 27th July 1998; both affidavits supported with documented evidence in the context of the Exhibits ‘A.Y.1’ and ‘A.Y.2” attached thereto respectively qualify and quantify the Claim against the Defendants; the claim rests and is founded on unpaid rents.

4.       The Plaintiff attended Court on 27 July 1998 in accordance with the directions issued by the Court on 13th May 1998. The Plaintiff had and has every right to demand for Judgement in the sum of £4808.00 in accordance with the Pleadings and the supporting documented evidence filed at Court. The aforesaid claimed sum is made up of rents due and payable by the Defendants who at all material times claimed and were in receipt of Housing Benefit from the Department of Social Security via and through the Social Services of the of Haringey Council who at all material times were and have been acting as agents for the Department of Social Security and Central Government. The Plaintiff established at Court his claim through the submitted documented evidence which District Judge Silverman had no option but to consider diligently and judiciously and enter Judgement in accordance with the rules and the purpose of the presence of the parties at Court on the day;  the claimed sum of £4808.00 is the balance of rents due and payable for the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998.

5.       The Defendants failed to act in accordance with the directions of the Court, even though represented by a firm of solicitors as of 9 June 1998. The Defendants and their solicitor attended the arbitration hearing on 27 July 1998 accompanied by Counsel who stated to the Attorney for the Plaintiff and to District Judge Silverman that the solicitor for the Defendants had briefed Counsel to attend Court because of and for an alleged repossession application / hearing. The fact that there was gross misrepresentation to Counsel by the Defendants’ solicitors was irrelevant and immaterial to District Judge Silverman who then proceeded to ignore the purpose of the hearing for the day and indulged in ‘NEW directions’ as per Order Appealed against; inexcusable and unjustified propositions through the Forgery endorsed with his name. The change of directions by District Judge Silverman through the introduction of a non-event resting on an alleged hearing on 20 July 1998 are offensive and an insult to the rules of procedure and to Justice itself. The propositions are nothing but the usual practices intended to further protract the case and obstruct Justice through abuse of the Court’s processes, while aiming at how best to generate income for the circles from within which District Judge Silverman arose to public office; the milking of the cow practices depicted in the famous cartoon; with the addition in the instance at hand of an alleged judicious person from above the ‘milkmaids and litigants’ holding the litigants in place for the milk-maids to milk dry the cow and the feuding owners of the property (cow). IN THE INSTANCE AT HAND THE COURT and District Judge Silverman are fully aware that the properties in question (building and moneys due and payable as rents arising out of Tenancy Agreements) belong to the Plaintiff and none other.

6.       Counsel for the Defendant was ‘put right’ as to the purposes of the hearing set down for the day on 27 July 1998; Counsel was handed copy of the Affidavit, with the attached exhibits, that was sworn that morning and put on file. An attempt by Counsel at that point in time to argue (outside chambers before the parties were called in to Chambers) that the contracted rent for the property was in the sum of £220 per month and not per week was challenged by the Attorney appearing for the Plaintiff, who pointed out a succinct and explicit endorsement ‘per week’ on another part of the Tenancy Agreement; Counsel merely misinterpreted one entry; it was also pointed out to Counsel that the Defendant had used the very contract to claim the £ 220 per week from the Department of Social Security, and in the premises the argument advanced at that point in time was but a gross oversight of FACTS.

7.       District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to treat with utter disregard the matter before the Court resting, founded and arising out of and for rents due and payable under the terms of Tenancy Agreements. The District Judge ought to have acquainted himself with the facts of the case and perused diligently the filed affidavits and the attached exhibits if any judicious decision was to be entered by him in accordance with the purpose of the hearing set down for the day;  the invitation by the Court to an Arbitration Hearing;  IF there had been  any other monologue and or undisclosed ‘secret hearing’ on 20 July 1998 the Court was duty bound to inform the Plaintiff, his agents and his representatives and the Court would have to consider that any ruling ‘indulged into in the absence of a party not made aware of the ‘alleged hearing’ was null and void; so determined higher authorities in the European Courts; referred to in another case, and District Judge Silverman was aware of that precedent.

