h-rtitle.gif (7604 bytes)

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

WHERE IS JUSTICE? Read below:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2006 - SUMMONS ISSUED & SERVED IN RESPECT OF FRAUDULENT & RECKLESSLY IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIVITIES & IMPOSITIONS THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

Crime - Organised -Institutionalised - Corruption - Fraud - Protection Rackets,  run and managed by judicial chair occupants, in a free-for-all state of abundance. Note the all-embracing guarantee, in place but in contempt of all law:
"The court has inherent jurisdiction to stay an action which must fail; as, for instance an action brought in respect of an act of State". (And by extension any act of any public servant who is appointed, retained and maintained by other public servants for all of whom, the state, as employer, is ultimately responsible, including abusers of judicial chair occupancy and hence, the billions paid out as covered in the exclusive affidavit that visitors can link to directly from here - *Link also tio the founder's conclusions as of 1972-75 when the great Metropolitan police were seen to be nothing but accessories and abettors of the rampant fraud and corruption through the courts while Members of Parliament were -as they still do- promoting the waffle that amounts to notjhing short of 'independence of the judiciary to act in contempt of ALL of Parliament's Laws in a pseudo-democracy)Page Revised: June 20, 2012

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, successive irresponsible Lord Chancellors and Home Secretaries who ignored (Fx) all complaints and submissions irrespective of the evidence and the law pointed to, by the victims of it all, the citizens who are called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of criminals in public office.(*Link to our exclusive page, covering confidential fraud as arranged THROUGH THE BEST KEPT OPEN SECRET in alleged democracies, European States).

scams.htm           KEY

Local Authority Scams *Page Created February 1997
hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)

JOIN the Community On Line and publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (link) and ACT, with others, against the offenders. Join in joint actions against the violations of your rights.

Affiliated Sites For The Above Projected Activities
lbduk.org (group)

The CAMILA Project
affiliates for DATA collection
lbduk.org
ukfathers.co.uk

<>

KEY to Page & Site
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4

SECTION 2
part 1
part 2
part 3

SECTION 3
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5

SECTION 4
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6


'The Times' Law Report -1996 nodamer1.gif 
	(37873 bytes) Below, arrogant letter from an abuser of public office, noted to be offering invisible services to the criminally motivated, the deceitfull and the greedy. Parallel to such scenarios, also, Public Servants who are USING and ENCOURAGING the greedy to be party to 'the plans for the sons of men', by the followers of the teachings by example stated in the most vile of works ever to be presented to 'non-thinkers'.  heviar1r.jpg (55554 bytes)    NOTE the reference to the relied upon blessings of a local judicial chair occupant. 
back to:
Cheats who beat them back to: publish letter from staff back to: officers of law 

Below, an article in the Local press after a local councillor came out of the woods to admit that which he ignored for months.  scambenr.jpg (50660 bytes) 


Page 1 (link to the text of the explicit Appeal)anpeal1r.gif (327854 bytes)    Appeal warranted.. violations by officers at 'the relevant county court'. (Back to, Haringey: specific pleadings  )

page 2 (*Link to text)anpeal2r.jpg (150436 bytes)    Breaches of public duty and scripts for theatrical productions (read paragraph.5).

page 3 (*Link to text)anpeal3r.gif (332793 bytes)    Challenges for non events (false assertions by the court - paragraph 7

Page 4   (*Link to text)anpeal4r.gif (308177 bytes)   More false assertions by the criminals in control of our courts -paragraph 9.

Page 5 (*Link to text)anpeal5r.gif (364849 bytes)    Rights to property, Artucle 1 of First Protocol violated by the court (Read  paragraph 12).

Page 6 (*Link to text)anpeal6r.gif (314530 bytes)    Monologue by a hijacker alleging 'hearing before him' challenged: account for it (paragraph 16

Page 7 (*Link to text)anpeal7r.gif (319997 bytes)    Undeclared policies and blunt invisible services to legal circles- paragraph 18

Page 8 (*Link to text)anpeal8r.gif (341927 bytes)    District Judge acting recklessly, in contempt of the law.... (paragraph 21)

Page 9 (*Link to text)anpeal9r.gif (333500 bytes)   District Judge in contelpt of  evidence, issues false instrument (paragraph 23)

Page 10 (*Link to text)anpeal10r.gif (393224 bytes)   Obstructions by court to rights in law and procedure challenged (paragraph 25)

Page 11 (*Link to text)anpeal11r.gif (368623 bytes)   Hijacking and script for theatrical productions challenged (paragraph 26)

Page 12 (*Link to text)anpeal12r.gif (342357 bytes)   FRAUD on the DSS ignored by District Judge ..... (paragraph 26a)

Page 13 (*Link to text)anpeal13r.gif (331538 bytes)    Challenging inexcusable failure to enter judgement (paragraph 26f)

Page 14 (Link to text)anpeal14r.gif (362009 bytes)    Denial of rights to property PRACTISED by court (paragraph 26i)

Page 15 (Link to text)anpeal15r.gif (326712 bytes)    Order sought to declare directions/script error based on a false instrument / FORGERY (paragraph A). Also orders sought in respect of attempts to seek and abuse Legal Aid facilities in respect of ESTABLISHED LIABILITIES founded on contract and failures to challenge the documented evidence that the abusers of public office, as alleged judicious persons, elected to ignore in pursuance of other ulterior motives and practice (paragraph B). Demand for security of costs against solicitors should they wish to proceed with any theatrical scenarios and scripts as 'planned by the abuser of office at that late hour (paragraph C).

