|HELP US TO
HELP YOU Please (*Link to plea).
The image of the order below EVINCES THE
FACT that as soon as a victim used his rights to PUBLISH & EXPOSE the offending
Public Servants who abused the facilities of the courts for Constructive Frauds and
CONVERSION OF ASSETS & PROPERTIES TO THE LEGAL CIRCLES, they acted.
Visitors / researchers NOTE: The victim after setting up a
home page, as a member of the Community on Line simply sent out a press release about his
*crookjudges* Web Site. Without any application, by the victim (so he informed Mr
Yiannides) A MIRACLE : he received the above Court Order. It was rushed out to him,
granting him permission for LEAVE TO APPEAL. DO NOTE, please, the date at the right hand
corner, bottom of the document. LOOK also at the date when date stamped. It is obvious
that the hand written order WAS RUSHED OUT first thing in the morning before changing the
date in the rubber stamp. A Miracle 20th century style, we are sure all will agree, and
there exist plenty of charlatans & stooges who are running around 'selling and
promoting the practices as maintenance engineers who INFLUENCE SHYSTERS and or INVITE
lovers of fraud to indulge with them in the very same practices we cover in the exclusive
page which NONE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS who contacted us over the last 13 years addressed,
for obvious, to us, reasons. (*Link to the
exclusive page where we expose the blunt & arrogant CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH
ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES & NOTE that the beneficiary of the above miracle was
the person who introduced the victims / stars of the case related in this page to Mr
- PAGE ELEMENTS
VISITOR please READ this
BRIEF introduction to page
INTRODUCTION - overview
WHY Leave to Appeal was... The BUBBLE
In Contempt of EVIDENCE
Case STRUCK OUT
Contempt to EVIDENCE
In Contempt of ARTICLE 6
Contempt to LAW
FORGERIES USED 4 FRAUD
Need to APPEAL - FRAUD
Public Servants to ACCOUNT TRUE Democracy - definition
Obstruct / HINDER Appeals Processes Posted LATE
Cases/Sites by Element
Contempt to Evidence
Haringey Police - H/B Fraud
V. B. Foden - Mortgage
V. B. Fodder - Divorce
V. B. Foden-Solicitor Case
Contempt to Law
Enfield Council - C.Court
Hackney Council - C.Court
Haringey Council - C.Court
Haringey Police - H/B Fraud
Len Miskulin - Divorce
V. B. Foden - Mortgage
Instruments - List
Len Miskulin - Divorce
P. Constantinou - Divorce
Johan M R Foenander- Divorce
V. B. Foden - Financial [*L]
Haringey Council-H/B Fraud
PERJURY - Used
V.B. Foden-Solicitor Case [*L]
P. Constantinou - Divorce [*L]
Crown Prosecution Serv. [*L]
Court of Appeal- R.B.Del C [*L]
Legal Circles FRAUD [*L]
Helen Patey - Assertions [*L]
Divorce Frauds Challenged [*L]
V. B. Foden, Appealed [*L]
|TRANSCRIPTS - Scenario One *
Page created December 2006 *
Revised: June 20, 2012*
under reconstruction - ongoing improvements with additional material to site & pages
|Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions. In the alternative IF looking for
any specific issue/issues USE the Site search facility.
As part of the reconstruction process our new pages
and pages where changes and additions have been implemented, the improved / amended pages
are endorsed with the link 'Page Changes and the date of the last changes. The link takes
visitors to a List of the changes implemented in the page. These include new material and
links from relevant paragraphs to other or new relevant material in other pages. For
further clarification email: webmaster@
VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE
IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA* [*Link]
we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES
TO THE TREASURY* [*Link].
Our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept
quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the
abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. 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* [*Link]. We refer to our exclusive page* [*Link] where we expose (as
conscientious law abiding [*Link]
citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET
we have been pointing to for well over a decade.
- We urge
victims, readers and researchers to acquaint themselves with the facts of life stated in *The
Breeding Grounds - case* [*Link from here to the relevant page].
- Victims, citizens who are treated as 'serfs' (the taxpayers in general) need to
get tuned to the activities they fall prey to, when they seek 'Justice' in the United
Kingdom, as in other pseudodemocracies.
- In the absence of relevant information & such other knowledge resting and
founded on the organised abuse of the public services (including the courts) persons who
read of the 'orchestrated scenario below' will be faced with a dilemma, whether to accept
or not accept, the simple fact that the scenario for the day, at Barnet County Court, was
intended for one and one only purpose: >To process to fruition the fraudulently
created awards to the legal circles', as part of the long ongoing fraud on Mr & Mrs
Average, in an allegedly civilised 'pseudodemocracy'<.
- We urge all taxpayers to access also the page* [*Link] where we state the realities born of such
abuse and HOW THE ABUSE LEADS TO THEFT & USE OF BUDGET FUNDS (tax revenue) FOR REWARDS
TO PERSONS WHO AGREE TO KEEP QUIET .
- We expose it all in the exclusive page where we relate the 'bait & condition',
intended to cause the conditioned victims of the courts -and the legal circles- to convert
to promoters and maintenance engineers of the system operated by alleged servants of the
public and 'the law'.
- No human : no 'thinker' : no 'grey matter user' could possibly overlook the issue of
'targeted serfs' who elect to ignore the taxpayers' contributions used for REWARDS TO
PERSONS WHO ELECT TO IGNORE THE LAW & CO-OPERATE WITH THE ABUSERS OF THE COURTS
- We refer to the subjugated, to the conditioned and to programmed robots; to
non-thinkers, to persons who AGREE TO KEEP IT ALL IN THE FAMILY CLOSET, to shove it all
under the carpets, to suppress it all from the taxpayers, just like the media Barons and
the Intellectual Prostitutes they retain and maintain do. [*Link from here to the page where we
point to the plans of the creators of such states and societies]
- Through the above realities / realisations the creation of societies as intended and
planned for by the criminals who are and have been in control for far too long.
- We refer to the making of societies which the media dare to misrepresent as allegedly
civilised Democratic States; States that allegedly rest and are founded on principles of
law and order! [*Link from here to the
part of the transcript, below, when District Judge Stephenson was challenged to stand down
BECAUSE SHE WAS ACTING IN CONTEMPT OF THE LAW]
|In brief, you
will be reading, in this page of:
||The arrogant abuse of County Court facilities for the imposition of legal
costs awards, CREATED THROUGH ABUSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS with blunt participation :
'care of failures to challenge and expose the administrators' of the Employment
Tribunals' facilities', who engaged in 'the fraudulently created costs awards'... as
the participating, alleged challengers, the husband of the victim and 'the victim at the
mercy of the creators of the scenarios and theatrical productions arrogantly intended
to lead to the reward scenario we point to and expose in our exclusive page* [*Link], which page the victims failed to address, and refer to
the issues, in any exchanges with us or openly with third parties.
||The husband of the victim was simply engaging the process
attached to the fraudulently created costs awards through the facilities in place leading
to REWARDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS, to persons who play the field with and as organised by the
criminals who have been and are in control of the courts and the legal services in a
||*Link from here to a reminder for and to
fraudsters, we name and expose in our pages, to persons who crossed the border, we
refer to persons who signed on the dotted line and AGREED TO KEEP IT ALL : te baused
courts facilities for constructive farud on the taxpayers aplenty- in the family closet,
as we CLARIFY & QAILIFY with the seential absolute proof and EVIDENCE, in our explicit
||The vile practices* [*Link] that court staff and officers
systematically engage in, THUS WITH INTENT SEEN TO BE INDULGING IN FRAUD THROUGH
PERVERSION OF JUSTICE.
||(NOTE: By the nature of their appointments to such public office THEY ALL KNOW
THAT THE ACTIVITIES, WE POINT TO, AMOUNT to criminal / indictable offences and constitute
violations of the most fundamental of 'assured' human rights, in any civilised society).
most basic of rudiments and fundamental principles that should be in place for PROPER
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE breached and violete by the very administrators.