8.       District Judge Silverman was wrong and grossly erred when he elected and chose to ignore the simple fact that the Defendant and his legal representatives DID FAIL to enter into and or entertain any ‘directions from the Court’ as the attached Directions dated 13th May 1998 evince; the solicitors stated in a letter to the Plaintiff’s agents, dated 9 June 1998 which is filed at Court, that they were acting in the matter.  IF THERE  EXISTED ANY DEFENCE TO THE CLAIM AT ANY TIME (rents paid in accordance with the Tenancy agreement) IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE SOLICITOR ACTING FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO PROCEED ACCORDINGLY;  not to rely upon and wait for individuals within the Court to play at cat and mouse games through abuses of the Court’s processes, such as the Arbitration Hearing that was not to materialise because of the unjustified and inexcusable hijacking attempt by District Judge Silverman. If the Defendants and or their solicitors considered that any remittances and or banked funds by them (other than the funds listed in the Schedule of account filed at Court) had not been duly recorded and or credited by the Plaintiff, the Defendants and the solicitors ‘purportedly acting for the Defendants had ample opportunity to state and or plead such matters in the first instance; they ought to have proceeded as demanded of them and their clients, the Defendants.  Contempt for procedure and rules through reliance on individuals such as District Judge Silverman who breached their public duties as ‘alleged judicious persons acting in Judicial capacities’ while violating the rights of the Plaintiff through denials and obstruction to unbiased and unadulterated access to Justice, in no way constitute rights granted through abuse of office as District Judge Silverman exhibited.

9.       The District Judge erred and was wrong to assert at the onset of the ‘arbitration hearing’ that he proposed to deal with an Application from the Plaintiff; District Judge Silverman ‘producing’ an application for which the associated document and copies thereof (for completion and service on the parties by post) had been delivered by the Plaintiff to the Court on 1 July 1998; that application the Court’s office staff apparently initially entered down for an ‘intended’ hearing on Tuesday 14 July 1998, conveniently and miraculously they failed to forward the issued document to the parties; the Court’s staff after demands from the Plaintiff, to qualify their failures to issue and set down for hearing the Application, proceeded to re-schedule the application for hearing on Thursday 23 July 1998.  The Plaintiff attended the ‘hearing’ and the absence of the Defendants was duly noted.

10.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to ignore the fact that the Application he was proposing ‘to deal with there and then’ HAD ALREADY been dispensed with on 23 July 1998 by Deputy District Judge Smith who Summarily dismissed the application and acted contemptuously of the rights of the Plaintiff arising to that day; ignoring in the meantime the grounds and reasons for the application before the Court. As in other instances when judgements lead to demands for accommodation of the Local Authorities, the property owners HAVE NO RIGHTS as a general rule. And on 27 July 1998 District Judge Silverman ignored the fact that the Order of Deputy District Judge Smith drawn on  23 July 1998 was secured from the Court on that very day.

11.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred and was wrong to ignore the fact that the Plaintiff pointed out to the Court that the Plaintiff could have and was within time to Appeal against the ‘Order’ of Deputy District Judge Smith, IF THE PLAINTIFF CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY; Deputy District Judge Smith, and through him the Court, had every opportunity to serve Justice, if so wished and or  inclined to do, in respect of funds due and payable under the terms of Tenancy Agreements; and in particular with due consideration of the manner with which the Plaintiff elected to institute proceedings; issuing a Default Summons in accordance with the policy of the Landlords Action Group; claiming only the Housing Benefit remitted to claimants as opposed to the contracted rents which practice blocks the discrimination that Local Authorities benefit from through reliance on the services of persons of the mentality of Deputy District Judge Smith and others who systematically and habitually obstruct and violate the rights, in law, of property owners through wrongful in law, practices and ‘violated’ procedures exposing and evincing (as in the instance at hand) ill intended practices through questionable acts and or omissions to execute public duties diligently and with all due respect of the facts before the Court, because of undeclared policies to ‘reduce the pressures on Local Authorities for Council accommodation’; irrespective of the violations and denials to unbiased and unadulterated Justice and through violations of the rights of property owners who invariably find themselves the victims of an undeclared policy consequential to non-payment of rents that lead to repossession of properties by the property owners (and others). Hence the brief to Counsel and the blatant obstructions to unadulterated Justice and the abuse of the Court’s processes leading to blackmail and intimidation attached to allegedly justifiable litigation as promoted encouraged and instigated by those whose priority is and should be TO SERVE JUSTICE, not other ulterior motives and or undeclared policies as herein above and below stated

12.     District Judge Silverman was wrong and erred to partake in practices and or policies, as above stated; obstructing (under any pretext) property owners and denying to property owners unadulterated and unbiased rights at Court, especially to owners who rent their properties to Housing Benefit claimants and in particular Asylum Seekers (simply because Local Authorities are faced with too much demand for Council accommodation but have not enough accommodation at their disposal) Participation in such practices is but a conscious if not deliberate violation of rights to property as provided for under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights; reducing pressures on Local Authorities resources ought not to override the rights of the individual citizen, especially when Local Authority policies and the practices of their staff lead to situations and Court cases as in this instance; furthermore in attempts to reduce Central Government funding (because of the needs of Asylum Seekers) the individual and small private landlords and property owners are targeted as easy prey because of the prohibitive costs attached to the corrupt and bankrupt legal services operating within the United Kingdom and District Judge Silverman and the Court ought to reconsider such policies at the expense of the vulnerable individual particularly in the light of the investigation that  was announced on Thursday 30 July 1998 in the Daily Mail; the article succinct, explicit and to the point;  bribes and corruption in high places; police, lawyers and even Judges.

