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 to 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 nothing 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 ignore 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,
KEY PageChanges 12 Dec. 2005
||VICTIMS CHALLENGE - Banking Fraud *
Page Created August 2002 *
|Page ISSUES - List
1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Trustee In Bankruptcy
3. Police Ignore Law/Victims 4.
Solicitors Breach LAW
5. Court Facilities Abused
6. Lawyers SLAMMED
7. Bank Victims On Line
8. " "
On Line 2
9. " "
On Line 3
10. " "
On Line 4
11. " "
On Line 5
13. " "
On Line 7 14. "
15. " "
On Line 9
16. " "
On Line 10
18. " "
On Line 13
Read the Challenges & Legal
Argument by and for the Chairman of Live Beat Dads uk.org. Do not fail to note the rights
pleaded (par. 5.a & 5.b) in the case of a relationship gone astray,
merely because the other side felt the urge and need for a change of partner. Thereafter
ONE & ALL decided to use the innocent children as the vehicle for use in and for the
conversion of assets industries, a division of CIUKU
|We invite you to take
part in DATA collection in the areas covered by The CAMILA Project.
Your own contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are active now & to
all others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by using the rights we
point to, assured in law.
it all? For help contact : Struggle
Against Financial Exploitation
|IMPORTANT Announcements Announcement- July 2002
Proceedings ARE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR ACCESS TO BY THE PUBLIC. Justice to be
seen to be done. NO SECRET SCAMS and theatrics behind closed doors.
2. Beware of Mischief Makers operating as and or for the Divide & Rule Brigade. Do not be misled by self- appointed 'gurus' such as
we cover in the pages /2lipstalk.htm
& /chaldep1.htm who aim to serve the Fraudsters
Club as in /confraud.htm (the page) either
from within or as guided (by the abductors and rapists of Justice) mischief making
recruits to and for the 'fraudsters club'. Such persons come up with all sorts of
poor excuses, as to why victims should not publish their statements of facts and their
evidence in personal web-sites and use their rights as provided by Law. Such persons
advise victims to ignore the only facility that provides TRULY OPEN COURTS FOR ALL TO NOTE
/ RECOGNISE. Facilities no one can obstruct as the abductors and rapists of Justice and
their stooges seek to maintain for ever and in perpetuity to carry on treating that
citizens as serfs through their established practices. (Link)
3. READ the affidavit we publish in
our pages, as was submitted some years ago in the course of challenging the fraudulent
activities at and through the Local County Court, FOR & IN the Housing Benefit THEFTS
and conversion to legal costs through similar indulgences and practices as covered in this
update: 20 Jun 2012 : New layout
& links to and from other pages / web-sites - IN THIS PAGE : LIST
|Site reconstruction; ongoing work includes new
pages and material to existing pages plus links to & from pages / other web-sites
VISITORS ARE URGED to
access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged
to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT
THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY; our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds,
in which the LIPS introduction was engaging, made us accessories if we kept quiet.Many the
alleged victims who work towards the implementation of 'the schemes organised by the
abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. Some even arrange to end up in prison
in order to set up operations and to act as the inmate we received information of and
about from one John Harper who has not updated us on the issues he reported. You will find
the addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that you will
share with us our concerns and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt
and promote activities which they know are nothing but downright crimes.
We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as
conscientious law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between
Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET. We emphasise the fact that the scheme
could not possibly be maintained without the readiness of maintenance engineers of the
mentality of charlatans and fraudsters of the LIPS crowd/mob and their affiliate
associates managing other fraudsters club recruits.
|Guidelines on Navigating through the
extensive material: access instructions, use
the search facility, contact webmaster@
Argument, published below, was lodged at court
on Appeal from the order of HH DJ Lethem who sat in on a case that arose out of:
<>1. False accounting records created and
entered into by the staff and officers of the Midland Bank Plc before it was taken over by
2. The bank did not maintain the accounts
the victims had with the Midland Bank in accordance with the terms the Clients AGREED to
with the bank and its officers, leading to claims against the bank. The citizens
were targeted and treated just like all other victims of institutionalised and organised
Fraud & Corruption, care of the Law Enforcement Agencies maintained by successive
United Kingdom Governments. God knows for how many centuries.
3. FULL PARTICULARS AND THE EVIDENCE
will be published by the victims in their Community On Line web-site.
The defendants and their solicitors had constructive knowledge of the fact that
AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATED the accounts maintained by the defendants. The authorities
reported the facts and the realities to the Claimants - THE VICTIMS - of the defendants
and their staff/agents who, evidently, were/are free to indulge in contempt of
Parliament's Law. In view of the afore stated circumstances, the solicitors, the police
and the court established, yet again, the modus operandi of the 'Merchants Of Misery' © as acceptable and proper, in
an alleged democracy that allegedly rests and is founded on principles of Law & Order.
The arguments, below, are BORN OF THE
FACTS stated and supported by authoritative documented evidence. As such the Claimants
cases are FOUNDED & REST ON LAW. The challenges, naturally, arose out of 'the script
for more of the same' as created and elaborated upon by HH DJ Lethem.
Note: The underlined words 'Paragraph +
number' refer to the paragraphs by number in the transcript of the judgement deliberations
that was secured from the court 'at cost', naturally. Milking
the victims, citizens who seek justice in the courts maintained by CIUKU Enterprises,
entails such facilities BY and for the benefit of the administrators of the courts'
service and for the legal circles. Treating the hard working and frugal as Serfs, appears
to be the principle behind the practices. Their motto most certainly must be:
- WE TAKE" - through abuse of public office, naturally; never
mind the law you have been fooled into believing it was
ever meant to be applied, especially for the likes of an outsider, like you. INSIDER
DEALING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME, wake-up, THIS IS CIUKU Enterprises!
only has to consider the complacency, the reckless abandon and contempt for law and
evidence by the investigative branch of the law. They exhibited, in the instance at hand,
their capabilities in much the same manner as in the most graphic of examples, in the
"death" of Stephen Lawrence. That classic case, led to the most revealing of
'inquiries'. It arose out of the practices and the capabilities of such 'public servants'
in our allegedly 'civilised(?) society(!). Of such TANGENT EXERCISES the main
pre-occupation of 'the directors of police investigations' while criminal activities by
the operatives of the legal system keep 'the legal circles and fraternity', in
FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM
is big business in our country and it flourishes always at the expense of the meek and the
weak who have nowhere to turn to because of the arrangements between the operators of the
legal system and the police.
In February 2002, we
reported blunt constructive frauds, on the budget, to the Treasury; the criminal
activities through the courts' services, as we cover in our explicit pages. The
government, appears to have taken steps in the right direction by appointing the Rt. Hon.