Page 16 (Link to text)anpeal16r.gif (328725 bytes)   Duty of Court to refer to terms of  Tenancy Agreement (paragraph D)  Also court's CART BEFORE THE HORSE MENTALITIES challenged (paragraph D). Demanding Order for Judgement and costs founded on the proof of the liability of the defendants founded and resting on the DEFAULT SUMMONS CLAIM. Demanding also for an order of all costs to the date of and including the hearing of  the Appeal, in the event that the court may wish t proceed by way of the scenario and script that the abusers of public office indulged in at the expense of the property owner in pursuance of undeclared policies and practices (paragraph E). (Back to: Police Complaints Authority)

Page 17 (Link to text)anpeal17r.gif (353701 bytes)   Duty of care 'for claimants by state and Local Authorities' (paragraph D). Demands also for explanations and justifications from the author of the script and scenario FOR FAILING TO DEAL with the absence of any substance and or evidence upon which to found the proposed theatrical production in pursuance of undeclared by the state and the courts policies (paragraph G).

Page 18 (Link to text)anpeal18r.gif (326248 bytes)   Failure to defend established liability gave rise to challenge COURT and freedoms to indulge by persons in judicial chairs; challenged as violations of Article 13 (paragraph I). Also CONSCIOUS knowledge and endorsement of FRAUD ON THE Department of Social Security by LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFF AND OFFICERS leading to challenges of the court to refer the matters to the Fraud Office of the DSS in Leeds (paragraph J).   (Back to Haringey Council

Page 19 (*Link to text)anpeal19r.gif (118215 bytes)    Challenging court to justify to Lord Chancellor attempt to abuse Legal Aid 'facilities'. NOTE: copies of the Appeal sent to Lord Chancellor's office and the Legal Aid Board, who also received copies of the FORGERIES that the enterprising geniuses procured and USED in the execution of 'their public duties'; their activities arising and attached to the THEFT OF THE PROPERTIES of others, inclusive of the theft of the rights in law of the targeted victims of all, through the script the offending court officer indulged in 'out of the blue' and 'his hat of dirty tricks'.

Page 20 (Link to text)anpeal20r.gif (49339 bytes)    Back-sheet address. Members of the Landlords Action Group, ensuring the managing agents of 'their properties' receive all mail relevant to their properties and to their rights in law.

Page 21 anpeal21r.gif (180668 bytes)    The extensive script concocted in contempt of every principle of procedure. An instrument indulged into in order to create theatrical productions in pursuance of undeclared policies and the 'usual income generation facilities' for the actors in the legal circles. The author and the Lord Chancellor's Department are called to account while the Home Secretary is called to justify the failures of the police in Haringey to attend to the blatant crimes instigated and indulged into by the staff and officers at Haringey Council THROUGH THE USE AND PROMOTION OF FORGERIES, with additional denial of rights and breaches in public duty by many from within the Metropolitan police, Haringey Area, leading to and inclusive of defaults and omissions by the office of and the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon QPM. (Back to: Haringey Council, the usual railroading practices

Page 22 anpeal22r.gif (173423 bytes)    The police were handed a Section 9 Statement, copies of the FORGERIES we publish and copy of an alleged legitimate order purporting to be a 'justifiable' instrument in law arising out of diligent references to the file in the case at hand. IN ITSELF that instrument resting and founded on a non-event with the additional offence of the fact that the court also arranged to post that false, in law, instrument weeks late. The property agents who were co-operating in the scams and the extensive constructive frauds, for obvious reasons (to any one who knows of court procedures and rules) suppressed the delivery of that false instrument. They had been forewarned of the tricks the court staff indulge in and they could recognise why the need for the most common tool by the courts in the best interests of the directors and that actors who are in control of  'The Legal And Court Productions Entertainment Industry'. The perversion of and the corrupt abuse of the courts' facilities are criminal offences; we have other instances on record, and the evidence, when Court Orders were posted late and without hearings proper or the need for one in much the same way as when the Counterclaim was struck out in one of the cases we cover in our pages.  Appeal warranted.. violations by officers at 'the relevant county court'. (Back to, Haringey: specific pleadings)

Page 23 anpeal23r.gif (166735 bytes)   The Arbitration arrangements BY THE COURT in view of the amount claimed. Reference to the Appeal we publish qualifies much. The Lord Chancellor and his department have a lot to answer for, after they prepare the LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN THE COURT FILE as we demanded and insist upon. The letter can be published and our reasons can be made public along with much more documented and damning evidence against the offenders who are of opinion that the needs of the citizens for 'justice' are their ticket to dishonest and fraudulent gains through abuse of the courts' facilities.    NOTE: The order is backdated by the offender in an attempt to justify the introduction of the FALSE and fraudulent in intent instrument. Removal of the records from court file of the 'hearing of 23 July 1998 constitutes another INDICTABLE OFFENCE as qualified by 'The LAW' compilation we publish.  