*Link from here to a short list where
the MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS are pointed to, among them the right to call to book, to
account to the PUBLIC FOR ANY ACT OR ACTIVITY and performance of public servants, in the
execution of their DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC, to the taxpayers.
STATEMENT OF FACTS and the VIOLATIONS PLEADED as lodged with and at the European Court of
Human Rights, as settled by the founder of *human-rights* Mr. Andrew Yiannides. Many the
allegedly concerned 'leaders of victim groups of the legal circles and the police who
shoved their heads in the sand, as typical lovers of the system of operations in place.
Needless to say the very same circles ignoring the billions squandered and stolen through
the practices and ploys we cover in our pages.
||*Link from here to the exclusive page
where we expose and cover the billions of taxpayers' contributions which the aforesaid
'lovers of the system as is', in reality work for. They do so, for a cut in the
artificially created fraud on the budget. The cost of such activities always met by Mr
& Mrs Average, the citizens who are called upon to meet it all through taxes.
A Law Report
& the heading very clear, in December 2008
"Duty to challenge Judge"
The report, 8 days after a called-for challenge in the matter of an
appeal to the Crown Court. The appeal was in respect of inexcusable activities by
alleged servants of the citizens and the law. All was attached to abuse of public
office, by and from within the police & Crown Prosecution Services within Haringey
(the Republic of). Victims who bother to familiarise themselves, also, with *another
case pointed to below; for an introduction, the readers need to access from here the page where we publish photographs of the
injuries Mr Andrew Yiannides sustained when three school thugs indulged in accordance
with the New World Order Code of Ethics & Morals they were / are
benefiting from, as part of their education within the Republic of Haringey.
|The above law report with compliments to Mr Loukas Kazamias the
husband of the victim, Mrs Grace Theodorou. Mr Kazamias threatened to beat up Mr. Andrew
Yiannides after he qualified that he was to publish the transcript in the public domain.
Our visitors should use grey matter and conclude accordingly, as to WHY THE
THREATS, after the victim herself made sure the transcript was transmitted to
|NEED for UNADULTERATED* [*L], NOT TAMPERED with* [*L] nor EDITED* [*L] RECORDINGS of court hearings
from here the page where we point to an abuser of trust,
Mr Norman Scarth, the errors of his ways. In the page references to his evil
activities when in pursuit of the cash under the table facility used to CORRUPT morons of
*Access also from here image of an oscilloscope
tracing establishing the simple fact that tape recordings do suffer from splice editing,
removal of the true picture of events in the courts; arrogant contempt for the law by
alleged servants of it & the citizens.
*Access from here the evidence relevant to the
fact that Norman Scarth was permitted to record at the Court of Appeal & despite
such the abuser of trust, FOR YEARS, WAS SUPPRESSING it all, as his associates and
affiliates did too.
As we prepare for more revelations about the
institutionally organised fraud and corruption the citizens fall prey to, some official
statement provides us with the assurances that the recognition of the issue of organised
crime is not far from the mind of our government. This is as good a page as any where
we can report and draw attention to the words of the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony
Blair when he returned from the Summit attended by the leaders of member states of the
European Union, in Holland, in June 2005. The Prime Minister when
addressing the House of Commons on his return, stated:
United Kingdom, will work to resolve the impasse on the EU budget". He also defended his decision to reject a compromise deal at a
Summit meeting the previous week. He spoke of and reiterated, to Parliament, his belief
that: "The European
Common Agricultural Policy and the United Kingdom's rebate should be reviewed
He carried on: "This rebate must be examined. This crisis is not about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement,
with each other. The crisis is about that of Europe's Leaders to reach agreement with the
people of Europe on issues that concern them; economically and socially; and they want
answers to the challenges they face. They worry about globalisation and organised crime*
[*Link], and they do not, at present, see Europe giving a
credible response. If we answer these concerns Europe will strengthen and we need a strong
Europe to bolster the strength of individual nations. It is those who believe in Europe
most who should be 'the most ardent advocates at changing it'. The European budget
shouldn't be separate from that debate but part of it, and it is that debate which we will
look forward to, in our presidency".
When answering a question on the issue of
the Constitution, he said that: "It could not proceed after the recent rejections in the French and Dutch
referendums". The UK taking over the Presidency of
the European Union on 1st July 2005.
We are certain that the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, will also be
attending to the issue of the billions plundered annually and squandered, as organised by
abusers of the courts facilities to which activities WE HAVE BEEN POINTING FOR FAR TOO
LONG. We are sure that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown,
they will first see to it that, at home, we are rid of the practices, that parasites and
hypocrites impose on Mr & Mrs Average through abuse of public office, WHILE AWARE OF
THE LAW APPLICABLE IN SUCH SCENARIOS, as all of the persons we name & expose are aware
of andl were pointed, when contact with Andrew was established.
The right to reply and to justify the
behaviour, the activities and the most intriguing of defaults and omissions we cover and
point to in our pages (as in this page we do) is assured to any one we name. We will
publish excuses & whatever is submitted to us. Legal argument that shall arise out of
their submissions will be used as we apply ourselves to relevant issues in the cases they
referred to us & we will cover their acts and all their defaults. [*Link from here
to a case when the victim (!) VBF IGNORED perjury by a solicitor]
This page is dedicated to all abusers of our
time and in particular to two evil mongering fraudsters, Mrs Veronica Beryl Foden and Mrs
Helen Patey. Both contacted us as 'victims' who, allegedly, were faced with very serious
problems. The former complained that she had been subjected to the most horrendous of
violations and obstructions to her rights. The most contemptuous of fraudulent activities,
in the courts, were noted upon inspection of her files. She needed Andrew's assistance to
challenge it all, all the way to the ECoHR (Strasbourg) and she declared her intentions to
expose it all with our assistance, as a human-rights.org Community in Line member.