13.       District Judge Silverman through disregard of the purpose for the presence at the Court of the Plaintiff indicated and exhibited contempt of the procedure and for the Court’s own earlier directions; the claim leading to the arbitration hearing RESTED AND IS FOUNDED ON UNPAID RENTS. Furthermore in failing to deal with the matters before the Court on the day, the District Judge was party to a fraudulent invitation to the Plaintiff who attended Court for and in respect of the set arbitration hearing, whereas the District Judge had no intention to deal with the facts and the evidence filed at Court because, like others before him, in purportedly acting in a judicious capacity (unbiased, unadulterated and without any other ulterior motive and or motives behind alleged ‘judicious’ rulings and Orders) the District Judge simply exposed his part in abuses of the Court’s processes for other purposes and ulterior motives and not in the service of Justice as provided for by (a) the rules of procedure, (b) the evidence filed at Court and (c) the PURPOSE FOR THE APPEARANCE of the parties before the Court at that point in time;  the arbitration hearing resting and founded on the Default Summons; a claim for rents not paid by the Defendants as stipulated under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements.

14.     District Judge Silverman IN PROCEEDING TO ENDORSE his Order of the day (allegedly made on 20 July 1998) he did with intent and or consciously instigate and introduced in the proceedings, an instrument that is NOTHING BUT A FORGERY which fact in law voids the document in its entirety. And the Plaintiff herewith qualifies that in applying to Court in the present context and application, the Plaintiff in no way acknowledges and or consents to any other within the Court to misrepresent this present instrument as acceptance and or endorsement by the Plaintiff of the FORGERY as an Order proper and or as an instrument ‘acceptable in law’ by the Plaintiff.

15.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing the instrument with the words ‘upon hearing the Attorney for the Plaintiff’ opened himself to challenges:- (a) to produce any notes the District Judge may allege he kept in respect of any representations the Attorney WAS PERMITTED (when in fact he was not) and allegedly made on 27, not on the fictitious 20, July 1998 except as herein above stated. The Court should first and foremost refer to the Affidavits dated 29th June 1998 and in particular the one dated 27th July 1997; and District Judge Silverman should then justify any notes as to representations he allowed and or permitted the Attorney for the Plaintiff to state and raise other than that the Plaintiff was attending Court for the purposes invited for and as set down by the Court itself as of 13th May 1998 and the failure of the District Judge to deal with the FACTS PLEADED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DAY CONSTITUTING the submissions for and on behalf of the Plaintiff THAT DAY.  Electing to Ignore and or suppress documented evidence in support of the Judgement denied through abuse of office, breaches of Public Duty and violations of Human Rights (right to properties) in no way justifies impositions of undeclared policies through gross dereliction of Public Office.

16.     District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to highjack and railroad the Arbitration Hearing through his inexcusable and unjustified monologue that overlooked (a) purpose for the Hearing as set down, (b) the submitted documented evidence in support of the Claim for rents not paid, and (c) THE RULES OF PROCEDURE contemptuously ignored by all inclusive of the solicitor for the Defendants.  District Judge Silverman was made aware that Deputy District Judge Smith summarily dismissed the application on 23 July 1998. BUT the Plaintiff did secure the WARRANTED information covering the remittances received by the Defendants by way of Housing Benefit. District Judge Silverman, however, rendered himself and the Court answerable to the question WHO applied for the alleged hearing on 20th July 1998 (if one be relied upon and advanced at this juncture); also how, when and through what instrument and rule of procedure, AND WHY was the Plaintiff entertained on 23rd July IF there had been a determination by the Court on 20 July 1998? Furthermore why was not the Plaintiff made aware of the alleged and secret monologue if it be alleged that the Court moved itself FOR THE PURPOSES of the undeclared policy and the practices indulged in through abuses of the Court’s processes and instruments through  breaches of Public office and blatant violations of Human Rights?