Page 24 anpeal24r.gif (165446 bytes)     The request of the court staff to ensure that they were to forward the completed, in date and time, application to the amenable in the scams' letting / managing agents of 'the targeted property and its owners'.

Page 25 anpeal26r.gif (132149 bytes)   Receipt issued when the Appeal was lodged. (Back to: National Scandal the explicit Appeal  questionable activities (above)


undercon.gif (286 bytes) Site under reconstruction for better navigation. Page Revised: June 20, 2012
All underlined text with an asterisk indicates a LINK at the bottom of the page.

Local Authority staff - VIOLATE - rights assured in law


The days when public servants relied on the BLIND DEAF AND DUMB MEDIA ARE OVER. The days when ALL relied on BLIND DEAF AND DUMB OFFICERS, within the law enforcement agencies, ARE ALDO OVER.

This is the age of FREE exchange of information and THE UNADULTERATED FACTS OF LIFE within all states, so long as their citizens are free to exercise, AS WE DO, their basic human-rights that ARE GUARANTEED under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECoHR).  

Article 9.  "EVERYONE has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..."

Article 10.  "EVERYONE has the right to FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION....to HOLD OPINIONS...TO RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers..... (with provisions attached to ) maintaining the authority AND IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary".

Article 11.  "EVERYONE has the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of  ASSOCIATION with others.... rights to form and join ... for the protection of HIS INTERESTS".

Article 13.  "EVERYONE whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated SHALL have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation HAS BEEN committed by persons acting in an OFFICIAL CAPACITY."

Article 13 is VERY CLEAR. WHERE IS THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY THAT LOOKS INTO THE VIOLATIONS judges in the United Kingdom endorse, entertain AND INSTIGATE of their own?  The question is simple and the Lord Chancellor with the Home Secretary should co-operate and produce the formula under which the citizens CAN challenge activities that blatantly breach national law and VIOLATE Human Rights. NOTE PLEASE: We have on record a high court case where the Judge made an issue of the serious ERROR of judgements (practices in our view) by the Local Government Ombudsman. All is not as the public is told; the multitude of documented facts we publish PROVE SO BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT to the average citizen. The citizens demand that they be treated no more as illiterate serfs of the middle ages and or as subjects to the whims and or the abusive dishonesty of so-called 'public servants'; the 'alleged servants of the public' who serve other ulterior motives*, which they fail to declare.

In the column on the left a 'Times' Law Report. It covers aspects attached to Shorthold Tenancy Agreements. No sooner had the judgement been pronounced by the Court of Appeal and a member of staff from Haringey Council, was writing to the landlady and her agent to promote assertions contrary to the true facts in the case he was alluding to and irrespective of the true legal position. The author of the letter, which we publish on this page, was reported subsequently as no longer employed at Haringey Council.

The Law Report is succinct and clear: "NO DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION" in a matter of Shorthold Tenancy Agreements, even in the case the Court of Appeal was called upon to determine, on appeal from a county court. In that instance the tenants actually were evicted without any court proceedings and or court rulings in the matter; the fact was that the property owner had sold it as an empty property and the tenancy was but a Shorthold.

We have on record, however, other issues and documented evidence that we will publish in these pages. We have been left with no choice because public servants carried on ignoring the victims, went on to act in additional contempt of Parliament's Law and they indulged in the creation of their own false instruments. Through such convenient defaults, omissions and downright criminal activities, they set about to cause damages to the person who reported the rampant fraud and corruption their employers (Haringey Council and its staff and officers) engaged in, as endorsed, aided and abetted by officers and staff at the Local (relevant) County Court.

The questionable activities of Public Servants, operating within Local Authorities such as Haringey Council in North London, have been the subject of well documented presentations and complaints by us. We have been waiting for over three years for a dreamer within its confines, to set down one complaint for presentation to the council's own review panel. He has persistently defaulted to do so with intent, simply because he knows that in another case the fraudulent demands the Council was seeking to impose on targeted victims, private landlords, ended at that stage without the need for theatrical productions outside the council's confines because the LAW is the LAW, and facts are facts. We publish the letter that the Chief Executive was caused, eventually, to write on 26th January 1999 to which you can link now). He was making issue of the fact that Haringey Council staff and officers, en masse, were dependant and relied on their partners in deceptions and fraud. He alluded to the persons who were acting as managing agents for the targeted owners and the targeted property. We have been left with no option but to publish other documented evidence that covers the part the police played and play in the promotion of the CIUKU enterprises, not to mention the break-ip of families, an even worse offence in an allegedly civilised state. We demand proper actions and prosecutions of the criminals who treat Social Security Funds (including Legal Aid funding facilities) as easy pickings as our founder clarified in his letter of 18th December 1998, to the Home Secretary and as qualified in the Appeal published below.