Paul Boateng to the Treasury. We look forward to the government delivering upon the
promises it made in 1995, whilst in opposition. The issues that members of the
*human-rights.org Community On Line* state and publish, with the evidence in support, as
in the case attached to the Skeleton Argument, below, cover and arise out of blatant and arrogant criminal activities for theft and conversion of assets / properties in breach of national and international Law. [*Link from here to the Skeleton Argument Document -
For Appalling Service [Weekly
Post 30th August 2002]
|The interesting article below
raises many a hope. It is only after PROPER ACTIONS are taken, as opposed to words
published with no real intent to deal with the issues, that results ensue. The latter
transpired in 1998 when the deputy then, and present, Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police was meant to investigate "The untouchables" and
grave issues, such as we cover in our pages and victims of crime, as members of the
Community On Line publish details and evidence of. [*Link to an important article in the London Evening
Standard in September 1999]
- A revolution in the way legal services are
provided is urgently needed after new research has demonstrated that consumers are still
being given a second rate service by their lawyers.
- Forty-six per cent of those surveyed by polling
group ICM described their solicitor as "arrogant", "slow",
"incompetent" or "dishonest".
- No less than 48 per cent thought that the service
they received from their solicitor was poor value for money, while as many as 24 per cent
thought that their legal adviser was positively untrustworthy.
- Last year the director General of Fair Trading
called for the prompt removal of the "unjustified restrictions" in Solicitors
The status quo was also
attacked recently by a cross-party group of MPs. An early day motion tabled in May
"censured the Law Society for making no substantial progress to reform these archaic
© FREE Weekly POST, North London, Issue 200 of 30th August 2002
|The above article / press release as published, months late,
raises some simple questions:
||WHY, so late?
||WHY publish the report after we pointed to the fact that....
||WHY 'direct the media' to oblige and report to 'the serfs', 'the
injustices & arrogant crimes against humanity', ONLY AFTER citizens act as THEIR
OBLIGATIONS TO SOCIETY COMMAND & the conscientious USE THEIR RIGHTS by reporting the
arrogant and blunt criminal activities in the Public Domain?
|Billions of compensation
paid by the state because of negligence, oversight, mistakes, errors
& constructive frauds by public servants. [*Link to organised fraud
through the courts]
- READ of the facts attached to practices we
point to and state. [An organised network of
- Peruse the evidence we draw attention to
and clarify. [A
solicitor as a school friend, a fellow Hellene indulges at the expense of his client
and relies on the network to expand the criminal activities he engaged in, all in contempt
of all law]
- Consider the attached law that is breached
by the legal circles with blunt intent.
- Consider the fact that such activities -
criminal in intent - ARE entertained by the courts.
- YOU DECIDE of the elements and WHY NO
MENTION of the areas we cover in our pages and we reported to the Treasury in February
2002, after we caught an alleged victim who had been
and carried on collaborating with the legal circles and abusers of public office.
- Her own scenarios and the crocodile tears
by 'the fraudsters' club recruit' WITH the arrangements for under the counter, the
undeclared THEFTS OF & PLUNDERING / MISUSE OF TAX PAYERS FUNDS, UPPERMOST in her
MIND. [*Link to
the fraudster's blunt parts]
true facts are never in the published story BUT in what is SUPPRESSED" (AY 1972)
|Read the affidavit [*Link to
the explicit statement of facts] we settled and submitted to a court some years ago. We also sent
it, as a hint and warning to persons who were seen to be acting in devious ways and had
engaged in undisclosed activities with shysters, all noted to be engaging in double talk,
deceitful activities and very pro-active in behind the scenes interference deeply involved
in maligned / evil tactics, as typical members of the fraudsters' club we recognised as
long ago as 1992 [*Link to the letter].
|In the Daily
Telegraph of 2nd. August 2002 the following realisations:
scandals are like the US's
they're in the public sector
Trefgarne says Europe's mismanagement is legendary
The article text can be accessed below in
HTML for links to and from the facts.
||We apologise to the Daily Telegraph for changing the text to a three
QUOTE:"Do with, by and for yourself, that which pleases
you, as long as that which you do does not infringe upon or violate the rights of any
other" A.Yiannides 1975
above Skeleton Argument was copied and is featured at sites which Mr. H. Roffey set-up as
an independent victim. We wished and wish him and his wife the best and drew / draw his
attention to the root of all problems that the sons of men have been benefiting from(!).
Subjected to and caused to act as selfish and self-assured Davids who aim to bring Goliath
down alone, happens to be the true situation, here. Persons who accessed the root of the 'divide and conquer / rule' ploys SHOULD
ACCESS FROM HERE the classical teachings that the founder of Human-Rights.Org was nurtured
on as a child. It is for the average victim-citizen to contact Mr Andrew Yiannides firstname.lastname@example.org and to
state which teachings would / should be the foundations of any civilised society? We
request that you read also the quote in the left panel and consider the message it is
meant to convey to humans : thinkers.
& REWARDS paid out by the state.... BILLIONS!
|On the right
official Press Release, after our reports to:
1. The Treasury,
2. The Home Office
3. The Prime Minister
4. The Press
evidence of which we published in a page, *linked to from
here, in February 2002. YET alleged challengers of the organised fraud through the
courts, instigated and executed, simply SHOVED their heads in the sand, as typical lovers
of it all. [*Link to re]
||XOX Link to the text of the article in the right pane.
HARRY A ROFFEY
HSBC BANK PLC
SKELETON ARGUMENT LODGED AT COURT
AS COVERED IN THE INTRODUCTION BELOW
IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED
- This document is submitted to Court pursuant to an Order issued by HH DJ Lethem sitting
at Tunbridge County Court on 2nd July 2002 that gave rise to an appeal lodged
at the court on ……………………
- The appeal as lodged at ………………………………… and all subsequent
communications and exchanges from and with the court are subject to clarification and
justifications by the Court, and the participants in the proceedings, on the following
2.1 The proceedings were issued out of The High Court,
the Queens Bench Division, Bristol District Registry, by a firm of solicitors (Lawson
Crutthenden & Co. of 10-11 Grays Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD) under Claim No.
BS950367, who were acting for the Claimant, Mr. Harry A Roffey. A claim in respect of the
same causes of action, against the same defendants, was issued by the claimant Mrs. Carole
Roffey. The solicitors acting for Mr Roffey thereafter undertook to act also for Mrs.
2.2 Conveniently the aforesaid firm of solicitors did
nothing and acted in concert with the Defendants solicitors, who themselves conveniently
defaulted to act as the Claims that were served on their clients commanded.
2.3 The aforesaid clearly evince the usual practices that amount to
nothing but organised ‘set-ups’ for fraudulent activities, by the legal circles at and
through the courts, in contempt of the law, and in particular Article 29 of the Combined
Treaties of the European Union.
- Further to the above stated, indisputable and documented facts, HH
DJ Lethem sitting on the case placed, by the court, before him on 15th March
2002, and notwithstanding the aforementioned realisation, HH DJ Lethem determined that the
‘targeted claimants should not qualify from any assistance for the purposes of ‘the
matters before the court on the day’. On application to the
court, the instigator and organiser of the scenario (as planned for ‘and imposed,
through defaults’, on the claimants, by the legal circles) HH DJ Lethem determined that
they should be free to walk out of their creation after appearing in a secret session
before HH DJ Lethem. The aforesaid paving the way for the usual practices by the legal
circles who invariably benefit from the established ‘free for all’ activities many a
citizen are dumped in by ‘the free to act outside the law, abusers of the courts
facilities, as endorsed and promoted by persons who purportedly act as public servants and
as alleged impartial adjudicators in the courts ‘as maintained by the Lord Chancellor
and his department’.