17.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing the Forgery of the day with the words “and upon hearing Counsel for the Defendant” did open himself answerable to (a) the Plaintiff, (b) the Lord Chancellor and (c) the Legal Aid Board as to the grounds upon which a tenant who has paid no rents (even though he had been receiving the Housing Benefit remittances through the local Authority) qualifies for Legal Aid in respect of the Default Summons that was issued and served out of the very Court he serves, purportedly judiciously and with due respect to the facts and the evidence in support thereof; the evidence District Judge Silverman with intent elected to ignore and he wished out of existence, even though duly filed at Court which evidence remains THE BASIS OF THE ONLY ADDRESS TO THE COURT had the Attorney for the Plaintiff been allowed to present the Plaintiff’s case and the Plaintiff’s justifiable demand of the Court on 27 July 1998 for Judgement in the sum of £ 4808.00

17.     District Judge Silverman in endorsing his Order of the day with the words “...reference to arbitration be rescinded on the grounds that fraud is alleged against the plaintiff “ the District Judge is rendering himself answerable to the Plaintiff as to “If the Defendant is not claiming fraud by the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff at that point in time allegedly proceeding by way of the deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations (established through the Pleadings and the evidence filed)? Does failure by District Judge Silverman to refer to the documented evidence, served and filed at Court, the evidence that was NOT CHALLENGED by the Defendants and or their solicitors, at any time as of the institution of the proceedings FOUNDED AND RESTING ON NON PAYMENT OF RENTS, constitute grounds for the Court itself through District Judge Silverman to highjack, railroad and misdirect the proceedings already closed ? Abuse of office in attempts to serve undeclared policies and or other ulterior motives; ill intended and unjustified attempts to convert a small claim and arbitration hearing (resting and founded on unpaid rents) into a proposed full blown trial and theatrical production through the scenario attempted by District Judge Silverman, with the attached intimidation and blackmail with the trimmings for the circles from within which District Judge Silverman arose to public office.  At no time either party to the proceedings objected to the Arbitration procedure and in the circumstances District Judge Silverman must be called to account for himself and for the attempted impositions in pursuit of other ulterior motives than the service of Justice, expeditiously AND with all due respect to the claim before the Court AS WAS PRESENTED though the submitted affidavits and the attached evidence on 29 June 1998 and on 27 July 1998.

19.     District Judge Silverman was wrong to introduce elements alien, foreign and neither raised nor pleaded by either party; through his actions District Judge Silverman simply established HIS PERSONAL attempt to highjack the case of his own and he must be called to account for himself and to produce any documents filed at Court other than those pleaded and filed at Court already that could give rise to the extensive misdirections (in his concocted scenario) as were indulged in and attempted by him through the FORGERY arising out of an alleged hearing on 20 July 1998.

20.     District Judge Silverman grossly erred when he failed to refer to the affidavits filed at Court and the documented evidence attached thereto; through his failings HE DISQUALIFIED himself from acting in the case in any manner whatsoever, and he was wrong to attempt to generate through a FORGERY the usual income generating conditions imposed on the unsuspecting public for and in the interests of the legal professions. AND THE COURT through District Judge Silverman on 27 July 1998 ought to have considered the simple fact that IF the Defendants had any legitimate Defence and or causes for any alleged Counterclaim (referred to by District Judge Silverman arising out of the FILED Pleadings at Court) it was for the solicitor acting for the Defendants to raise such issues, as of June 1998and to qualify such at the same time (while the defendants were in possession of the court's directions dated 13th May 1998; and the Court ought to consider that the solicitor had ample time and opportunity to respond to challenges and to submissions by the Plaintiff; and the solicitors ought to have acted accordingly, seek leave to amend the Defendants pleadings, which in any event had already been filed at Court and served on THE PLAINTIFF WHO ACTED UPON the Defendants’ pleadings appropriately. Any amended Pleadings would be unacceptable in practice and procedure at this late hour; the filed pleadings in themselves constitute the only acceptable grounds for any Defence and or alleged counterclaim by virtue of the rules that the Court is bound to give weight to the original statements/pleadings; in the circumstances it is too late now to contemplate and or consider amending yet again pleadings in respect of any alleged defence arising out of AND RESTING ON FAILURES TO PAY RENTS due and payable under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements, SIMPLY TO GENERATE INCOME for the legal professions through theatrical productions.