Council staff acting in contempt of 'The Law'* and the principles of law, asserting that they act on directives from above and in accordance with 'the regulations' to which allegedly they 'adhere' in presumed ignorance of 'The LAW'.  Such practices irrespective of the dictum "Ignorance of The LAW is no defence". The Law report we publish above, immaterial to public servants, Court Officers and staff. Two firms of solicitors indulging themselves and looking forward to use the court's facilities through which to convert RENTS DUE AND PAYABLE (to a targeted landlord) to alleged legal costs. Attempts to defraud through the usual theatrical scenarios and presentations by 'legal boffins' irrespective of the facts, the evidence and the law applicable in that instance. Everything had been arranged by and care of the Housing Benefit Fund manipulative administrators. Public servants who work with and for dishonest tenants, for and with the 'legal parasites', for and with amenable letting agents, as the council's own legal experts arrange through directives to the blind and the illiterate in law Council staff; such arrangements as other public servants endorse and entertain.

The facts covered in the Appeal below were and ARE fully documented. The criminal activities indictable offences in breach of Parliament's Laws; as in another case all was reported to the police. 'The LAW' compilation published in our pages, for the benefit of all UK citizens and residents, covers it all. Nonetheless, the criminals, in both instances, used, encouraged and relied upon the used tenants to act outside 'The Law'. In one of the cases 'the tenants were used' to institute alleged legitimate court proceedings against the landlady and her agent; the legal boffins in the instance dared allege wrongful eviction, within five months of the Court of Appeal ruling, the Law Report we publish above. The legal boffins, as parasites, indulged themselves, irrespective of the fact that the dishonest and thieving debtors had been assisted, IMPROPERLY, (by the participating in constructive frauds council staff) to disappear. The disappearance and flight from the CREATED LIABILITIES AND DEBTS just three days after the offenders were served with a Default Summons. Thousands of pounds of unpaid rents arising out of alleged failures by Council staff to process and to remit Housing Benefit to the used tenants. The tenants failing for months to remit rent because, allegedly, their Housing Benefit claim had not been processed; and the dishonest within the confines of Haringey Council, confirming the allegations by the used, for constructive frauds, tenants. All care of public servants administering the CIUKU enterprises.

Council staff and officers parties to the disappearing acts of the dishonest tenants, to an undeclared destination, in breach of Scetions of the Theft Acts. Council staff moving the dishonest tenants to a council property, as soon as the tenants were served with the warranted Default Summons. Over £4000 in unpaid rents BECAUSE THEIR HOUSING BENEFIT, ALLEGEDLY, HAD NOT BEEN PROCESSED, BY THE COUNCIL STAFF, FOR OVER FOUR MONTHS. And the Council staff and officers simply confirming the alleged failures and defaults. The tenants assaulted the managing agent of the property because he took he took legitimate steps to protect the rights, in law, of his principal. The tenants causing, also, criminal damages to properties; they inflicted serious life threatening injuries, and they caused permanent physical damage and disability to the assaulted agent. The parasitic legal boffins looking forward to their field days in court, care of constructively engineered fraudulent activities and the police party to fraudulent misrepresentations INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO PASS FALSE INSTRUMENTS AS legitimate, sound and acceptable evidence in support of the misrepresentations; professional criminals at work in CIUKU enterprises.

An affidavit settled by the victim of the assaults was lodged at court. It was served on both solicitors who were looking forward to the usual theatrical scripts.  One solicitor was acting for the intended victim, the landlady;  the other was acting for the 'used' dishonest tenants. The 'victim of crimes', the assaulted agent, needed no parasite to represent him. His affidavit and his actions put an end to the dreams of all, including the attempts to abuse the Legal Aid Facilities. The Lord Chancellor will be challenged in due course to look up and investigate, at least FOUR, case files all of which were issued out of 'the relevant county court' to which the author of the intimidating letter from Haringey Council alluded, without realising that he was spilling the beans as to the expectations of all. The agent kept the CoA ruling up his sleeve in the event the solicitors and the relevant county court officers should proceed with the abuse of legal AID FACILITIES through which to convert the unpaid rents to alleged legal fees. ALL was instigated by and care of the dishonest who systematically organise(d) the constructive frauds through abuse of the Housing Benefit Funds and Council facilities at the disposal of the corrupt and the corrupted.

DISHONESTY and LIES; deceptions promoted and resting on alleged regulations and non process of the Housing Benefit Applications because of any one of a myriad of excuses that council staff and used tenants  concoct(ed) as they went / go along. Their activities in contravention of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We publish below a letter received from a member of staff / officer operating out of Haringey Council. The author's area of operations was 'tenant relations'. No doubt, COUNCIL TENANTS, not private landlord and tenant business. The author took it upon himself to use his office in order to promote and offer 'invisible services to third parties' through use of council paper and facilities. He was leaving telephone messages for the agent of the private landlord to contact him. He was asked to write of his personal interest and or concerns in private rented accommodation, because he was NOT dealing with council tenancy business, such as his public duties and office covered! He obliged and wrote assertively and naively, as he did: "... without the sanction of the court..." thereby exhibiting reliance on the abusers of public office, such as we were caused to challenge umpteed times. A typical example covered in the affidavit we publish below; another covered in the Appeal, we also publish below. Institutionalised, rampant fraud on Mr and Mrs Average who are and remain none the wiser care of the condescending media barons.