- The appeal referred to above, was set in motion following
additional issues that arose on 2nd July 2002, as a consequence of and to a
hearing by and before HH DJ Lethem. The issues commanded and call for additional
clarification by the Court Manager and the Court itself, in view of the fact that:
4.1. Documents issued by the court were under the heading ‘The
Tunbridge Wells County Court’, business, that commanded and command clarification as to
how and when an application and in particular which party applied for and secured transfer
of the actions / claims to the County Court and when.
4.2. In respect of the above, further and ADDITIONAL issues arise and
command the attention of the court. A full account is called for as to how an assumed
County Court (claim / case) number and a High Court (case) number are/were covered and as
a result of when, what and which preliminaries, if any, and who determined amalgamation
and or hearing in common of the issues that arose, following the convenient arrangements
and defaults between and by the legal circles over a period of almost two years of ‘asserted
and relied upon’ inactivity that led to the scenarios before HH DJ Lethem.
4.3. The aforesaid further command that the issue of how an application
that was clearly endorsed and accepted by the Court staff (rubber stamp: Her Majesty’s
High Court Of Justice – District Registry Tunbridge Wells) when lodged on 3:11:99)
was/is used for the purposes of hearings(?) before HH DJ Lethem and presumed to ever have
been part of any County Court claim/case.
- The Transcript of the hearing on 15th
March 2002, that eventually was secured (after long delays) evinces the facts stated above
and command justification and explanations by the court and the Lord Chancellor in respect
of the issues raised above and covered below in respect of the appeal warranted and called
for following the arrogant activities of and by persons who ignore statutory provisions,
act in breach and contempt of the law and violated the rights of the Claimants assured in
national and European Union Law in addition to International Treaties and accords that
successive United Kingdom Governments subscribed to for and on behalf of Her Majesty and
the United Kingdom citizens.
SKELETON & LEGAL ARGUMENTS
ARISING OUT OF THE PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES
PERTAINING TO RAILROADED / HIJACKED COURT PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION TO TERMS USED:
- The term ‘defendants’ hereinafter includes the staff, the officers and all
persons who acted and are acting as agents for and in respect of the defendants HSBC Plc,
the successors in the business of Midland Bank Plc.
- In view of the fact that the claimant Mrs. Carole Roffey was dumped, as an abandoned and
targeted victim, by the solicitors who purportedly had acted in the interests of both
claimants, the submissions hereto are to be treated as submissions by both claimants who
object and resent the presumed rights of and by public servants, to discard by the wayside
statutory provisions that cover and apply to the activities the legal circles indulged and
indulge in, in contempt of the law, national and international.
- The submissions hereto are lodged at court by, for and on behalf of both claimants. Copy
will be served on the Official Receiver who was not contacted by the solicitors who were
acting for the Claimant Mr Harry A Roffey, for it appears that the Official Receiver has
set himself up as an obstructer to justice and as an accessory and abettor to the
inexcusable and unjustified, if not downright fraudulent activities of the defendants and
the solicitors. All acting in contempt of the law that provides for the protection of
citizens who reside within the area of and or individual member states of the European
- The appeal, whether treated, by the court, as a straight appeal or as an application for
leave to appeal, is found and rests on substantive grounds of law that applies to the
facts, the events and the activities pleaded and stated to and as a result of events that
arose at and in the court below. In particular the following issues arise under the
headings, for each paragraph of the judgement delivered by HH DJ Lethem on 2nd
- Paragraph 2. The court and in particular HH DJ Lethem was fully
aware of the circumstances and the conditions imposed on the claimants by the solicitors
the claimants had retained and instructed on the matters before the court. In the
circumstances, all failures to address the issues arising out of the events and facts
stated, constituted and constitute denial of rights and access to unadulterated and
natural justice, through contempt of the law put in place by parliaments for the
protection of the citizens from crime and criminals.
- Paragraph 3. Acknowledgement of the existence and reference to the
bundles of evidence lodged, referred to and perused by the court, introduce the element
of: "Due and diligent consideration of the weight of the evidence" in support of
the undisputed and unavoidable fact that the defendants relied on false accounting in the
first instance, as pleaded in the Statements of Claim. In addition, the discovery of and
disclosure to the claimants, by authorities on the issues, of the fact that the defendants
were overcharging and mismanaging the accounts of the claimants led to the institution of
the proceedings/claims against the defendant and a challenge for and a test for the
operators in control of the law enforcement agencies.
- Paragraph 6. The offers referred to by HH DJ Lethem, were subject
to the terms and conditions as contracted subsequently, and not as selectively
misrepresented in the judgement, appealed from. Reliance on the use of and the
misrepresentation of just one of the contracted terms, that allegedly gave rise to
implementation of an ‘on demand term’ was and remains an abuse of the relied upon
term, and the reliance was and remains blunt contempt of the applicable law that covers
the use of false instruments leading to demands with menaces, harassment, threats and
intimidation, AS A RESULT OF THE FALSE ACCOUNTING SCHEME deployed by the defendants, as
discovered and reported by the authorities who investigated and reported, to the
claimants, the bank account records as maintained by the defendants. The report of the
professional experts, the authorities referred to was in the bundles of documented
evidence and in the circumstances no justifiable grounds and or reasons subsist upon which
to state, plead or rely on any alleged legal and or ‘judicial services to the citizens’,
especially as organised and dispensed with by the participants in the scenarios covered in
the instance at hand. Furthermore any attempts to further ignore the documented evidence,
the authoritative report covering the false accounting practices as indulged into and or
as recklessly were maintained by the defendants and any attempts to ignore the provisions
of law (Theft Acts) will constitute obstructions to justice. Reliance on ‘constructively
engineered mistakes’ and or on the usual manifestations by the legal professions in
order to deny access to untainted justice was and remains unacceptable and leads to
conscious participation in activities used as obstructions to justice, that in themselves
constitute criminal offences.
- Paragraph 7. The contractual obligations of the claimants were
subject to normal business transactions and the banking / loan facilities that were
established over a number of years, as conceded by the defendants and referred to by the
court. The properties secured, as referred to in the judgement, were not put at risk
because of poor business performance. The properties were targeted, by the defendants and
‘conversion to and for the benefit of other parties’ was only through and because of
the mismanagement technique and the false accounting schemes the defendants indulged in
and or recklessly maintained, as alleged professionals. No participant in the original
scenario, as orchestrated by the defendants, denied and or disputed the findings and the
report that led to the institution of the proceedings. No participant in the subsequent
scenarios following the report of the authorities, on the accounting practices of the
defendants, ever disputed the report and or offered to make good the mistakes that were
not in accordance with the terms offered by the defendants and as accepted by the
claimants and as contracted between the parties hereto. No consideration for the
afore-stated facts appears to have been part of the deliberations in the judgement as
delivered by HH DJ Lethem. In the circumstances the solicitors appear to have relied on
endorsement of their practices, by the court, in and through the usual manifestations
where any other but the crux of the matter is of any real consideration by the lower
courts (refer to 4.3 above) in our country.