21.     District Judge Silverman through failure to refer to and or deal with the facts evinced through the exhibits attached to both affidavits filed at Court by the Plaintiff exhibited failings of the most abhorrent nature; he was wrong and acted in gross dereliction of his public office; he acted recklessly and with intent he disregarded the evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s case. He was wrong to ignore the fact that the Defendants at no time filed and or served any evidence in support of any other alleged remittances (prior to and leading to the Arbitration Hearing as directed by the Court)  than those included in the Schedule of account relied upon and filed at Court by the Plaintiff. In the premises  District Judge Silverman was wrong to ignore the fact that the Defendants, their solicitors and or other legal advisers failed to submit any ‘evidence in support of any other remittances than  those pleaded and relied upon by the Plaintiff; he was also wrong to ignore the fact that for the purposes of the case before the Court the Claim and Counterclaim are treated as two separate cases and not as one; each party to establish and support its claim/claims separately.  The Plaintiff’s case was and has been established through the filed documented evidence and District Judge Silverman was wrong to disregard both the EVIDENCE AND THE RULES in one breath.

22.     District Judge Silverman in attempting to introduce new inexcusable and unjustifiable stipulations of his own in his attempts to railroad and highjack the action through blatant abuse of office and implied causes for counterclaim other than the alleged moneys the Defendants allegedly spend in respect of the property (alleged purchases for furnishings when dealing with and through a letting agency, four years earlier, and alleged and unsubstantiated ‘repairs to the central heating system in the property recently) was ignoring the simple rules on evidence in support thereof AND SEPARATE CASES as in the above paragraph qualified. Furthermore IF the alleged purchases / expenses constitute GENUINE claims the Defendants would have and should have dealt with the alleged ‘purchases in the first instance with and through the letting agency Belle Estates; furthermore IF GENUINE AND JUSTIFIABLE THE ALLEGED COUNTERCLAIMS, the Defendants liabilities to the Plaintiff for the period February 1997 to July 1998 were almost fourfold the amount alleged and counterclaimed by the Defendants and the Defendants had ample time and opportunities to deduct from due remittances the alleged claims and account for such to the Plaintiff and to the agents of the Plaintiff, HAD THE DEFENDANTS ALSO BEEN MEETING THEIR CONTRACTUAL LIABILITIES to the Plaintiff in the first instance. District Judge Silverman and the Court had and have no right to seek to place the cart before the horse and the Court was and is duty bound to enter Judgement as evinced through the submitted affidavits and the exhibits attached thereto and in particular the Schedule attached to the affidavit dated 27 July 1998  (pages 53 and 54 of the exhibit “A.Y.2’).

23.     District Judge Silverman in evading to deal with and or refer to the documented evidence filed at Court, simply evinced and exhibited predetermined ‘obstructions’ to the rights of the Plaintiff and the hijacking (by him and the anonymous person(s) partaking and or willing to lend their names to the alleged Hearing of 20 July 1998) of the case before the Court; the directions he instigated, promoted and stipulated are nothing but blatant obstructions to the Plaintiff through breaches of Public Office; just as Deputy District Judge Smith with blatant intent did, when he summarily dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on 23rd July 1998; also just as Deputy District Judge Kolbe with blatant intent did when he, also Summarily, dismissed an Application by the Plaintiff on 1st July 1998 when the Plaintiff applied to Court for an Order, Ordering the Defendants to cease obstructing the agents of the Plaintiff and their contractors from attending the property and to the needs of the property as provided for and in accordance with the terms of the Tenancy Agreements. Blatant obstructions to unbiased and unadulterated Justice and violations of fundamental Human Rights imposed through Gross breaches and Dereliction of Public Office, UNLAWFULLY to impose undeclared policies and TO CAUSE CUMULATIVE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WITH INTENT through blatant violations of rights in national and international Law. Peace of mind, wasted funds and time ARE PROPERTIES infringed upon through breaches of Public Office leading to violations of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, just as denials to access and use of (property and contracted rights thereof) moneys due and payable under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements which Local Authority staff and the COURT know were and are the basis and the foundation upon which Housing Benefit is remitted by the Department of Social Security, through the Local Authority, to claimants such as the Defendants are.

24.     District Judge Silverman while seeking to introduce his own ‘scenario’ in the case at hand, or with intent overlooked the Defendants' liabilities he ought to have entered judgement for the Plaintiff, who is owed the sum of £4,808.00 which any person with common sense, let alone a judicious person recognises, IF in any breach of contract could and can be used for the needs of the property. Every one from the Defendants to the staff at Haringey Council, and even persons purportedly acting in a judicial manner have so far treated the property as their own and to determine and impose their own conditions irrespective of the damages they have caused, sought to and through the 'proposed script and scenario' (Appealed against) are seeking to impose through breaches of contract, breaches of public office and through violations of fundamental human rights. District Judge Silverman, through his attempted script and scenario 'proposed' made it clear that he obviously did not wish and or desire to enter Judgement for the Plaintiff through breaches of public office and dereliction of same. The unpaid rents could and can be used to IMPROVE the property , not attempt to divert and or convert such funds through abuse of office, to alleged legitimate and or justifiable legal costs, through abuse of the Legal Aid facilities. Any judicious person with common sense ought not to have overlooked that issue, let alone a person who to all intents and purposes was to preside in the case as an arbitrator in the case before the Court (no automatic right of Appeal).  The claimed and adjusted sum covered only the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998. The submitted and filed at Court Schedule did not cover the period 25 September 1995 (the date from whence the Defendants begun to receive the Housing Benefit themselves) up to 16 February 1997 from which date onwards the Plaintiff submitted full accounts through the bank statements pertaining to the only account in which the Defendants were remitting rents by themselves BUT without due consideration to their contractual liabilities to the Plaintiff.