However, it was not long before her actions and convenient defaults, established that she
was part of a scam. She had been a participating fraudster in all that she was complaining
of and about. She even engaged in criminally motivated activities
that were intended to cause damages to Mr Andrew Yiannides, whom she was sent along to
mess about with. The other, Mrs Helen Patey, was sent along by persons who operate as
'lovers of the system as is'. All excel in the subliminal indoctrination tactics,
subjugating the victims they contact, are pointed to', to nothing but relentless waffle
and complaints about the circles they complain of and accuse as the architects of their
suffering..... when in fact they are seen to be acting as PERFECT SPECIMENS OF
Sadomasochists who fell prey to and in love of the arrogant double constructive frauds on
'the serfs', 'the citizens who pay taxes for the CREATION OF SUCH MONSTERS through abuse
of the courts processes and facilities. All, incidentally, too eager and ready to
promote all manner of opinions about the Free Masons, without ANY PROOF, in support of
their opinions and aspersions. The person who introduced 'the couple' / victims(!) of
the abused Employment Tribunal facilities, noted to have been engaging in all manner of
EXTENSIVE USE OF THE INTERNET, ONLY FOR OTHER ISSUES clearly intended to draw attention to
activities the person allegedly objected to. YET CONVENIENTLY FAILING TO RELEASE /
PUBLISH ANY EVIDENCE or legal arguments in the public domain - HIS PERSONAL WEBSITE
where he was to CHALLENGE OPENLY the abusers of judicial chair occupation, THOSE WHO
CONVERTED THE LEGACY FROM A FATHER TO HIS FOUR OFFSPRING, to allegedly legitimate legal
costs. [*Link from here to the person's 'promises' at
his web-site after he was made aware that Helen Patey (pointed to above) was challenged
because of her failures to CHALLENGE & EXPOSE the abusers of Judicial Chair
occupation. She came along to complain of and about such matters while promoting
unsubstantiated complaints and claiming to have been 'simply the victim of the Freemason*,
typical of all associates and affiliates of the puke production machine, James Todd of
VOMIT repute. AS ACCOMPLISHED LOVERS & PROMOTERS OF THE POWERS THAT BE, care of the
FRAUDULENT INTENTIONS of 'the sold to the system as is, FOR MORE OF THE SAME CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES in a pseudodemocracy]
The visitor, reader,
researcher reads in our pages of ORGANISED CRIME, as spoken of by the Prime Minister in
the House of Commons when he returned from the Summit of EU leaders, in June 2005.
- Visitors and victims of
the abused legal system, the courts' facilities and public services are invited to access
the page where we published a couple of contracts. One was sent to Mr Andrew Yiannides
AFTER the proposed and shot documentary which the producer, Mr John Lam of Southport (Red
Dragon Desin) stated was intended for other specific purposes and use for, NOT as the
contract submitted after the shooting of the documentary was seeking from the person who
created this website resting on 33 years of research and work by 2005. [*Link from here to
the page where we published the submitted contract and information in respect of the
proposed and SHOT documentary, which matters the proponent intended to use for other
purposes than what the 'producer had spoken of to Mr Andrew Yiannides].
- We released
below, in December 2006, the images of the explicit transcript printed pages
as received by fax from Mrs Grace Theodorou, the victim of unfair dismissal from work and
of abusers of judicial chair occupation at the Employment Tribunal. We hasten to point out
that there arises at least one serious questions in respect of 'an inconceivable and
inexplicable scenario -words allegedly by the challenger-
- We did so in order to draw
attention to the obvious:- (a) WHY proceed with issue of an allegedly legitimate
judgement, in contempt of the rules of procedure & SIMPLY IN LINE with the only
purpose for the alleged legitimate cause for an application to Barnet County Court? (b) WHY
FAIL TO CHALLENGE & EXPOSE in the public domain the abuse of the Employment Tribunal's
facilities care of reckless abandon of, and contempt to their obligations to Society at
large, to the taxpayers IF NOT PARTY TO THE THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS & PRESENTATIONS,
aiming for the cash under the table arrangements for persons who adopted and adopt the practices?
(c) Why did Mr Kazamias, the husband of the victim(!) visit Mr Yiannides and threatened
him in the presence of witnesses after the victims were informed that the transcript would
be released in the public domain by uk-human-rights.org IF THE VICTIMS(!) carried on
failing to co-operate and do so themselves? (*F2)
- We released, below, on
New Year's day 2008, the text of the transcript as organised / arranged by the abuser
of the County Court's facilities, District Judge Stephenson (*F3). We acted so in order to
create and provide links to and from the issues covered by the content of the transcript.
- We urge visitors, readers
and researchers to read it all. It relates to organised constructive frauds through abuse
of the Employment Tribunals facilities and an alleged challenger, the husband of the
victim who instituted proceedings for wrongful dismissal against her employers.
- The victim and her husband
were introduced to Mr. Andrew Yiannides, by an otherwise pre-occupied member of the
Community on Line. To all intends and purposes, the husband of the victim had been and was
in 'command and control of the case' when the two made contact with Mr Andrew Yiannides
- Apparently the couple had
suffered from the usual denial of rights and freedoms to abuse judicial chair occupation
at the Employment Tribunal 's facilities. Both presented the usual residual effects
inherent in all cases Mr Andrew Yiannides encountered over the last 15 plus years since (late
May 1992) the days when the managers / controllers & organisers of the LIPS
crowd/mob contacted him with their plans for use of the system and its victims.
- All visitors and readers
of the material facts and realities we point to and expose in our pages, should note that
the aforesaid contact by the managers / organisers of the LIPS crowd/mob, was made within
two weeks of the lodging of the explicit appeal at Bow County Court, by the
'targeted serf', Mr Andrew Yiannides. [*Link from here to the clearly stated
realities and the challenges covered in the appeal referred to here].
- In the left margin /
window we publish and release an intriguing Court Order [*Link] and we state how it came about,
- The 'beneficiary',
thereafter, failed to take any steps that could be looked upon by 'thinkers' (*F4) ('humans', not the run of the mill indoctrinated
zombies or morons, not typical sons of men who are conditioned by the agents of the
abductors and rapists of Democracy & Justice) as steps intended to
build upon the obvious:
- The abusers
of public office, are aware of the fact that 'the bubble is bursting' and, 'their criminal
activities are no longer subject to 'the protection racket
managed by the fraudsters who control the media'.
- We include the
Intellectual Prostitutes whom the controllers of the media retain simply to promote the
RECKLESS plans of the abductors and rapists of Justice. [*Links from here to the plans, an introduction and extension to the material facts covered in the
page /protocol.htm and request of visitors to read first the
- Needless to say the very
media circles are seen to be operating as the abductors and
rapists of Democracy, yet they have for decades been trumpeting much ado about the
allegedly civilised states of Democratic governance that allegedly rest and are founded on
principles of law and order.
- The 'beneficiary' of the
order we publish above, in the left margin panel, 'amazingly defaulted, for years, to act
as the occasion commanded' of a victim(?) of the legal circles. He treated his endorsement
of OUR AIMS as of no relevance, even though he subscribed to the
statement of intent, 'as a concerned victim' of crook judges (his choice of website /
domain name). However he did busy himself in court application after application on
issues that did not relate to what he had personally suffered from along with his sister
and two brothers.
- Somehow the beneficiary,
engaged in other activities indicative of a person who entertained notions that the work
for human-rights, by Mr Andrew Yiannides, could have been railroaded and hijacked by
arrogant *fraudsters club recruits* and 'lovers / promoters / maintenance engineers of
'the arrangements in place (*F4) FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE
TAXPAYERS' intended to lead to *corruption of conditioned morons*.