NOTE:   Consider the above facts; a council 'employee getting involved in matters that had nothing to do with him, except, the possible offer and use of his office, for other purposes than his appointment/retainer 'covered'.  Cross relate that situation to the introduction of the Environmental Health Service in the attempts to convert misappropriated and diverted Housing Benefit Funds in the case covered in the Appeal published below. Court cases and Appeals following failures to remit rents due to the owners of properties; in the Appeal case the property occupied by imported tenants; such tenants systematically used and in use in Haringey, as in other areas in the land of milk and honey; the milk and honey provided by fraudsters and abusers of public office in CORRUPT BRITAIN as covered in the Daily Mail investigation and report.

Upon receipt of the letter the agent simply telephoned and ADVISED the abuser of public office to go to the nearest public library;  to look up 'The Times' Law Report, and to cease interfering in the affairs and the rights of private landlords. The author was specifically told to cease dreaming up concocted evictions 'without the sanction of the relevant county court'.  He was informed that the young lady he was alluding to:  (a) had given notice to her landlady, (b) SHE HAD IN FACT MOVED OUT TAKING WITH HER MOST OF HER PRIVATE belongings, (c) she in fact handed over the property and (d) the young lady was indebted well in excess of £1000 to her landlady. He was further told that the fact the landlady had not issued a Default Summons rested on the hard luck story of the young lady; it appeared to be a re-run of the circumstances under which the niece of our founder committed suicide; a grossly indifferent and selfish father whose priorities were his personal grandiose plans and life-style at the expense of many others. We point out our guidelines and principle: "In a true Democracy no one has the right to indulge in whatever rights he assumes for personal gratification / gain / whatever at the expense of and or the violations of the rights of MANY OTHERS".   Sadly in the United Kingdom any individual is encouraged to act as he or she feels like; individuals acting in breach of Parliament's Laws, and the violations of the rights of others, generate work for theatrical production opportunities for the Law  Enforcement Agencies, the members of which thus have their cat and mouse field days as in 'The Police Summons the Victim'* case is qualified and in 'The Breeding Grounds'* case was contemplated and attempted by the young policeman who asserted, as an SS officer in Nazi occupied Europe, "You want his address? Get your solicitor to write to me at the police station".   (Note: copy of the Appeal set down in The Breeding Grounds case can be secured from <camila@human-rights.demon.co.uk> include 'request copy' in the subject line specifying the case for a response).

In the left column one of the NEWSPAPER REPORTS covering the facts of life in Haringey, North London. OUR FOUNDER HAD CAUSED the Daily Mail to commission its own investigation in 1997 in the matter of publicly funded bodies wasting through fraud* and criminal activities, Social Security funds. The scams EXPOSED in the local papers followed years of frustrating contempt by public servants, including the police, and volumes of paper work that was imposed by the corrupt and the corrupted. Many had been closing their ears and their eyes; they had nothing to say on the serious issues presented to them. ALL ignored the evidence and the facts of life within Haringey Council. Certain actions taken were only pre-emptive activities because of the expressed intention to publish material facts and documented evidence on the Internet. We informed all that our citizens should get to know of the abuse of public office and the world can also marvel at the capabilities of the 'used and tutored dishonest' who subsequently get protected by the corrupt and the corrupt and the corrupted in the mother of modern Democracy. The documented evidence, masses of letters etc., can never be erased and or ignored by any decent citizen. The evidence and attempts predate the exposure by Councillor Peter Forrest who came out of the wood to speak of the facts of life in Haringey after the FORGERIES relied upon, used and promoted by Haringey Council staff were referred to the police, as we cover in our pages.

Our founder first became aware of the facts of life in March/April 1996. For months lies and fabrications (recorded, audio tapes) attached to inexcusable falsehoods  were advanced, promoted and relied upon by the deceivers and the dishonest within the confines of Haringey Council. The activities are fully covered by 'The LAW'* document published on our web-site.  In the words of Conservative councillor Peter Forrest: -

"...Councils like Haringey are clearly a soft touch for employees who know how to.....".

The councillor failed to add ".. do ALSO FOR THEMSELVES that which they do for their employers and for the imported new citizens that are used to defraud the ordinary hardworking and creative citizens. Thieving and stealing from those who operated within the law for decades. Stealing from the creative and frugal WHO HAVE THEIR ASSETS CONVERTED by and through public servants via INSTITUTIONALISED FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.  Converting the assets of targeted sections of our communities to others and in particular to the new Masters and LORDS in our neo-feudal DICTATORSHIP.  A state operated under the guise of democracy. An alleged  democracy resting and founded on Corrupted Law, and not on Law and Order and or on the Laws Parliament enacted over the centuries".  The   addenda, of course, are nothing but our views resting and founded on the facts we shall be exposing in full as we go along.

It is for THE TWO MINISTERS in charge of law and order, investigative and administrative, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to act swiftly and efficiently. It is for the police who were instructed to investigate the activities within our legal system and the courts to GET ON WITH THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES. Crime IS CRIME; the Law, IS THE LAW. Cease treating citizens with contempt as you treat 'The LAW'. The extensive and succinct Appeal we publish below qualifies much and clarifies the abuse of the courts' facilities by public servants. Public servants acting as 'asset stripping authorities' with self appointed rights to operate outside the restraints of Parliament's Laws at the expense of Mr and Mrs Average. Misconduct in public office for the benefit of 'selected circles'; fraud and pecuniary advantage through promotion of undeclared policies from non elected partners in a puppet state with no government proper. If we are to carry on benefiting from the use of and allusions to DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments the government must be seen to be acting as promised to our founder in 1995.