- Paragraph 8. The defendants’ assertion that the claimants could
not carry on servicing the loan facility, as contracted, was and remains ill founded. All
parties who endorsed and or adopted that view are called to strict proof that such was the
case. (Refer to Elman –v- Myers HoL case – 1939/40 ). Ignoring the authoritative
reports by the professionals retained by the claimants, subsequent to the constructively
engineered theft of properties, through use of and reliance upon false instruments is the
centre piece of the present manifestation as entered into and deployed by the legal
circles in contempt of criminal law and European Union law attached to and pertaining to
provisions for the protection of all citizens, who reside within the European Union, from
fraud and corruption.
- Paragraph 9. Reference to the stated facts that the defendants had
used and or relied on false accounting in order to bring pressure to bear on the claimants
and were caused to act ‘as induced and forced to do’ as the defendants demanded
through intimidation, harassment and threats with menaces, and only because of the
security and leverage powers the defendants held on the claimants, who were not aware, at
the time, of the mismanagement of the bank accounts maintained by the defendants, in no
way constitutes ‘diligent reference to the facts and the law applicable to the
indisputable and documented facts’ in the instance at hand. Refer to printout of the
explicit pages published on the Internet (pages 1 - 7 and in particular the paragraph
covering the duty of the judiciary in the British legal system at the top of page two.).
- Paragraph 10. Of " …they determined on a course of action
to put him out of business". The claimants made it abundantly clear that there exist
audio recordings whereby an agent/member of senior staff, in the employee of the
defendants, stated to Mr Roffey that indeed the objective of the defendants had been to
cause the claimants to act as the defendants had determined. That the police ignored
expert and professional authorities on the creation and use of the false accounting
technique and the resultant instruments ‘used by persons stated to have targeted the
claimants’ properties’ may create excuses for other public servants to turn a blind
eye, is understandable and unacceptable in a civilised society stated to be resting and
founded on principles of law and order. That the legal circles ignore the law and
provisions of the Theft Acts, in order to create work for themselves and to generate ‘through
civil proceedings’ income for themselves (by acting in contempt of parliament’s law)
is also understandable and just as unacceptable. That public servants, who are retained to
serve and administer parliament’s law, yet elect to ignore the existence of documented
evidence and the applicable law, is not simply unacceptable but condemnable.
- Paragraph 11. Of " After the service of the notice of demand
in November 1993" and the persistent use and reference to the allegedly legitimate
demand, as if justified and legitimately used within the context as ‘accepted by the
claimants, at the time, because of the false accounting instruments in no way constitutes
proper and legitimate reference to the scenario imposed and as created by the defendants.
Furthermore use of the aforementioned event implies assumed reliance by one and all to
hinge on the event, the date and the time referred to as if a legitimate basis for the
assertions and the promotions of the legal circles as evinced in oral exchanges,
correspondence, the transcripts attached to the proceedings and in particular to the
succinctly stated ‘reliance in paragraph 15 of the judgement deliberations, hereto
below. The aforesaid reliance rests on false grounds and is in contempt of the explicit
provisions that parliament put in place in respect of matters borne of concealment,
deceit, misrepresentation (fraudulent or otherwise) and especially as regards to matters
arising as of ‘date of discovery and confirmation of errors and mistakes that previously
were not known to the party claiming and or were concealed by the party against whom
claims are and can be lodged only after discovery of the actionable wrong. (Refer to the
pages published at and printed from the human-rights, Internet web site).
- Paragraph 12. Of ".. there is a certain amount of evidence to
show that she was in very vulnerable health, and secondly that she went into hospital very
shortly after the events….". There can be no doubt as to the facts stated and
covered by HH DJ Lethem, just as there can be no dispute that the claimants can rely on a
precedent case whereby the Court of Appeal determined that a police woman who was being
taunted by her colleagues, was awarded well over two hundred thousand pounds for ‘her
hurt feelings’, a far cry from the suffering, the physical pain and the agony imposed on
the claimants by and through the vile and unacceptable activities of the defendants.
Furthermore there can be and arise no issue of any attempts to further discriminate
against the claimants through breaches of national law and furtherance of the denial of
rights in contempt of Articles 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1
of the First Protocol of same.
- Paragraph 13. Of "..Mr Roffey’s business was sold to his
sons at an under-value which is alleged to be £200,000.". The aforesaid sale was
with assistance and through participation of the defendants. They provided the sons with a
loan facility that was no different in terms of the funds called for, than the funds the
claimants themselves had committed themselves to and with the defendants. The aforesaid
facts and the funding facilities, allegedly to ‘a failing business’ introduced
additional elements the defendants cannot escape and or run away from, unless there be
further and additional abuse of the courts’ facilities, by the legal circles, through
contempt of the documented evidence supporting the facts stated. In the alternative
contempt of and for the law applicable in the case at hand may prove to have been and be
the case. The defendants will be hard pressed to explain and or justify how an allegedly
failing business was to service the same loan facility at a higher rate of interest. The
claimants to all intents and purposes were being charged eight and a quarter per cent -
three percent above base rate. The sons were induced to contract at a higher and fixed
rate of interest, ten point four-seven per cent. In the circumstances either the
defendants were anticipating collapse of the business and aiming for the conversion of the
second property through the additional service costs (imposed higher rate of interest) or
their staff and agents were acting recklessly and irresponsibly by being called upon to
justify ‘risk capital’ facilities to the sons of the claimants and or to the claimants
the defendants the obvious discrimination in the provision of similar facilities.
- Paragraphs 14 & 15. Of the reliance and use of the dates
referred to, as the alleged cut-off dates for the purposes of Statutory Limitation, the
claimants plead their rights as covered by Sections 14 and 32 of the Limitations Act 1980,
and the Latent Damages Act 1986.
- Paragraph 16 & 17. Of "… reference to the report of
Anglian Business Associates …… specifically pleaded …. but it was not
served". The aforesaid facts, as stated, introduce the element of constructive
knowledge, the defendants benefited from. In the circumstances no reliance can be placed
on any other to aid and or abet the defendants and or their legal representatives for
failing to ensure that they had a defence to the claims against them (by conducting their
own investigations, in respect of the pleaded ‘higher than as contracted rates of
interest, charged to the claimants accounts) and or that their clients acknowledged the
wrong practices and or the mistakes of their clients, as pleaded, and that they offered to
make good their mistakes and or errors. By the same token the defendants’ solicitors
will be hard pressed to justify and or explain away their own defaults and omissions
unless by virtue of acquired knowledge that their clients had acted as the claimants
pleaded but they were entitled to benefit from the protection afforded them by virtue of
the attempted and indulged into fraudulent court proceedings that arose out of the
convenient defaults, omissions and arrangements at and through the co-operating, in the
scams, members of the legal professions and circles, as evinced in the proceedings
- Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 & 21. Of ".. there was
correspondence… it fizzled out in June 2000, …. granting the defendant an open ended
extension for the filing of the defence… . The aforesaid may well constitute an abuse of
the court’s processes by officers of the Supreme Court, who are licensed by the Law
Society to act in such fashion and manner as the Office for the Supervision of
Solicitors endorses and promotes through defaults and arrogant omissions care of the
police and invariably persons who act in a judicial capacity and elect to ignore the
documented evidence and the law applicable, in cases taken before the courts only to be
treated in much the same fashion and manner as the case and events / practices attached
hereto, establish and evince. Of "… he pleads the various agreements ….. not
surprisingly Ms Daubney in her statements says that is not admitted …" . The
pleaded facts and the claims arising rest and are founded on documented evidence. No
amount of prevarication, misdirection and reliance on abuse of public office can change
the facts or suppress the evidence in the instance at hand. A simple examination of the
report prepared and submitted by Anglian Business Associates and a preliminary hearing on
that simple element should suffice in the instance at hand. All other issues are
consequential and arise out of the pleaded mismanagement of the bank accounts, and the
higher rates of interest charged / debited to the accounts by the defendants. Servicing
justice ought not to be through wild dances around the mulberry bush but identification of
‘the elements’ that isolate and extinguish all other immaterial factors that are
introduced and or created by the legal circles, simply for the generation of income and
the corruption / perversion of justice as in the instance at hand.