- Visitors / readers should access
from here the page where we publish evidence = PRESS
RELEASES by the government whereby the 'compensation bill' runs into BILLIONS
ANNUALLY. Needless to say the bill includes *the confidential rewards, for playing the
field with the managers and controllers of the legal system and 'the courts' business'. [*Link from
here to an explicit affidavit that was received by the following fraudsters club
recruits years ago: Mr Norman Scarth, Mr Maurice
Kellett and Mr Paul Talbot-Jenkins, it was also
referred to and seen/read by Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander]
The images of the printed
transcript (pages) and the content / text we publish below with links to and from the text
should assist readers, researchers and victims of the system of operations, in the courts,
to recognise the validity of our stance on the issue of FRAUD IMPOSED THROUGH ABUSE OF
THE COURTS' FACILITIES, leading to the corruption of morons who fall to the system of
operations they engage in, as devious and evil, as those they set off complaining of and
about, to begin with, subsequently simply emulating them, as alleged legal gurus. [*F1]
performance of the participants, especially the victims of 'the activities at the
Employment Tribunal, inclusive of the deliberate obstructions to unadulterated court
proceedings', and in particular the convenient defaults by 'the victims' (!), are most
important in the instance at hand, bearing in mind the reckless violations they were
pointed to WHICH THEY ELECTED TO SHOVE & BURY in the dark corners of their 'confused /
PRECEDED THE THEATRICAL PRODUCTION, - for the day of *the hearing*, as the abuser of
judicial chair occupation dare refer to the events of the day, in Barnet County Court -
WAS AND REMAINS MOST IMPORTANT. Reference in the transcript to a document submitted and
lodged with the court's office prior to being called in, FOR the purposes of the
organisers of the fraudulent in intent proceedings as of the instigation of the claim
against the employers of the 'the victim' who was sucked into / turned to an alleged
Defendant care of the abused court facilities, WHICH FACILITIES & ACTIVITIES her
protector / husband, alleged legal guru / assistant / advisor WILFULLY & WITH INTENT
WAS FAILING FOR MONTHS TO CHALLENGE & EXPOSE as another aspiring fraudsters club
recruit, such as others we are naming and exposing in our pages.
to relevant practices that are intended, most definitely, to obstruct justice and to deny
rights which, to all intents and purposes are assured through Statutory Law and
International Treaties & Accords. Yet such law and facilities do not exist, WHILE THE
CRIMINALS IN CONTROL OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM & THE COURTS INDULGE IN THE ARROGANTLY
ORGANISED FRAUDS COVERED IN THE EXCLUSIVE PAGE, which page, alleged victims and media
barons recklessly elected and elect to shove in the dark corners of their corrupted
mindsets and the caves they congregate in, as members of secretive setups, such as the
aleggedly philanthropic Brotherhood of Freemasons. [*Link from here to explicit
revelations in respect of the solicitor who put Andrew Yiannides on the research trail
that led to the need to go public, to create these pages]
no diligent reader / researcher or victim of abuse of Public Office can overlook the
arrangements in place* the arrangements in place [*L]. Such 'elements' as the one attached to
the undisclosed 'provisions by judicial chair occupants' happen to be in contempt of all
law. Thereby the criminals who ARE in control establish the fallacy of the promotions
about alleged Democratic governance and alleged rule of law & order, as sold to the
otherwise indoctrinated and misled citizens by the Hypocrites and Sycophants who ARE in
control in all pseudo-democracies.
On the left parties and venue for the day, at Barnet County Court.
Pages 1, 2, 3 relate to the issue of 'who shall speak for 'the Defendant'. The 'Defendant'
just a victim of 'unfair dismissal from work; and, worse, victim of the abused Employment
Tribunal Service, as organised by alleged servants of the law and the public. The
'Defendant' just one of the 'millions of serfs' who fork out taxes for the retainer and
maintenance of criminals in public office, including judicial chair occupants such as the
director of the show for the day.
Readers, researchers and victims should
acquaint themselves with the activities in (a) 'The Breeding Grounds - case' relative to
ORGANISED ASSAULT ON A TARGETED SERF (victim) who was caused to challenge far too many
FOUL ACTIVITIES BY COURT OFFICERS & STAFF following reckless support for a fraudster
(building contractor) who caused DAMAGES TO PROPERTY and an arrogant police constable
commanding of 'the targeted victim' to waste funds with solicitors AS IF the activities of
the fraudster were just 'civil matters'. [Access from here the explicit appeal that caused one and all to land
on planet earth].
|The appeal we point to from above with our complements to
the abuser of judicial chair occupation; also to the actors who may had been the victims
of the usual 'organised fraud on the serfs', through abuse of the courts facilities,
initially. They conveniently engaged in far too many defaults and omissions relative to
the ABSOLUTE NEED TO CHALLENGE & EXPOSE OPENLY, in the public domain, on the INTERNET,
abusers of public office, after they contacted Mr Andrew Yiannides. They were directed by
another victim of the constructive frauds bluntly indulged into by the legal circles
through abuse of the courts' facilities, as at the Employment Tribunal in the
instance at hand. [*Link to evidence on the realities of life in a pseudodemocracy]
The condition referred to above,
was that 'the victims' should simply set up their own web-pages / web-site where they
SHOULD EXPOSE the activities they had been subjected to, also the arrogant contempt for
the law and the rules of procedure which abusers of judicial chair occupation, at the
Employment Tribunal engaged in. It had been agreed, as of first contact, that 'the
victims' concluded that judicial chair occupants had been acting as absolute masters who
treated and treat appointment to judicial office as Exempt From and Not Subject To
Parliament's Law. The victims were pointed to the provisions of International Treaties and
Accords, to which the United Kingdom subscribes to, as an allegedly civilised state and
member of the European Union. The victims were also pointed to explicit provisions under
the European Union relative to Fraud & Corruption, after their attention had been
drawn first to the exclusive page [*Link to page] where ORGANISED FRAUD &
CORRUPTION through abuse of the courts facilities was and is being exposed by us. The hint
had been ignored by 'the victims' for far too long by the date of the theatrical
production at Barnet County Court. [*Link to explicit provisions under
Article 29 of the Combined Treaties of the European Union]
Leading up to the application 'for
enforcement of the awards to the solicitors' representing the employer of the victim, the
victims benefited from assistance to create a website (*http://tribulations.freeservers.com) where
they were to state THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, their views and their opinions in
respect of the theatrical productions at the Employment Tribunals. In the early hours of
the morning (of the production at Barnet County Court) Mr Yiannides was taken to the
residence of the victims; there he settled for the day a document which Mr Kazamias was
informed he (Mr K) was to be lodging at court and thereafter he was to use as 'his notes
for the oral submissions to the court, for the purposes of the 'hearing' of the day. When
handing the document to the office staff, the clerk 'miraculously failed to rubberstamp
the copy correctly; only the date was transferred to the document and the Barnet
County Court was NOT. Mr Kazamias was asked to return to the office and ask the clerk to
'use the rubber stamp CORRECTLY'. When referring to the list for hearings before D.J.
Stephenson it was noted that five cases were listed all of which were to be dealt with
between 10.30 am and 12.00 noon; in other words 5 x 20 minute cases in under 18 minutes
each, and in the circumstances Mr Kazamias was asked to secure a copy of the list from the
office staff. I need not ask any of the visitors to this page IF they secured the said
copy, because that is precisely what Mr Kazamias failed to do.
References to a letter sent to the court by the beneficiaries of
the constructively engineered rewards, to them, by abusers of 'judicial chair occupation',
in contempt of all applicable law and the rules of procedure in courts. NOTHING UNUSUAL,
simply CIUKU Enterprises (Crimes Incorporated United Kingdom Unlimited) in full swing. And
the victims suppressing, from the public, the criminal activities they were victims of,
JUST AS THE MEDIA BARONS DO. Of such realities the agents and followers of organised
crimes against 'the serfs / the taxpayers', did boast in explicit material that also
relates to HOW THEY WERE / HAD BEEN / ARE ORGANISING everything in the type of
pseudodemocracies we write of; and 'the serfs' called upon to pay taxes for the
maintenance of tutored / used stooges, illiterates in law, as the front line soldiers
& the lap-dogs of the criminals in control. The conditioned & subjugated to such
frauds as ill educated morons & the subjected to such activities, falling in love with
the cash under the table REWARDS TO PERSONS WHO ENJOIN WITH THE abusers of the courts
facilities ACTING AS SUBLIMINAL INDOCTRINATION OPERATIVES WHOSE ONLY INTERESTS
HAPPEN TO BE PROMOTION & USE OF THE FACILITIES in place for rampant constructive
frauds & CORRUPTION OF ILLITERATES IN LAW.