The explicit and succinct Appeal, published below, covers material that 'members of the self perpetuating cancerous growth industry', in control of OUR Justice System, habitually and systematically indulge in. Their circles never challenging the obvious. We did and do.

Read first the last paragraph (J) on page 18; then recognise why our founder's conclusions in 1972/75 and why the references to CIUKU! All the while we, the citizens, meet the costs of the theatrical productions through taxes, as contemplated and indulged into and evinced through the content of the Appeal.

NOTE the fact that copy of the Appeal was submitted to the Lord Chancellor's office and to the administrators of the loan facilities recoverable through theatrical productions as directed by second rate directors and as enacted by third rate actors. The 'administrators' none other than the Legal Aid Board, the managers of Public funds and 'the facilities' at the beck and call of the dishonest, the deceitful and THE CORRUPTERS OF OUR SOCIETY; in a nutshell, the promoters of "The Cancerous Growth Industry" (words in quotes copyright).

CONSIDER, also, the affidavit lodged at the very court in the matter of the other Housing Benefits 'abuse of the court's (pardon, relevant 'county court's) facilities by another Local Authority and the picture becomes clearer. We could of course publish ALL documented evidence at our disposal and it may well be that we may be forced to do so before the offenders recognise that their attempts to take us down the paths they set in motion many years ago, with and through 'their mischief making partners' in constructive frauds and crimes are not our chosen avenues.

The organised misappropriation and the distribution of Housing Benefit funds, 'conveniently through Local Authorities and their well trained in deceptions, dishonesty and Fraudulent Activities Staff and Officers is the main issue. Public servants retained to serve the public doing their damnedest best to defraud their masters (the public). Such persons relying on our bankrupted and corrupted legal system and the operatives from within it, to endorse their kind of society. A society founded and resting on deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations in the promotion of the "Let Barrabas Live And Crucify Christ", policies by the politically correct, the  destroyers of countries and societies (Link)! Thus they create and generate the need for the services of the corrupt and the corrupted in charge of our legal system, one of the finest in the world, sadly in the hands of the most contemptible of THE LAW practitioners as can be adduced through diligent perusal of the Appeal we copy in this page.

We add and point out that the staff and officers of 'the relevant county court' DID strike out the COUNTERCLAIM in the other case we refer to in our pages. Another Local Authority, in that instance, was to benefit from 'suppression and attempted burial of 'the rights in law' of the targeted and intended victim'. Those liberties gave grounds to another Appeal, which we could publish along with all other warranted communications AND THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, attached to that case. It is partially covered through one of the submitted affidavits, that we publish in our pages.  

OVER TO THE MINISTERS responsible for the safeguarding of the rights in law of our citizens. We demand and look forward to justifications and responsible answers for the criminal, in intent, activities of public servants indulged and indulge in, in pursuance of undeclared Robin (robbing) Hood (under-cover) activities.

Over to the Media Barons and their editors; the mammary gland promoters; the suppressors of material facts from the electorate, who are persistently called upon to be more productive and more competitive in order to meet the GREED of the parasites who, allegedly are serving Parliament's Laws and the long suffering public, the 'serfs' who are dubjected to such corrupt practices by public(!) servants)?) in an allegedly civilised state that allegedly rests and is founded on law and order.

CEASE TREATING CITIZENS WITH CONTEMPT and or as illiterate serfs of the Middle Ages. You are NOT our elected Masters. Nor are you our Lords, by any stretch of your, or 'the partners' in Institutionalised Crimes, imagination. The citizens, demand the protection of 'The LAW', from the crimes we cover in our pages.


NOTE:

  • Details of the parties and the County Court, the staff and officers of which indulged relentlessly, for and in the thefts / misappropriation of rents, owing to targeted private landlords, are detailed in the scan images of the pages factual documents / evidence in the column on the left.
  • Other documented evidence is published in other pages.
  • More will be published in explicit and extensive pages for Council staff and Police activities with convenient defaults to prosecute the criminals who engaged in the thefts of other peoples moneys. Funds being used to meet the salaries of parasitic 'public servants'.
  • All in a day's work for the promotion of CIUKU Enterprises.

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 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.

25.     District Judge Silverman by not permitting the Plaintiff’s Attorney to present ANY case for the Plaintiff, on 27 July 1998, and by failing to properly acquaint himself with the case before the Court,  he did on the day wrongly, recklessly and or with intent:-

          (a)      seek to suppress and or ignored the pleaded facts and the documented  evidence in support thereof already filed at Court and served on the defendants.