- Paragraph 22. Of "… that is an allegation which must be
tested at trial …. & either Anglian … got it right and the bank got it wrong &
it would be for a trial judge to decide, having heard the evidence & whether this has
a real as opposed fanciful prospect of success…". No amount of beating about the
bush, waffle and or evasive tactics can remove the central issue that rests and is founded
on simple arithmetic and calculations of interest as it applied at all relevant times can
divert the action and claim into other areas. Any hearing as to evidence, AFTER
establishing the validity or not of the claimants’ case. Such a hearing will only be
warranted in respect of any disputes as to the manner in which the calculation of
consequential losses and damages shall be determined as to validity and extent. No
fanciful juxtapositions apply and or can be considered as legitimate areas calling for
- Paragraph 23. Of "…was on demand borrowing…". Normal
banking practices applied and apply. Only as upon good cause and reasons use of the
aforesaid term. Resort to such a measure only as a justifiable measure and not as an
excuse for targeting the properties of clients in breach of contracted business
arrangements and or in breach of national law as herein and above covered (refer to 8). Of
".. feels he should have been given …. time to ….". The aforesaid
establishes the simple fact that the claimant was simply convinced that the defendants
were correct in their representations, founded and resting on the balances of the bank
accounts maintained by the defendants. In the premises the claimants are entitled to
expect and demand of the court that the Defendants and or their solicitors duly consider
the submitted report, as prepared by Anglian Business Associates, and that the defendants,
through their solicitors, either agree or dispute the figures as presented by ABA.
- Paragraph 24. Of " … it seems to me that …. whether or
not the account is being misconducted or not.… the law will give effect to the bargain….
as per the terms… ". The aforesaid assertion implies that HH DJ Lethem ignores the
word and term ‘misconduct’ in a legal context and or that reckless abandon by banking
institutions was/is acceptable to the public at large and that the business community in
the United Kingdom is made up of morons who are naïve enough to sign up to implied and or
chameleon type terms that can be misinterpreted and or given different coloration than
what is normally acceptable and not the foundation for unconscionable bargains that can be
rendered void when used by the unscrupulous in order to secure unfair advantages at the
expense of the unsuspecting and or persons who subsequently are treated by persons who act
as alleged ‘judicious’ persons in the manner exhibited by H H DJ Lethem.
- Paragraph 25 & 26. Of "…if I look at it in the tort of
negligence … It is certainly arguable …. it is probably unarguable…. the bank owed a
duty of care … to conduct the account in a good and orderly fashion …. Crediting and
debiting … the correct figures". Negligence? Limitations Acts! Endorsement! Not
condemnation for undisclosed and ‘implied’ rights arising out of chameleon terms! as
presented by HH DJ Lethem? The simple fact IS AND REMAINS that if as reported and
presented by Anglian Business Associates, the defendants HAD mismanaged the bank accounts
and thus they were manipulating the figures and balance to the accounts. Through such
activities LEADING TO THE DEMANDS WITH MENACES, the intimidation, the harassment and the
threats that induced the claimants to act as they pleaded, thus to appear as ‘voluntarily
and or willingly TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THEIR ASSETS, AS IMPOSED through the scenarios
created by the defendants, to the detriment of the claimants. That being the case all
other juxtapositions and scenarios, are but inexcusable and unjustified scripts for income
generation in the interests of the legal circles who invariably silver line their pockets
through never ending court applications and appearances as created by the very circles.
- Paragraph 27. Of ".. it is not fanciful to allow those claims
to go before a trial judge ….. to make of it what they can". The facts of the case
against the defendants rest and are founded on the events covered in the above paragraph.
No other scenario but the issue of acceptance or not of the core element and whether the
debits and credits to the accounts were in accordance with the terms of the contract
endorsed by the claimants. The aforesaid elementary and primary issue is but the starting
point any diligent servant of justice was and is bound to consider first and foremost. All
other juxtapositions are but the usual income generation practices by and through the
courts, the abusers of the legal system. .
- Paragraph 28. Of "..whether pressure was applied… the
reality .. they were put into a forced sale situation…. They sold at much less than the
property was worth". Recognition and acceptance of the aforesaid need only be
considered as secondary issues AFTER THE DEFENDANTS are invited and or caused, by the
court to attend to and or to deal with the primary issue, whether or not the defendants
maintained the accounts in accordance with the terms they contracted with the claimants.
- Paragraph 29. Of "unsustainable… unsupportable….
memorandum… meeting & Mr Roffey … going to sell the property". Ill conceived
assertions founded on the need to maintain a constant check on the valuation of the
property in order to ensure the bank was more than adequately covered. Memorandum notes
NOT ENDORSED by the claimant, as factual and or genuine, not out of context, assumed to be
contemporaneous records, cannot be used in any attempts that are intended to create and
generate theatrical productions in contempt of the single core issue and element, namely
the debits and credits to the accounts maintained by the defendants.
- Paragraphs 30 & 31. Of "…he accepted … in order to
keep the manager happy…. later …. In fact the entry had been fabricated" AND of
" .. authenticity may be challenged at the trial". Irrelevant and immaterial
when accepted and or established that the defendants were not debiting and crediting the
bank accounts in accordance with the contracted terms. The arguments in the above
paragraph apply. The core element and the ONLY REAL ISSUE, simply, the accounts maintained
by the defendants. The issue will not and cannot be catapulted into oblivion, nor can the
issues arising thereof be suppressed and or be ignored through misdirection and or through
attempts to deny and obstruct justice as indulged and entertained.
- Paragraph 32. Of ".. if I reach the stage of ….not a case
… no reasonable grounds … not going to get home in damages" AND of ." ..
breach of contract of tort.. loss of value… vastly overblown…. valuation carried on
many years ago… before the notorious housing slump .. purely illusory… ". Not as
illusory as the attempts to suppress and ignore the indisputable facts through tangent
exercises and manifestations that were instigated and promoted by the legal circles.