BEYOND BELIEF. Yet alleged victim-challengers who were pointed to the events covered in
this page, up to and inclusive of the challenge on 8th December 2008* [*linked to below] shut their mental eyes and mental ears to
it all as if of no relevance or interest to..... the lovers of it all, such as the
shysters we name and expose and others who contacted Andrew only because they wished to be
seen to be ready to expose the abusers of the courts' facilities and through such contacts
/ intimidation, AS BLACKMAILERS, to secure offers and settlements under the table.... at
the expense of the taxpayers naturally and the alleged victim-challengers sleep soundly as
persons who gained much from their contacts with the evil controllers / managers of the
courts & as converts to the New World Order code of Morals & Ethics. [*Link from
here to an extract from the work of Isocrates 'Aeropagiticos' and consider the moral
code that existed long before the creators of the Old Testament came along with their
RUBBISH, used for the creation of the alleged creator ofg all and everything which the
followers of it gical ]
We ask of visitors and readers of
these pages to inform us IF THEY EVER read anywhere, or heard of the media (Radio,
TeleVision, etc.) addressing the issue of created false instruments - such as the court
order above - in contempt of the evidence and the law applicable to irrefutable and
incontrovertible evidence such as the fraudulently conducted / misconducted - as intended
- proceedings at the Employment Tribunals, in the case at hand.
IMPORTANT issues to be noted and taken on board by victims, readers and researchers, when
considering the content of the transcript we release and publish below in HTML format
text, for links to and from.
The usher was given the names of all
parties who were to attend the under 20 minutes 'hearing / theatrical production',
and Mr Andrew Yiannides spelled his surname for the occasion. The District Judge
'approved' the transcript which Mrs Theodorou transmitted to Mr Yiannides soon after 'the
victims' received the original from the court. District Judge Stephenson must have
been given the list of attendees as the exchanges with the attendees, evince. Most
convenient indeed that the letter *i* went walkies (*F6)
and most essential that the spelling HAD to be corrected for the purposes of the
release of the content in text in this page and for access on the Internet.
The transcript was simply put in motion by
an abuser of judicial chair occupation because the person's only objective for the day was
to issue an Enforcement Order resting and founded on the fraudulent proceedings within the
Employment Tribunals. Interestingly the victims who were introduced to human-rights and Mr
Andrew Yiannides appeared most definitely to have been playmates, through defaults to
challenge and expose the abusers of public office : NOTHING UNUSUAL WHEN IT COMES TO
PERSONS WHO FELL IN LOVE WITH THE SYSTEM. Only illiterates in law, non intellectuals and
NON-THINKERS could possibly fail to recognise why Mr Kazamias indulged as he did and why
he maintained the attitude of NON-DISCLOSURE & EXPOSURE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN the issue
of *abused public office AND TRUST* ((*Like all 'fraudsters club recruits and
lovers of the cash under the table', we name and expose, the 'manager of the victim's case
and rights at law, noted to be operating as any other chasing the rewards facility for
persons who are 'persuaded' to play by the rules of the abductors and rapists of Justice
AND DEMOCRACY*. Such persons as lovers/users of the system as is failing with
intent to ensure the electorate and taxpayers ARE MADE AWARE OF THE RAMPANT FRAUD THROUGH
THE COURTS leads to uninformed taxpayers including their own offspring. And the
criminals who are in control, mismanaging and organising the lives and future of 'the
serfs' in our country -as in other pseudodemocracies- simply aimed and plan for our
offspring to be paying excessive taxes, for decades, towards the interest charged by the
financiers and criminals in control of pseudodemocracies. OUR CHILDREN WILL BE PAYING
TAXES towards the repayment of the 'loans to governments' that are constituted of actors
and marionettes, persons who are dangling on the strings of their manipulators and the
greedy for power over others seekers. And, in the meantime, bloated-brains like our
hero.... our hero.... our hero.... as mentally blind (self imposed state)
and as devious as they come. Such issues and realities are covered (supported
with evidence) in the explicit page where we used a letter from the deceitful
abuser of trust. [*Link from here to the page where we publish evidence in support
of the logical answers to many of the inexcusable and failures of the hero, and his
associates from within the LIPS crowd/mob to consider their OBLIGATION TO SOCIETY, to the
The 'victims' benefited through abuse of
trust and the element 'benefit of doubt' as of the moment Mr Kazamias FAILED to download
and submit to the abusers of Public Office at the Employment Tribunal, challenges and
evidence published in the Public Domain in our pages in accordance with the provisions of
the European Convention of Human Rights. The failures simply pointing to the fact that the
'alleged victim-challengers' were NOT in any way going to challenge and EXPOSE IN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN THE ABUSED FACILITIES at the EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS. Period.
THE TRANSCRIPT BELOW, was transmitted to
Mr Andrew Yiannides, by the victim of the case at hand, Mrs Grace Theodorou. It relates to
the events in the court room, on the day when Barnet County Court was
invited, through an application by the beneficiary solicitors, to entertain an invitation
to process to execution the issue of fraudulently created legal costs charges. The legal
costs charges attached to fraudulent hearings - if one can refer to the activities as
hearings proper within the context of 'the provisions for due process and or in
accordance with the law, national & international'. The element of 'due process',
the alleged prosecutor of his wife's rights at law, Mr. Loukas Kazamias referred to on the
day, because he was made very much aware of the fact that what he came along with, were
nothing short of 'arrogantly misconducted theatrical productions at and within the
confines of the Employment Tribunals. Nothing unusual, when amateurs and or parties to
such activities, such as a number of persons we name and expose in our pages, are
parties to fraudulently created legal costs charges, as for instance the additional legal
costs attached to the application we relate and point to in another page, which we urge
visitors / readers to *access from here and learn a
thing or two about the parts such persons as Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, Mr Lou-is
(Lew-is) Foley and Mr Norman Scarth, etc. engage in, as alleged legal gurus and
promoters / users of the facilities in place for rampant fraud on the taxpayers which we
cover and point out in the exclusive page which not one of the named and exposed in our
pages (including the husband of the victim in the case at hand) bothered to proffer any
opinions and or views on, as alleged experts at law (*F5 : most
18 Aug ’05 12:11 P.01
|IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT
Claim No. 4BT06288
1 July 2005
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON
The CLAIMANTS did not attend and were not represented
The DEFENDANT was represented by MR KAZAMIAS & Ors
Tape transcribed from the official
Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd.
Suite 307a. Third Floor
Park House, Park Street, Croydon CR0 1YE
Telephone 020 8667 9626
|DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Now, Mrs
Theodorou, I am District Judge Stephenson. I understand you wish to apply to have
the assistance of a McKenzie Friend. That's the expression given to a lay advisor.
have actually brought in four people with you. It would be very unusual to have four
McKenzie Friends. In fact, I myself have never come across a case where somebody has had
four McKenzie Friends all at once, so I really want to sort out with you which person is
going to be your McKenzie Friend and going to do the main amount of the assisting of you
out of the four people who have come in.