          (b)      elect to ignore the fact that the defendants failed to submit any evidence in support of any other remittances which they ought to have stated and indeed had every opportunity to plead and or advance as of service of the Default Summons and in the first instance; further and or in the alternative the Defendants could and should have pleaded any OTHER remittances by them, other than those the Plaintiff acknowledged as received (banked by the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s account) and credited in the Schedule of the rent account duly submitted to the Defendants and filed at Court, fully substantiated and evinced through the submitted and filed copies of the relevant bank account statements; the Plaintiff’s submissions also resting and founded out of THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE COVERING HOUSING BENEFIT RECEIVED by the Defendants which documented evidence was received by the Plaintiff at the very last minute, through the managing agents of the Plaintiff who received same from the Local Authority. The aforesaid evidence covers all Housing Benefit remittances to and for the Benefit of the Defendants due and arising out of and because of the Defendants occupation of the property owned by the Plaintiff and none other; the very evidence sought and applied for through the Court was secured otherwise despite the fact that Deputy District Judge Smith did with intent deny rights to, to the Plaintiff, and or deliberately and selectively with intent OBSTRUCTING the Plaintiff from securing same in accordance with the application before the Court on 23rd July 1998. The application that Deputy District Judge Smith summarily dismissed, on 23rd July 1998, without any consideration of the rights of the Plaintiff, in national and international law; also in accordance with acceptable practice and procedure rules which District Judge Silverman subsequently endorsed (evincing duplicity of purpose by persons purportedly acting in a judicial but not judicious capacity) through the Order purportedly and allegedly made by the Court on 20th July 1998 but issued on 27th July 1998 whereby the Defendants should serve “a fully particularised amended defence and Counterclaim as if the facts before the Court were not sufficient and or had not established the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendants had failed to meet rents due and payable under the explicit terms of Tenancy Agreements filed at Court as part of the exhibits attached to the affidavits of the Attorney acting for and as the Plaintiff in person.

          (c)      promote through the forgery of an alleged Court Order proper, nothing but the usual manifestations in pursuance of ulterior motives, in the interest of the income generating practices from within the Courts for and in respect of a claim that rests and is founded on UNPAID RENTS as per Default Summons, issued and served on the defendants who through their pleadings and submissions to the Court established themselves to have done nothing else but that which the Plaintiff claimed in his particular of Claim ‘failure to pay rents’.  District Judge Silverman erred and was wrong to ignore and or consider the Headlines in the Daily Mail of January 13 1997 £ 60 Million Scandal of legal-aid cheats”; he erred and was wrong also to ignore the fact that the case rests on Shorthold Tenancy Agreements extended and or re-negotiated as in the instance at hand when the Benefits Agency declined to accept the original Tenancy Agreement endorsed with the agreed rent set at £220 per week which lead to the parties hereto renegotiating and entering into a new agreement which the Defendants subsequently submitted to the Benefits Agency in order to re-instate the Defendants claim to and for Housing Benefit, FACTS District Judge Silverman can neither evade nor ignore.

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 Defendants submitted and pleaded at Court that the only contract they signed and entered into in respect of the property they have been occupying as of August 1994, was the contract dated 4th August 1994; initially the Defendants alleged the contracted rent was £145 per week; later they alleged that the agreed and contracted rent for the property was in the sum of £165 per week (after they were challenged as to their false declarations that Housing Benefit remitted to them was only in the sum of  £145 when in fact at that point in time it was £165 and higher earlier).  AND at that point in time (Court proceedings) the Defendants pleaded the contracted rent was £165 per week (as the disclosed Housing Benefit they received was) and they alleged also that they were keeping £20 per week (to justify banking £145 only as they had declared to the Plaintiff) because of alleged maintenance for the property, BUT produced no agreement to that effect and or any documented evidence that such expenditure was warranted and or in fact incurred for the property and on behalf of the owner and or any other who had authorised same. The amended pleadings that the rent allegedly contracted was ‘accepted’ and pleaded to be in the sum of £165 established beyond any doubt the false and gross misrepresentations to the Plaintiff and to the Court itself where a copy of the contract relied upon is very clearly endorsed with the agreed rent at £220 per week and not at £165 per week.  In the circumstances District Judge Silverman in electing to ignore the pleadings and the evidence available BEFORE HIM and filed at Court while purporting to be sitting in any judicial capacity proper (either without doing his ‘homework’ in the case by diligently perusing the filed documents and pleadings or because he is used to treating all landlords and their claims at Court ‘at nauseum’ and in line with adopted policies) and by attempting to impose HIS proposed theatrical scenarios through the hijacking and railroading what was NOTHING but an Arbitration Hearing (as the parties attended Court for)  HE DISQUALIFIED himself from acting in the case. (Hijacking and railroading practices were exposed in the Englezakis -v- Wijemuni case, whereby two firms of solicitors with others playing their parts sought and attempted to convert rents due to alleged legal costs proper via ABUSE OF THE LEGAL AID facilities and the Court’s processes. The attempts lead subsequently to both solicitors and the Court receiving, from the property owner and the agent of the property, copy of a Court of Appeal ruling which the alleged legal experts and professionals ought not to have overlooked in their quest to convert rents owing (a Default Summons case, also) to legal costs arising out of allegedly justifiable Court proceedings.The attempts by the solicitors ceased and the Legal Aid Board acted appropriately in that instance following representations by the ‘intended victim’.