Unless the defendants and their legal representatives can come up with either a genuine
and supported through properly drafted accounts, pertaining to the bank accounts credited
and debited in accordance with the agreed, as contracted, terms and through such challenge
the report by Anglian Business Associates the defendants and their legal representatives
should land on terra firma. The claimants are not relying on members of the legal
professions who systematically partake and collaborate in the tangent exercises, such as
entered into and entertained in the instance at hand. The claimants rely on the facts of
their case and the law applicable.
- Paragraphs 33 & 34. Of "… the bank would have …..
exercise their Law of Property Act powers under the charge…". APPLICABLE ONLY if
such action was justified and legitimately secured and not as a result of the scenarios
and the constructively engineered demands with menaces (and much more) and or as a result
of the activities reported by Anglian Business Associates born of the core element and
issues that the defendants and the legal circles seek to suppress and or catapult into
oblivion through abuse of the legal system, care of accommodating public servants.
- Paragraphs 35, 36 & 37. Of ".. whether the Roffeys have
got home on this aspect …. There is some very good evidence …. a video… to form a
view of what the property was …. worth". AND of "… forensic accountant
looking at the business" , AND ".. It may be that expert evidence will be there
… what the experts think…. if … able to form a view after the length of time has
expired". IMMATERIAL and irrelevant. If the case against the defendants, as borne out
by the qualified experts’ submissions and reports upon their investigation of the
accounts maintained by the defendants, is established as all indications are (and none
more obvious than the attempt to kill the action at birth) re-instatement to and in a
similar property at the time of offer for settlement would be the only logical and
practical solution as opposed to the usual jobs for the inner circles and activities
through the courts.
- Paragraph 38, 39, 40 & 41. Of ".. loss of use of the
property… that is a very slim claim … unlikely to succeed at trial…. it is a case
which does disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim … does have real … not
fanciful prospect of success " AND of "… to a certain extent … in many
respects … mirrors that of Mr Roffey. ….area it differs in … claims for personal
injuries … essentially the breakdown in her health…. Following the sale of the Roffeys
home.." AND of " … big difficulties with this claim … proof … relating to
experts applies again. … if that report comes back in the negative ….. it is perhaps
unlikely to succeed any further .. if in the positive then perhaps it would." AND of
" … difficulties with her case ….in… personal injury claim…. concerns …
succeed or not a limitations attack… but …. Limitation is a defence and there is no
defence in this case… it is premature….to decide the case on the basis of
limitation". CONSIDERATIONS for the unlikely and probable AND NO CONSIDERATIONS AS TO
WHY NO DEFENCE as arranged between the collaborating in the convenient arrangements ‘legal(?
) activities(?) experts(!) at perversion and corruption of justice through tangent
exercises and anything but the core elements and issues in any given action and court
case, as in the case at hand, a typical example of the capabilities and the practices by
the manipulators and abusers of the legal system.
- Paragraphs 42, 43 & 44. Of " Mr Roffey … has an
insuperable hurdle…. The Official Receiver. .. looked at section 306 of the Insolvency
Act 1986… any cause of action …in … these matters would vest in the Trustee In
Bankruptcy. … said … in the course of argument …. Not every cause of action … but
THESE CAUSES of action do." AND of ".. in 1995 Mr Roffey was made bankrupt….
Subsequently discharged …. we have a case where the abuse of action is vested in the
Official Receiver…. There is a letter from the Official Receiver ..dated 28 June 2002
… to the Chief Clerk of this court … the parties have seen it." AND the O.R
"Mr Roffey has given no indication that he wishes to provide the Official Receiver
with the necessary funds for legal advice concerning the claim. The Official Receiver is
therefore not in a position to involve himself in the proceedings or take any steps
regarding the possible assignment of the right of action." AND OF " So as the
matters stand today the Official Receiver is not prepared to take over the case, neither
is he prepared to assign the claim to Mr Roffey!" SO THE ABUSERS OF THE SYSTEM are
home and dry ‘as far as we are concerned today’ and there exists no law to protect the
victims of Constructive Frauds in the United Kingdom and never mind the Provisions under
the European Union and our government’s commitment to protect ALL citizens from such
practices and activities.
- Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 & 48. Of " ..the position is …
that Mr Roffey has no claim to bring before this court because his Trustee in Bankruptcy
…. Will not do anything about it unless he gets £1,000 in order to instruct TLT of Bush
House, Bristol". AND of " ..on that basis …. I accept what Ms Daubney says ….
in Mr Roffey’s claim, but not in Mrs Roffey’s claim". AND of " I .. consider
Ms Daubney’s argument … delay. …. Argument not in relation to Mrs Roffey but as an
alternative ground for Mr Roffey… if... wrong about the Official Receiver in relation to
Mr Roffey’s case …. My findings… as follows in relation to the delay point."
… AND of "… very briefly.. history of action.. 20 October 1999.. issued claim..
two weeks before expiry date on demand 4 November 1993, . .limitation 4 November 1999. Mrs
Roffey …. in… 3 November 1999. ... life of writ four months… service 4 March
2000". AND of " … both served within period … particulars of claim …Mr
Roffey 15 … Mrs Roffey 28 February 2000…. Anglian Business Associates report not…
there … I take no point in that respect … writs properly served … a week before
expiry of life…". VERY NEAT. Anything and EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO EVADE THE CORE
ISSUE. All conveniently arranged by the legal circles and PUBLIC SERVANTS who act in
contempt of the rights of their masters!!! Abductors of the lives and rights of the
citizens and collaborating through convenient defaults and omissions and failure to apply
relevant law to the facts known to ‘persons who know of the law and intended use of
- Paragraph 49. Of "… desultory correspondence between
parties … very unhelpful. … Lawson Cruttenden... prevaricated… rushed hand-written
letters … giving open-ended extension for filing a defence, an extension .. never ever
called in to this day…. correspondence petering out …. Nothing in June 2000. … two
years after Lawson Cruttenden did anything ….. with this case …. Consider… part
3.4(b) … an abuse .. or some other basis … upon which the just disposal of the
proceedings is likely to be obstructed." DISPOSAL ? JUST ? PROCEEDINGS ? All wrong
words in wrong context. Bluntly abused when DILIGENTLY considered in respect of the events
and the scenarios created by the legal circles and public servants retained and maintained
by the state ‘to serve justice and no other interests’.
- Paragraph 50. Of "Mr and Mrs Roffey cannot get round the fact
that NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. ….it was only when application was made …. In December 2001
…. Solicitors Lawson Cruttenden tried to get themselves off the record. … solicitors
wrote to court saying .. writs were never really meant to be serious writs… and ….
Bank would succeed in striking out the claims … letter in front of me…. Extraordinary
letter to exhibit to an application …. Looked at all correspondence from Lawson
Cruttenden .. and that letter …. Had no chance to hear Lawson Cruttenden’s side of
things … prepared to accept .. some real indications …. Cause concern… whether the
Roffeys were properly served by Lawson Cruttenden". BLUNT ARRANGEMENTS LEADING TO
CLAIMS AGAINST solicitors, as hinted at in the deliberations. Solicitors who
systematically engage in the constructive frauds industry through contempt of the law and
an abundance of defaults and omissions with a good measure of the practices graphically
stated by a public servant, retained and maintained at public expense for and in the
service of justice!