Mrs Theodorou I have some names here that have been written down on the slip. I
understand there is a Mr Kazamias-
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - your husband and he's been helping you. Is
that right Mrs Theodorou?
MRS THEODOROU: Yes.
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes. What is Mr Kazamias's - what, if I can
speak to you Mr Kazamias, which is Mr Kazamias?
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes, I am here.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Sorry, I do beg your pardon.
MR KAZAMIAS: Don't worry.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr Kazamias, what is your experience of
assisting people in Court?
MR KAZAMIAS: I have been helping with this case,
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes. Have you ever assisted anybody previously
in Court proceedings?
MR KAZAMIAS: No I haven't.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right.
MR KAZAMIAS: Commercial, yes, but not-
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Never in Court? You have never been in a Court
MR KAZAMIAS: Not advising as such, no.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right.
MR KAZAMIAS: But I remember the case from inside two years ago.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right There is a Mrs Menendez? I don’t know
MR KAZAMIAS: She’s an observer.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes. Well, she’s welcome to do that. There’s
a Mr Hamilton?
MR HAMILTON: That’s me.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Is Mr Hamilton here to advise? What are you
MR HAMILTON: I’m here to advise as a lay advisor. Could I go back –
you said you had never been in a court where there are several advisors. I recently
conducted a case of my own and I, in the court had four lay advisors. The point being they
were there to advise me, but I did the lead, I was the lead.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well, that’s what I was trying to sort out.
MR HAMILTON: It is
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr –
MR HAMILTON: I could still advise and take advise from others.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well, no one is suggesting that Mrs Theodorou
can’t have somebody to advise her. I was just trying to sort out who was going to be the
spokesman if she needed assistance with speaking.
MR HAMILTON: Well the spokesman will of course be Mr Kazamias.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. Mr Hamilton and – what’s your
MR HAMILTON: I have been a lay advisor to numerous people for a couple of
years now, I specialise basically in corruption and in employment tribunals. I specialise
in corruption in business in the city. I specialise in corruption in MPs in Parliament. I
specialise in banking corruption. I specialise in pension corruption.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: You obviously must have quite a following then Mr Hamilton?
MR HAMILTON: I do, yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: What’s your full name?
MR HAMILTON: Stephen Hamilton.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Stephen. Your address?
MR HAMILTON: Flat 2e3,, Bath Hill Court, Bournemouth, Dorset.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Thank you very much. Well, Mr Hamilton then
you are not going to be spokesman, but you are going to be on hand to advise Mr Kazamias
and Mrs Theodorou. Is that right? Have I got the right end of the stick?
MR HAMILTON: Yes, because she is not fully aware of the processes –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right.
MR HAMILTON: Bt what –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Okay. The other gentleman there? I’ve got
down a Mr Yiannides?
MR YIANNIDES: Mr Yiannides, yes, that’s right.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: What are you here for?
MR YIANNIDES: I’m also here to assist as a lay observer and a lay
assistant in this process.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mainly to observe then?
MR YIANNIDES: No, to assist and advise.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: In what way?
MR YIANNIDES: In the process.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: What is your experience Mr Yiannides?
MR YIANNIDES: Well I have been at it for over 30 years.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Sorry, what have you been at?
MR YIANNIDES: I have been at it for 30 years.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: At it for 30 –
MR YIANNIDES: Acting for 30 years.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: In Courts?
MR YIANNIDES: In Courts.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: What is your full name and address?
MR YIANNIDES: ANDREW YIANNIDES.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Andrew Yiannides.
MR YIANNIDES: 16a.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: 16a yes?
MR YIANNIDES: Woodside one word.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Woodside?
MR YIANNIDES: Road.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Road.
MR YIANNIDES: London N22 5HU
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right, well, in order that we don’t have
confusion as to who’s what. If Mr Kazamias, if you want to come and sit next to your
wife? If the two of you who are going to advise Mrs Theodorou want to arrange yourselves
at his shoulders, [Brief discussion between advisors] Yes, yes. Okay. A far as I’m
concerned, obviously I don’t want o have lots of people speaking at the once. I take it
that Mr Kazamias is going o be the spokesman; that’s just sheer practicality; it’s not
because I want to –
MR HAMILTON: Yes, w are all aware of that.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes.
MR HAMILTON: I tell you now, it’s not actually – wee are well aware
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well in that case Mr Hamilton you don’t need
to say anything do you if you are well aware?
MR HAMILTON: We all are, yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes. Well that’s very good. So Mrs
Theodorou, it's your application which essentially is an application to make an
application because I said that you were not to make any further application without
permission of the Court. I believe that if you are successful in that application that
what you in effect want is the proceedings brought by Gemstar to be stayed. Their
solicitors have chosen not to attend today.
MR KAZAMIAS: Is there any particular reason for that?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: They have sent in a long letter to the Court
MR KAZAMIAS: Please may we have a copy?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I will arrange for you to have a copy
certainly. At the moment I was not aware that you did not have a copy. I would have
thought they should have sent one as a courtesy if nothing else. It seems –
MR HAMILTON: Sorry, sorry to but in but –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr, Mr -
MR HAMILTON: The reason these proceedings go on
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr Hamilton, Mr Hamilton -
MR HAMILTON: - we should be –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr Hamilton, be quiet Mr Hamilton it's Mr
Kazamias who is going to be spokesman. We sorted that one out. So if he's going to be the
spokesman, I'll hear from him. Right. Frankly, the letter I feel doesn't add anything
anyway. The matter is purely a procedural one. I have a spare copy because they have sent
in both by fax and by document exchange. So if Mr Kazamias, if you want to come and
approach me and get a copy?
MR HAMILTON: Could we have a recess to assess that, I mean -
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr Kazamias, would you please sort out who is
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes, we would like a recess tot if that's possible, to –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: No, we are not going to have a recess because
I'm not going to take any notice of that letter because they're not –
MR KAZAMIAS: Well, it seems you are not taking notice of a lot of things
that have been presented.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well that's your opinion –
MR KAZAMIAS: That's my opinion obviously.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: That's your opinion Mr Kazamias, I am not
taking into account that letter because they are not here.
MR KAZAMIAS: So you are saying it is false?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: No, I'm not saying it's false. I'm just not
taking it into account because they aren’t here.
MR KAZAMIAS: So can we ask the reason why you are not taking this into
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Sorry?
MR KAZAMIAS: Why you are not taking this into account?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Because they axe not here. It would be
inappropriate for me to take into account representations made in a letter Mr Kazamias, by
solicitors who failed to serve the letter in advance, which I agree with you they should
MR KAZAMIAS: Right.
DISTRICT RIDGE STEPHENSON: - and have failed to attend. So I am simply
not attaching any weight to the letter.
MR HAMILTON: But you have read the letter?
MR KAZAMIAS: But you have read the letter, yes?
DISTRICT RIDGE STEPHENSON: I have skimmed the letter. I have not –
MR KAZAMIAS: Skimmed.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Skimmed. No more than skimmed. Right. Now Mr
Kazamias, can we move on?
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: What I would really like to do is hear
Mrs Theodorou's application. What I am going to do is sit back and leave it to you to
address me and put your points.