26.     District Judge Silverman in failing to deal with and or consider the documented evidence filed at Court on 29th June 1998 and on 27th July 1998,  grossly erred and or was wrong to ignore and or seek the suppression of same and or reliance on any alleged ignorance of the facts arising out of breach of office and as a result of and consequential to HIS hijacking and railroading of the Arbitration hearing which he attempted to shelve (through the Order Appealed against) for and in respect of other interests and or ulterior motives other than the service of unadulterated and unbiased Justice. Evading to deal with the documented evidence filed at Court in no way justifies use of and reliance on other issues arising out of the pleadings as grounds through which to seek theatrical productions and or to generate income for the legal professions through blatant and reckless indifference to that which already was established through documented evidence. ESTABLISHED FACT:- the Defendants did not and had not been remitting the due rents through the claimed AND RECEIVED Housing Benefit and they did fail to advance and or adduce any evidence that they had paid the claimed balances as shown in the Schedule of rents account as was amended and submitted to the defendants, to their solicitors and as have been and are filed at Court already. THE PLEADINGS AND THE  DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE filed at Court qualify and establish:-

A.      The order of District Judge Silverman allegedly made on 20th July 1998 and drawn on 27th July 1998 be declared void (if the alleged date 20th July 1998 endorsed thereon be declared an error and justified as such) a FORGERY on the grounds that there was no hearing on 20th July 1998 and  or a mistake in law because of the District Judge’s failings, errors, mistakes on the Grounds that the Court was duty bound to proceed with the Arbitration as had been set down for the day and that the document be rescinded and removed from the records unless District Judge Silverman and or any other can justify the non event and alleged hearing on 20 July 1998.  AND that District Judge Silverman ought not to have ignored the fact that the Plaintiff HAD complied with all directions, and did, serve, did file and did adduce all warranted evidence in support of the originating cause of action. The cause of action that remains and is FOUNDED ON NON PAYMENT OF RENTS. that THE issue before the Court WAS AND IS THE DEFAULT SUMMONS;  THE CLAIM BEING THAT of non payment of rents, for which the Plaintiff was entitled to a hearing proper of the matter before the court on 27th July 1998; the liability by the Defendants in the sum of £4808 which was established through the submitted and filed evidence at Court, which evidence the Defendants and their legal experts had every opportunity to challenge yet failed to do so AND IN THE PREMISES THE PLAINTIFF was and is entitled to enter Judgement in the aforesaid sum of £4808.00

B.      An Order that unless the Defendants submit to the Plaintiff certified copies of any other remittances (than those relied upon by the Plaintiff) supported by a sworn duly sworn statement / affidavit and or statutory declaration, within 14 days of the day of the hearing of this Appeal that they be barred from any defence in the matter of the claim which is founded on the failure to pay rents as provided for under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements, and that they also file at Court such other evidence in Support of any other remittances and or payments in the bank account of the Plaintiff as they had undertaken to do.  AND in the event that they fail to do so within fourteen days of the date of the hearing of the Appeal and Order sought,  that their solicitor and or the Defendants by themselves do justify their failures to admit that no other remittances and or banking were made by them (in respect of the period covered by the Schedule of account filed by the Plaintiff at Court) as of 9th June 1998 and that the solicitors (purportedly representing the Defendants) do themselves make good by way of interest to be charged on the established (unless challenged and established as paid / banked funds) balance which interest they should of themselves remit to the Plaintiff arising out of and because of the reckless and indifferent manner with which they treated their clients liabilities established through the submitted documents they received; and to further justify their attempts to apply for Legal Aid in matters arising out of a Default Summons, founded and resting on the failures of the Defendants to remit and or bank rents due under the Tenancy Agreements.