- Paragraph 51. Of ".. the Roffeys… unaware of it … Ms
Daubney aware of it… authority to back up what they say…. the case of Corbin –v-
Penfold claimant diligently went to solicitors…. Solicitors failed to prosecute the case…
struck out…. Application under section 33 of the Limitations Act ..Court of Appeal….
said … sins of the solicitors should not be visited on the clients, all else being equal…
". MORE OF THE SAME, the creation of tangent actions and exercises care of long
established practices with and for plenty of alternative remedies in order to maintain the
asset stripping, enterprising operatives through many a fraudulent activity in business /
- Paragraph 52. Of "… I would take exactly the same view….
difficulties with delays…. Ms Daubney is right…. Not possible for claimants …
instructed solicitors… expected… to get on with matter. Residual duty on claimants….
Knowing… expecting to see the defence…. Find out what bank were saying…. It was
incumbent on Mr and Mrs Roffey to make inquiries… find out what was happening…. not
satisfactory responses….. go see the file… change solicitors…. No suggestion …
that .. emergency has impinged upon their approach to this case during that two year
period… what does tell against Mr & Mrs Roffey …people of some dynamism … huge
amount of correspondence… directed to the police…. concerning grievances towards the
bank… harness small part… energy… to this case … would not find themselves in the
predicament that they are in today." GREAT! DO INSTRUCT SOLICITORS. CHASE THEM! VISIT
TO SEE THE CASE FILE! CHASE THEM! YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE LET DOWN! FORGET CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES THE POLICE HAVE OTHER PRIORITIES! LEAVE THEM TO THEIR OWN DEVICES LIKE THE
LEGAL CIRCLES! CHASE… CHASE …THE SOLICITORS! Hasn’t anyone informed HH DJ Lethem of
the Elman -v- Myers case? The House of Lords ruling in 1939-1940. Showcase material, you
know. A meaningless ruling and OVER 40 years before it made THE rulebooks and legislation
adopting that COMMON SENSE RULING!!! It arose out of reckless and FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES BY
SOLICITORS! And another 20 years in the wilderness THAT INVISIBLE ACT OF PARLIAMENT, like
other Acts of Parliament and Statutory instruments.
- Paragraph 53 & 54. Of "…all the more the case where a
party... the last possible minute…. Writs issued within days of the primary limitation….
served less than a week before … writs expired". AND of "..as much time as
permitted under the rules… incumbent upon a party to prosecute…. with due diligence…
if they do not, problems will emerge… there are very real problems in relation to this
case." PARTY? PARTIES IN CONTROL OF COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES? PARTY? PARTY TO
PROSECUTE? REAL PROBLEMS?… CREATED BY WHICH PARTIES?
- Paragraph 55. Of "… evidence will turn on recollections….
meetings… back in 1993…. conversations in December 1993…. Mr Roffey acted under
duress…. Who was there… what was said…. Precise circumstances…. Matter of
recollection…. Mr Steens going to the Roffey property…. Conversations at that time…
liability aspect… turn upon …. recollections…. members of the bank have left….
retired… memories .. fading… pushing on for 10 years…. Getting there". HOW
TYPICAL, DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, TUTORED ACTORS AND THEATRICAL
PRODUCTIONS the favourite ploy of the directors! RECORDS OF THE ACCOUNTS AS PREPARED BY
THE PROFESSIONALS IMMATERIAL!!!! OFFENDING ABUSERS OF TRUST & USERS OF FALSE
ACCOUNTING FOR PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE AND BLUNT THEFTS OF PROPERTIES FREE TO INDULGE AND
BENEFITING THROUGH CRIMINAL ACTS AND THE COURTS NOT INTERESTED IN THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE?
JUSTICE? DEMOCRACY founded and resting on Law & Order????
- Paragraph 56 & 57. Of "…further difficulties for the
experts… expert valuer... to try and judge… property worth in 1993…. forensic
accountant to… and work out…. a business in 1993…. not easy task… passage of time…
producing further information documents and….." AND of "…problems…
engendered… by... submissions today… some… documents fabricated…. part of records
.. meeting January 1993… fabricated.. not… issues pleaded…. but arguments about the
veracity and reliance of the document that came into being years later….huge
difficulties with case.". EXPERTS? WORK FOR THE INNER CIRCLE? EXISTING RECORDS OF
BANKING ACCOUNTS CONTEMPORANEOUS REPORT IRRELEVANT??? RECORDS REPRESENTING WHAT THE BANK
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBITING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, SHOVED IN
THE FAMILY CLOSET, or THE DARK CORNERS OF THE MINDS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES and even HH DJ
LETHEM? PROPOSALS AND SUPPOSITIONS FOR THEATRICAL SCRIPTS! CONTEMPT FOR DOCUMENTED
EVIDENCE AND AUDIO RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS? JUSTICE?
- Paragraphs 58 & 59. Of "…Ms Daubney asking me to ….
Final sanction open to a judge… Top Rank -v- Beguzi makes it very clear .. it is only
if I consider that there is no option but to strike out ….. should take that course
‘in pursuance of the over-riding objective." AND of ".. the over-riding
objective …. such is the delay … the bank are not on an equal footing…. Mr and Mrs
Roffey will be able …..to give their account… the bank are not going to be able….
Bank will not be able to…. Some of it is oral… some of their witnesses are not working
for the bank any more…. some… of their witnesses’ memories are fading….. there
must therefore be that prejudice for them…. additional prejudice … arguments about
fabrication of documents…. difficulty getting expert evidence through.".
JUSTICE ABDUCTED BY AND THROUGH THE LEGAL CIRCLES?
CONTEMPT FOR EXISTING CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE?
CONTEMPT FOR THE FACTUAL RECORDS such as THE CONTRACTED RATE OF INTEREST AND THE DEBITS AS
THE BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGING THE CLAIMANTS’ ACCOUNTS?
EXISTING DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE SHOVED IN THE FAMILY CLOSET?
CONTEMPT FOR AUDIO RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS?
NEED FOR THEATRICAL SCRIPTS AND PRODUCTIONS THROUGH EXPERTS?
- Paragraph 60. Of ".. saving expense… best part of afternoon…
dealing with case…. reading through…. a case not even…. out of the starting block…..
additional expense….. to remedy some of the problems…. considerable…. sight of the
fact that the potential claim is as much as half a million or more….. very significant
case…. one should lightly strike out…. expense.. is relative… expense of the case
will be vastly increased because of the delay in the matter." EXPENSE? TIME? ALL IN
EVADING THE CRUX OF THE MATTER AND THE ONLY ELEMENT THAT ESTABLISHES THE WHOLE CASE?
EVADING AND IGNORING THE DEBITED INTEREST TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS? CONTEMPT…. CONTEMPT….
CONTEMPT…. FOR THE EVIDENCE?
- Paragraphs 61 & 62. Of "…over-riding objective….