MR KAZAMIAS: What exactly do you mean by application?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mrs Theodorou - I struck out any
applications that she made and I ordered that she not be permitted to make any further
without permission of the Court. She then attempted to make a further application and I
ordered there be a hearing to treat that application as an application for permission. I
understand from what she has written into the Court that she wants the proceedings brought
by Gemstar struck out.
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: So, Mr Kazamias, what I propose to do is to
hear from - well If she wants you to address me rather than her doing it herself, I
propose to hear from you.
MR KAZAMIAS: [After discussion with advisors] I don't think
he understood exactly what you said. Can I explain to him again?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes of course you can.
MR KAZAMIAS: [Further discussion with advisors] Would
it be possible to stay this order so that we can –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mrs Theodorou has had all the orders.
MR KAZAMIAS: I think you misunderstood.
MR HAMILTON: [After a pause] To simplify matters could I speak?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: If you would prefer Mr Hamilton to deal with
matters I'd be happy for that.
MR HAMILTON: [Further discussion with advisors] Excuse me.
What we are asking is: are you now granting permission?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: No I'm not. I am waiting to hear the
application for permission. I can't, I am not granting permission until I have heard –
MR KAZAMIAS: But one cannot do that because there has not been due
process in this whole case. We have brought to your attention a number of letters, On
24/6, the last one and the letter we have not received this morning, which appears to be
looked at - not to –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes, I have read the letter from you Mr
Kazamias dated 29 June 2005. 1 have been through it carefully. Unfortunately it does not
deal with the procedural restrictions that I have in dealing with this case.
MR HAMILTON: This case is just-
MR KAZAMIAS: How about the last paragraph?
MR YIANNIDES: Read the last paragraph. Read the last paragraph.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I have read the last paragraph and it doesn't
deal with anything to do with what I am allowed to do and what I'm not allowed to do.
MR HAMILTON: Could you clarify what you are'.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes, Let me explain the whole –
MR HAMILTON: - About what you are here to do in this particular case?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes. Let me explain exactly my difficulty in
doing anything with regard to this case. The Civil Procedure Rules are the rules which set
out what occurs with regard to civil work in the County Court. Civil Procedure Rules 1998-
MR HAMILTON: - Yes?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: They set out all the rules relating to
civil procedure in the County Court. Now under Civil Procedure Rule 70.5-
MR HAMILTON: Thank you very much.
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: 70.5:
"Enforcement of awards
of bodies other than the High Court and County Courts: can be registered in a County
In other words, awards of other people. Awards of tribunals and other people can be simply
registered in the County Court without the County Court being involved in the final
process at all because that is something that doesn't apply here. There's specific rules
relating to just registration.
Now in this particular case, an award was registered by the Claimants, Gemstar
Development Limited under Civil Procedure Rule 70.5. The enforcement of awards of bodies
other than the High Court and County Court, what happens is set out under that rule.
Essentially what happens is; there is a list of things that can be enforced, which
includes employment tribunal decisions. But there are all sorts of other decisions
including very unusual things like decisions under the Allotments Act 1922, the
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. All sorts of things that are awards by other tribunals and
MR HAMILTON: You said awards by other tribunals –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Yes,
MR HAMILTON: In this case it specifically referred to ET. However,
Gemstar registered this claim months before those Court proceedings have come to any form
of an end. In other words, they have registered it prior to an appeal process which is in
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well, let –
MR HAMILTON: - not quite correct in the rules for procedures.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well the procedure is very simple and doesn't
require an appeal process to come to an end. The procedure is very simple and all that a
Claimant has to do to enforce an award is fill up Form N322A and send it in correctly
completed within a copy of the award.
MR HAMILTON: They have assumed that an appeal would not have been won in
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: [Background discussion] Well, it
doesn't make any difference if there's an appeal or not.
MR HAMILTON: It seems very strange that latterly a Court order has been
put out to stop an appeal of-
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Can I continue please?
MR YIANNIDES: May I address the Court your Honour?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Could I just continue for one –
MR YIANNIDES: No.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well, I'm the Judge so –
MR YIANNIDES: I will ask you to stand down. You are misconducting this
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Mr –
MR YIANNIDES: You are misconducting this business.
DISTRICT RIDGE STEPHENSON: Please will you stop interrupting the
MR YIANNIDES: You are misconducting this business, my dear.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: It is contempt of Court to interrupt.
(a polite request is termed interruption by an abuser of public office)
MR YIANN1DES: Well, you are in contempt of the law, my
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: No. I am –
MR YIANNIDES: You are in contempt of the law.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: No. I am the Judge, Right. [Background
discussion] If you are not going to behave, you will be excluded.
MR YIANNIDES: You are in contempt of the law. I am not excluded.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Would you please leave?
MR YIANNIDES: You are in contempt. Did she sign this, did she sign this?
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Would you please go outside?
MR YIANNIDES: I am not going out. What are you going to do about it? You
are in contempt of the law Mrs Stephenson.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Well if you are not going to go out –
MR YIANNIDES: You are in contempt of the law.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I cannot continue with this hearing –
MR YIANNIDES: What you say? Excuse me, I am going to point you right my
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I cannot –
MR YIANNIDES: There are two cases undetermined –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I –
MR YIANNIDES: - when you did not - because it's like you say they sat
down and they did nothing.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. I –
MR YIANNIDES: You are going to do the same.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. I cannot continue with this hearing –
MR YIANNIDES: No I am Sony.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - if it's going to –
MR KAZAMIAS: Intimidation and harassment –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - be interrupted.
MR YIANNIDES: - you are abusing your office.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. If you're not going to leave –
MR YIANNIDES: No I'm not leaving.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - then I'm going to bring these
proceedings to a close.
MR YIANNIDES: You had better do so because you don't have the
jurisdiction in the ease.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I do have jurisdiction in the case –
MR YIANNIDES: You don't have jurisdiction in the case.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. I-
MR YIANNIDES: I will point you to the cases you are ignoring –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Right. I am withdrawing
MR YIANNIDES: - The presentation you have in this country.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - and if you do not leave by the time I get
back there will be no further hearing. I am withdrawing. if these gentlemen do not –
MR YIANNIDES: You had better stand down.
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: - not. If this gentleman in the green
suit does not leave then there will be no further hearing,
MR YIANNIDES: You are colour blind too. It is not a green suit.
What do you want to do?
[Judge Stephenson. leaves the Courtroom]
COURT USHER: Can you leave please?
MR YIANNIDES: I am not leaving.
COURT USHER: Why not?
MR YIANNIDES: I asked her to stand down. She misconducted the business.
COURT USHER: Sir, she has asked you to leave.
MR YIANNIDES: I am not leaving, She misconducted the business of the
MR YIANNIDES: No, she said continuation upon time- unless –
COURT USHER: Nothing is going to happen so you may
as well leave.
MR YIANNIDES: Yes, we are going to leave,
COURT USHER: Well could you leave now please?
MR YIANNIDES: I am not staying here so she can harass us ….. in Court
MR HAMILTON: I can’t see that she is going to be –
MR YIANNIDES: -there are two cases…
MR HAMILTON: - before them …, she’s admitted to that then.
MR KAZAMIAS: Yes.
COURT USHER: I am sorry but I am going to have to ask you to leave.
MR YIANNIDES: She cannot carry on the way she started.
COURT USHER: You are going to have to ask this gentleman to leave.
MR YIANNIDES: We are already leaving my friend. We are all leaving.