          (b)      The defendants even failed to justify their failures to remit regularly rents even at £145 per week which FACT the submitted and filed at Court documented evidence clearly evinces; no one let alone the Defendants can evade that simple fact, not least an alleged ‘judicious person’.

          (c)      The claim rests and is founded on unpaid rents; as such it is established by and through the documented evidence filed at Court.

          (d)      The rents claimed are founded and rest on the amounts paid by the Department of Social Security (not the contracted rents) for and in respect of occupation of the property by the Defendants under the terms of Tenancy Agreements through and under which the Defendants secured and benefit from, by occupation of the property and secured also the remittances from the department of social security and Central Government.  

          (e)      The balance claimed as outstanding in the amount of £4808,00 (for the period 17 February 1997 to 12 July 1998) was not and cannot be challenged in any form and or manner by the Defendants of their own and or through their solicitors AND OR ANY OTHER such as the hijacking, railroading and malign individuals who summarily dismissed applications and ignored the evidence filed and presented to them as well as the arguments presented to them (through the affidavits and exhibits filed); obstructing the Plaintiff and or his Attorney in the prosecution of the case through abuses of public office in no way justifies the intent not to enter judgement in the case at hand because of undeclared policies or other ulterior motives by Public servants who purportedly acted judiciously in the performance of their public duties while ignoring the EVIDENCE filed is inexcusable and unjustified as herein above and below re-iterated. 

          (f)       Any alleged counterclaim arising out of the use of the property by the Defendants consequential to and or as a result of any alleged problems with the property is a non starter by virtue of the fact that the Defendants had already pleaded and filed at Court alleged expenditure for and in respect of maintenance of the property by allegedly utilising £20 per week from the Housing Benefit funds they received for and towards the alleged maintenance of the property.  The Defendants themselves introduced and pleaded such matters of their own in the case; NO ONE could ever rely on any amended and or concocted fabrications to create the theatrical productions intended through abuse of office by District Judge Silverman and his ‘suggested’ scenario. In the final analysis only idiots and persons lacking common sense could accept such duplicity, allegations and assertions from the Defendants which only a split personality could advance and thereafter anticipate and or expect of others to entertain and or promote at Court, unless ‘party to the theatre’.

          (g)      The defendants further alleged outgoings in respect of alleged repairs to the Central Heating system; the allegations AFTER they were Summonsed to Court because they failed to remit and or bank rents due (the Housing Benefit received after release of same consequential to submitting to the Benefits Agency the new Tenancy Agreement dated 27th October 1997). And the defendants pleaded the alleged outgoings ONLY as an afterthought to their initial Pleadings. The Defendants GOING AS FAR AS TO ALLEGE that they had no proof that such work was executed because, allegedly, they had given to the Plaintiff such invoice/invoices as they had secured for the alleged repairs to the Central Heating. Worse, the alleged work to the system they alleged cost £1100 well in excess of the value (50% higher) of the most expensive item, the Boiler itself.  And the repairs allegedly done at a time when no Housing Benefit was remitted to and or was received by the Defendants from the Local Authority and or from any other; the allegation in itself raising many a question such  as (i) where from the funds used? (ii) who authorised the alleged repairs to the system? and (iii) who the professional who charged such high costs for the alleged repairs to the system?  And while the Defendants were pleading such matters at Court they were at the same time also declaring to third parties that the Central heating boiler was inoperative. Worse, the Defendants were failing to report such allegations to the Plaintiff and or to the managing agents of the property.

          (h)      the defendants failing to remit rents, failing also to justify the discrepancy between banked and received funds did seek to and in fact obstructed the Plaintiff’s agents to attend to, view, inspect and deal with the problems which the Defendants introduced through third parties by claiming and asserting that they knew not of the existence of the managing agent (as their solicitor in his only communication promoted on 9th June 1998);  thereafter and for weeks persistently and unjustifiably acting in breach of the terms of the Tenancy Agreements between the parties hereto obstructing access to the property while relying on Court officers (such as Deputy District Judge Kolbe) to abuse office and obstruct and violate rights of access to Justice and Property, public servant negating in his public duties, to block and obstruct access to the property by summarily dismissing the application for an Order ordering the Defendants to cease obstructing authorised contractors and the members of staff of the managing agents to attend to the problems complained of by the Defendants and for the managing agents to execute their contractual obligations to the Plaintiff in the management of  the property that belongs to the Plaintiff, not to the Defendants, not to the Local Authority and or any other inclusive of the offending and obstructing persons who have so far acted in breach of their public duties, the rules of procedure and the rights of the plaintiff which they grossly violated at will and for other ulterior motives as herein above and below pleaded and stated.

AND THE PLAINTIFF WILL SEEK THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:-

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

To the 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

 

 

Case Number   ED 802079

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

APPEAL

 BY THE PLAINTIFF

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Yiannides (L.A.G)

Diamond Lettings

365 High Road

Wood Green

London N22 4JA


Link to:   Haringey Council   Local Authority Staff, Violations   'The LAW'  The FACTS

Link to:   The Police - Forgeries  Stephen Lawrence - our Challenge  

Revised: June 20, 2012

Back To HomePage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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