Ensure case …. dealt with expeditiously and fairly…. one thing that can be said….
case …. has not been dealt with expeditiously…. dealt with very slowly….. produced
an unfair result for the defendant…." AND of " …must think about…. share
of the court’s resources… the problems this case has got itself into already….
likely to produce a significant drain on the court’s resources." OVER-RIDING
OBJECTIVE? A PERVERSE RULING THROUGH CONTEMPT OF THE CORE ELEMENT, THE DEBITED INTEREST AS
OVER-CHARGED AND OVER-DEBITING BUSINESS ACCOUNT FOR LOAN FACILITY BY THE DEFENDANTS IN
BREACH OF THE CONTRACTED TERMS THAT ARE RECORDED IN CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS?
EXPEDITIOUS? IGNORING THE CORE ELEMENT, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WARRANTED, BECAUSE IT
ESTABLISHES AND SUPPORTS ALL OTHER QUANTIFIABLE GROUNDS AND CAUSE OF CLAIMS? EXPEDITIOUS?
BY SEEKING TO CREATE AND ENCOURAGE THE USUAL CONSTRUCTIVELY ENGINEERED TANGENT ACTIONS?
UNFAIR RESULT FOR THE DEFENDANT? INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE AND ARROGANT CONTEMPT FOR THE ONLY
EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION FOR ALL CLAIMS.
- Paragraph 63. Of "… the Draconian power that I am asked to
exercise… the over-riding objective… the defendant has succeeded on their application
in relation to part 3.4(b)… the delay rendering claims of abuse of process and
obstructing the process of justice, and on that basis I will strike both claims out….".
PART 3.4(b) specifically provides: " that the statement of case is an abuse of the
court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings;
or…" THE OVER-RIDING OBJECTIVE PROVIDES:
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing
(b) saving expenses
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate:
i. to the amount of money involved
ii. to the importance of the case
iii. to the complexity of the issues and
iv. to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s
resources while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE IN TERMS OF
THE BLUNT ACTIVITIES BY THE LEGAL CIRCLES, AS EVER IN PLACE AND OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE
COURT? [*Link from here
to a House of Lords precedent case, Andrew Yiannides had up his sleeves for years
while looking into the blunt criminal activities ongoing in the courts, such as what
elements and which parties have been maintaining the system as is for centuries /
millennia; and in particular, in the United Kingdom, as of the days when the Law
Enforcement Agencies -the Police & the Courts- exhibited their contempt for
Parliament's Laws and provided invisible services to criminals operating in and out of the
ON THE SAME FOOTING THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF EACH PARTY ALSO
IRRELEVANT TO THE COURT, and in contempt of the rules promoting the age-old practices as
if non-events albeit as blunt as ever.
COMPLEXITY? When only one single element establishes and covers all?
Expeditiousness definitely of no concern to the court!
AND the provisions for ‘determination of a preliminary issue’ out
of the window! (*F)
ALL in contempt of the rights to a fair hearing AND DELIVERY OF
UNADULTERATED JUSTICE of no consequence to the administrator?
Dated the …………… day of September 2002
Signed …………………………………………H A Roffey
Signed ……………………………………....…C Roffey
Mr Harold A Roffey
Mrs Carole Roffey
4 London Road
1. Lord Chancellor.
2. Home Secretary
3. The Prime Minister
4. Chief Constable of Kent
scandals are like the US's - but they're in the public sector
Analysis: George Trefgarne says
Europe's mismanagement is legendary
YOU MIGHT think that accounting scandals are as, American as ten-gallon hats and cowboy
boots but the truth is they take place on this side of the Atlantic too. Only instead of
being in the private sector, they are in the public sector. perhaps Europe should be
MARTA ANDREASEN'S allegations could hardly come at a worse time for Tony Blair and
Gordon Brown. They have committed themselves to decide on joining the euro in the next 10
THE IDEA that bureaucrats and politicians of Europe are on the fiddle and are no
better than the robber barons of Wall Street is hardly a point in the single currency's
DOWN at the No Campaign, they were rubbing their hands with glee yesterday. In an
unfortunate irony, one of the biggest corporate donors to Britain in Europe, the pro-euro
lobby group, was Arthur Andersen, the ENRON auditor.
IN MANY ways, the European scandals are worse. As Mrs Andreasen said: "Unlike
the issues surrounding ENRON and WorldCom, where you can at least trace transactions, you
cannot do so within EU accounts as there is no system in place for tracing adjustments.
Fraud therefore lie hidden within the system undetected and untraced."
IN SHORT, nobody knows for sure how much money is going in one end of the Brussels
machine or coming out of the other.
THE COURT of Auditors, which is responsible for scrutinising the EU's £65 billion
budget, believes that between five to eight per cent is lost through fraud, waste or
incompetence. That adds up to at least £3 billion a year.
ABOUT HALF of the EU's budget goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. In Andalusia
in southern Spain, more than 70 people were
last month in an elaborate scam claiming subsidies for olives that were never grown.
Britain's overseas aid is now channelled through the EU and the mismanagement is
legendary. Delivery, said Clare Short, International Development Secretary, is "the
worst in the world".
YESTERDAY was by no means the first time that the EU has been accused of sloppy
financial controls. Three years ago, the 20-strong European Commission led by Jacques
Santer, was forced to resign after a report made allegations of favouritism and
EDITH CRESSON, the former French prime minister turned commissioner, was said to
preside over a dysfunctional organisational climate". She had appointed her dentist
as a scientific adviser and failed to deal with irregularities in a £400 million youth
NEIL KINNOCK was transport commissioner at the time but Tony Blair pushed for his
reappointment because, he said, he was untarnished by the Santer years.
MR KINNOCK was supposed to push through reforms to the commission but, if Mrs
Andreasen's allegations are true, he has failed to do so.
IN EACH of the last seven years, the Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the
EU's accounts because it did not believe they were complete. Even so, this has not stopped
them being approved by the European Parliament.
NOR IS financial chicanery restricted to the European Commission. Yves Franchet the
head of the Eurostat statistics agency, has said there is a situation a bit like
ENRON" as members of the euro struggle to avoid breaching the Growth and Stability
pact or the rules that underpin the single currency.
DESPERATE TO balance the books, the Italian and Greek governments have tried to
borrow money against future sales of Lotto tickets but the commission ruled against it.
HOWEVER, a similarly complicated scheme from the German government where it
borrowed money against the future rents of state-owned railway cottages, was approved.
BEFORE you get too smug, Gordon Brown's accounting leaves a good deal to be desired
IN PARTICULAR, he has used various off-balance sheet devices, such as the public
finance initiative, to hide billions of pounds of government borrowing.
SUCH ARCANE practices affect ordinary people in Britain and across Europe in two
FIRSTLY, according to the Treasury, Britain will contribute a net £3 billion to
the European Union this year.
THE CHANCES are that more than £200 million of this is wasted or stolen and even
subsiding organised crime.
SECONDLY, there is a point of principle. Taxation and public spending touch upon
the very heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state.[*Link to basis]
THOSE WHO waste or steal
public money are guilty of not just theft but also incredible arrogance.
AFTER ALL, governments don't have any money of their own. Only people do.
Editorial Comment : Page 3
© Daily Telegraph - Friday August 2, 2002 (scan below)