C.      That in the event the Defendants fail to adduce to Court any evidence in support of any other remittances and or banked by them funds before the hearing of this appeal and or at least three days before the hearing of same that the Court do enter Judgement in the sum of £4,808.00 already established and claimed as owing and outstanding and that the said sum be paid to the Plaintiffs forthwith, in order that the Plaintiffs and their agents (i) a full report on the state of the property, (ii) prepare full photographic and video evidence as to the maintenance of the property (relied upon and alleged by the Defendants) (iii) the Plaintiff by himself and or through his authorised agents and representatives to attend to all problems with the property and with his rights in law and as provided for under the Tenancy Agreements. And that in the event that the defendants may seek leave to amend their pleadings and submissions to Court for and in respect of any alleged Counterclaim (which they may be advised to proceed with at this juncture) that their solicitors give security for costs in respect of any proposed and or alleged Counterclaim they may wish to allege and or proceed with on behalf of the Defendants.

D.      That should the Defendants of themselves seek leave to submit any amended Pleadings in respect of the claim against them that they should first and foremost meet ALL costs,  outgoings and damages by way of lost time arising out of all work incidental thereto, by whosoever and howsoever incurred arising out of and since the institution of the proceedings founded and resting on NON PAYMENT OF RENTS, a simple Default Summons used and diverted in many an avenue and direction by for and on behalf of the Defendants for and in respect of the undeclared policies, in which the Plaintiff was and is not a participant and or party agreeable to and or responsible for, because of the status and circumstances of the Defendants. And in the event that the Defendants and or their solicitors should wish to proceed to prepare and amend pleadings resting and founded on any alleged Counterclaim,  they should also through and by their solicitors (who owe duty of care to the Court) jointly and severally give security for costs in respect of same.

E.       And for an Order ordering the Defendants and their solicitors to justify their failures to come forward with any defence in respect of the unpaid rents as claimed AND WAS ESTABLISHED by the Plaintiff through the submitted documented evidence and that all costs, outgoings and damages howsoever caused to the Plaintiff, his Attorney and his agents leading to the demanded of the Court Judgement in the sum of £4808 be met by the Defendants forthwith and as herein above demanded even if the Defendants be granted leave to proceed with the preparation of any amended pleadings which they may care to introduce with any alleged Counterclaim which they may care to advance rely and promote at this juncture with the leave of the Court.

F.       That the Defendants solicitors and District Judge Silverman do justify to the Lord Chancellor’s department the attempt to abuse Legal Aid Funds for and in respect of a case arising out of non payments of rents (contractual liabilities) as claimed by the Plaintiff in the first instance and subsequently established through the documented evidence filed at Court.  And that District Judge Silverman do justify to the Lord Chancellor’s Department any alleged Defence that he personally was satisfied exists and or ever existed in the case and that he should qualify his personal satisfaction if through DILIGENT reference to the pleadings and to the submitted and filed affidavits and the documented evidence attached thereto which he ought to have referred to before purporting to act in any judicious capacity, and not simply indulge in scripts and scenarios for the ill intended proposed theatrical production resting on a Forgery and void Order. The PUBLIC DUTY and office of District Judge Silverman on 27 July 1998, commanded of him to deal with the Arbitration Hearing as the Court had set down on 13 May 1998 (never mind the obstructions and the obvious to disclose and furnish the documented evidence that established the Plaintiffs case). HIS PUBLIC duty commanded that he dealt with the purpose of the hearing as set down and not to delve in and or promote undeclared policies and or divert the case in other avenues because of OTHER ULTERIOR MOTIVES as herein above qualified and quantified. HIS DUTY and Public office on the day commanded that he dealt DILIGENTLY with the pleadings and submissions served and filed at Court; and that he paid particular attention to the ‘particularity’ with which the CLAIM FOR THE UNPAID RENTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  HIS DUTY WAS to deal with the CLAIM established and not to indulge in straw clutching exercises to salvage the corrupt practices indulged in at the expense of property owners, for and in the interests of undeclared policies and the usual income generating practices in the interests of the circles from within which he arose to Public Office.  HIS DUTY AND PUBLIC OFFICE COMMANDED THAT HE SERVED JUSTICE; nothing else, on the basis of the invitation of the parties to the Court,  the ARBITRATION HEARING as set down by the Court;  DEAL with the EVIDENCE AVAILABLE, and enter Judgement.

G.      For an Order that in the event District Judge Silverman fails to qualify his adopted attitude that he should also explain away if consequential problems (with the property) arising out of non payment of rents by the Defendants constitute grounds upon which to found rest and plead any breaches of contract by the Plaintiff in this instance; at all material times with all due consideration and DILIGENT references to the Pleadings served and filed at Court, by the parties hereto; and specifically the pleadings by the Defendants in respect of alleged maintenance and repairs to but no evidence in support of such, followed by and  with the attached breaches of Public Duty with the reckless indifference by public bodies and servants, to the violations of the rights of  the property owners in pursuit of undeclared policies by, for and in the interests of the Local Authority and others.

H.        That the failure by District Judge Silverman to order the Defendants to meet the costs attached to the proceedings to the date when District Judge Silverman by himself and on his own did attempt to grant leave to amend pleadings be pronounced a gross error AND breach of procedures. And that it further be pronounced a deliberate and intended act of Discrimination and a violation of the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights also as provided for under National and European Law and that the failure to adhere to the rules of procedure if it pronounced either an error and or mistake and or oversight by District Judge Silverman, and that the Defendants be granted leave to amend and waste Court time, abuse of Legal Aid facilities and additional time by the Plaintiff, then the costs of the Plaintiff be met by the Court itself whose officers have done nothing but violate the rights of the Plaintiff who at all material times acted within the Court's directions and with the rules of procedure.

I.       That the costs attached to and arising out of this Appeal be met by the Defendants and or out of Public funds in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff has been obstructed in the prosecution of his legitimate rights to property (rents - funds- moneys are property) by public servants unless there be evidence produced to the satisfaction of the Plaintiff, his Attorney and the Court by and or before the date of the hearing of the Appeal that the Defendants had and or have any evidence to supplement what has been credited to the Defendants (in the served and filed Schedule of rent account); remittances and banking by them in the Plaintiff’s bank account. And that in the event that such evidence did and or does exist that the Court should Order the Defendants solicitors to meet the costs of the Plaintiffs, costs and damages, consequential to and for failing to make any submissions as of  9 June 1998 and electing to waste the time of the Attorney for the Plaintiff in collusion and or in complicity and or in common purpose and cause with others intending to protract and promote through new scripts and scenarios the deliberately imposed waste of time and reckless impositions on the Plaintiff and his Attorney through the usual manifestations of the corrupt and bankrupt legal services maintained in the United Kingdom through the self regulating and self perpetuating corrupt bodies (possible contraventions of Article 13 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

J.      And for an Order ordering the Chief Clerk of the Court to prepare copies of the pleadings and in particular copies of both affidavits from Andrew Yiannides with the attached exhibits thereto ‘A.Y.1’ and ‘A.Y.2’.  And that the chief clerk of the Court be directed to submit the copies to the Investigation Department of the Department of Social Security in Leeds (The Plaintiff's Attorney CAN provide the Court with the address).  The Court to move itself in the right direction (not as District Judge Silverman wrongly indulged in, on 27 July 1998) because of the fact that officers and the staff at Haringey Council knew the property owner was receiving (albeit occasionally) only £145 per week (as the declared by the Defendants Housing Benefit received) when in fact they were also aware the Department of Social Security (allegedly) was remitting £165 per week to the Defendants.  ONLY idiots and conscious accessories to fraud keep quiet IF NOT PARTY themselves (refer to the investigation by the Daily Mail of 30 June1997). The implication is clear  “IF the property owner was to receive £ 145 per week why were the officers and the staff of Haringey Council content to invite and or allow the Department of Social Security to fork out and remit week in week out £ 165 per week?  And even as much as £ 177.58 per week which fact can be adduced THROUGH DILIGENT REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS.

K. And for an Order ordering the Defendants Not to Obstruct the Plaintiff's agents, contractors and or any other authorised, by the Plaintiff, person and or persons from attending the property (as provided for under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement).

L.   And for an Order, ordering the Defendants not to attempt and or seek any impositions on and or to enter into any new agreements with the staff of Haringey Council to remit and r forward Housing Benefit remittances to the Defendants themselves directly, ad that the Defendants do ensure that such remittances are to be forwarded to the Plaintiff's authorised agents. And that the Defendants do attend to all matters raised with and by the Plaintiff's agents in accordance with and under the terms of the Tenancy Agreements. And that the Defendants do raise any matter they may wish to have dealt with and attended to in respect of the property with the authorised agents and representatives of the property owners in the first instance.  

Dated this the ..............day of ................... 1998

For the Plaintiff ................................................

                             Andrew Yiannides

To the Court and

To the Defendants
To the Lord Chancellor’s Office
Legal Aid Board

The Authorised representative
Andrew Yiannides (L.A.G)
c/o Diamond Lettings
365 High Road
London N22 4JA

In the Edmonton County Court

APPEAL BY THE PLAINTIFF

==============================

Andrew Yiannides (L.A.G)
Diamond Lettings
365 High Road
Wood Green
London N22 4JA