MR HAMILTON: We are all leaving.
[Inaudible, speaking together]
MR YIANNIDES: .... jurisdiction.
COURT USHER: That's fine then.
MR YIANNIDES: We…. her jurisdiction.
COURT USHER: Okay then.
MRS THEODOROU: What happens with my application?
COURT USHER: You cannot stay?
[Inaudible, speaking together]
MRS THEODOROU: I don't want to be on my own, I have been ill for a long
time. Other people have been dealing with the case.
UNKNOWN: She just wants to know what's –
COURT USHER: I'm just telling you what the Judge has asked me.
[Inaudible, speaking together]
MR YIANNIDES: She's not staying.
MRS THEODOROU: …..some information?
MR YIANNIDES: You don't stay here. You don't have the jurisdiction, Now
leave this Court. [<<< Questionable promotions]
[Group leaves the Courtroom]
COURT USHER: You got the key? You got the key yes?
UNKNOWN: No, not the one. I've got a master that's not fit.
[District Judge Stephenson. returns]
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I believe the tape is still running?
COURT USHER: Yes, we decided to leave it running, just to catch what –
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: I am now going to conclude the hearing as I
have not made a decision in it. So I will be - although you as usher are the only person
present, I am happy for you to leave but I will still be reciting my judgement for the
benefit of the tape.
COURT USHER: Okay thanks,. bye.~ -
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON: Thank you.
|IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT
Claim No. 4BT06288
1 July 2005
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON
The CLAIMANTS did not attend and were not represented
The DEFENDANT was represented by MR KAZAMIAS & Ors
Tape transcribed from the official
Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd.
Suite 307a. Third Floor
Park House, Park Street, Croydon CR0 1YE
Telephone 020 8667 9626
DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHENSON:
- In this matter, Mrs Grace Theodorou is the Defendant in the
proceedings. The Claimants, Gemstar Development Limited, were on the receiving end on an
application before the employment tribunal. They received an award for costs by the
employment tribunal where I believe her action was struck out, The award of cost was dated
10 March 2004.
- Pursuant to CPR 70.5, they completed Form N322A and applied
for enforcement of an award. The form being correctly completed, the award was duly
ordered to be enforced on 19 October 2004.
- Mrs Theodorou has written and applied to the Court on a
number of occasions since that time. It is important to mention that initially there was a
short stay, but later on the stay was lifted.
- The amount of paper on the case is voluminous. I do not
propose for the purposes of this judgement to go through every single piece of paper on
the case Suffice it to say Mrs Theodorou applied by way of appeal to the Employment Appeal
- On 3 March 2005, she was not present, when the Employment
Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal and directed that any further application for leave
to appeal be made direct to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the seal of the order.
That order being scaled in March 2005, some months ago.
- Mrs Theodorou was given by this Court, numerous
opportunities to show that she had a further outstanding appeal. No documentary evidence
that she had applied for permission to appeal tote Court of Appeal or had an outstanding
appeal at the Court of Appeal has ever been supplied by her.
- She has continued to bombard the Court with numerous
applications and letters. The thrust of her paperwork is that she does not agree that the
decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is lawful and seeks to challenge it in some
- On 19 May 2005, 1 made an order relating to her latest
application, dated 16 May 2005, that it be treated as an application for permission to
make further applications.
- I had previously ordered that she not be allowed to make
further applications without permission of the Court. I felt it was only right and proper
that Mrs Theodorou had the opportunity to have a hearing. I directed there be an hour's
hearing today, 29 June 2005. (*FXXXXXXXXXXX)
- I further directed that the Defendant, Mrs Theodorou, must
still provide documentation there is an outstanding appeal, particularly in the light of
the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 3 March 2005 dismissing her appeal. She
will need to produce evidence that she has leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal, or has-
an outstanding application for leave to appeal at least seven days before the hearing.
- No such evidence has been forthcoming from Mrs Theodorou.
She has once again sent in communications to the Court in the same vein which seeks to
challenge the Employment Tribunal's ability to make an award. She keeps calling it:
"A false process" [P2]
in her communications. However, what she has not done is shown any detail in her
paperwork, of an outstanding appeal, or indeed even a renewed application for permission
to appeal for any application for permission to appeal.
- Mrs Theodorou has attended Court today. Messrs Bircham and
Dyson Bell, the solicitors for the Claimant have chosen not to attend today. They have
written a letter into the Court dated 23 June 2005. This letter was received by the Court
on 27 June 2005, although I did not become aware of its existence until this morning.
- In order to be fair to the Defendant, who was not
represented, I took the decision to only skim the letter just to see if it was anything to
do with today's hearing.
- I decided that I would not deal with any of the contents of
the letter or reading it in detail unless I was satisfied that the Claimant had had an
adequate opportunity to read the letter herself. During the hearing I became aware that
she had not, so I decided not to read the letter more thoroughly. Therefore I have not
attached any weight to the representations which are no doubt set out in the letter.
- Another document which arrived at the hearing today was a
document signed by Mr Kazamias, which I did read very thoroughly before the hearing. Mr
Kazamias's letter stated that the case was never conducted in accordance with the rules
and that all preliminary challenges in respect of misconduct by Court Officers were never
dealt with. He said all demands for confirmation that the conduct of Judicial Chair were
within the Law and Rules applicable had not been met. Further, failure to confirm the
above in respect of Court Orders issued consequential to the above activities and default
has amounted to the issue of False instruments that lacked accountability by the authors
also Challenges of the Court Officers and Managers for completion and endorsement of the
declaration in respect of the above have been refused, albeit persons who know of the law
and in particular the provisions of Theft Act 1968 should be are aware of the pecuniary
advantage of third parties and False Instruments constituting indictable offences.
- The letter goes on in much the same way and accuses anyone
supporting the matter of "arrogant abuse of public office", and cites a case in
connection with a Circuit Judge which does not seem to have any relation to the case.
- Today at the hearing, although the Claimants were neither
present nor represented Mrs Theodorou attended with Mr Kazamias, her husband and advisor,
a Mrs Menendez, who apparently was called as an observer, a Mr Stephen Hamilton, who gave
his address at Flat 23 Bath Road Court, Bath Road, Bournemouth, who said he was a lay
advisor and had advised numerous people he said specialised in corruption in employment
tribunals. Also there was Mr Andrew Yiannides, who said he had been a lay advisor for 30
years. He said his address was 16a Woodside Road, London N22.
- Mrs Theodorou asked permission to be assisted by her lay
advisors, It was clear that Mrs Menendez was not intending to take any active part, so she
sat at the back to take notes. The various advisors between themselves agreed that Mr
Kazamias would be spokesman. On that basis I permitted Mrs Theodorou to have Mr Kazamias
as spokesman and to be assisted by Mr Hamilton and Mr Yiannides.
- Unfortunately, despite the fact that Mrs Theodorou was
afforded the opportunity to have help from these gentlemen, Mr Yiannides decided that he
was not going to just advise Mr Kazamias and Mrs Theodorou, and so the proceedings had to
be terminated as Mr Yiannides was not going to chose to stop interrupting them. [P3]
- I indicated to Court staff, after I had risen, that I was
content for Mrs Theodorou and her husband, Mr Kazamias to stay. They had not conducted
themselves in any inappropriate way in the proceedings.
- Mr Hamilton had made a couple of interruptions and Mr
Yiannides's behaviour was totally unacceptable, so I required all other persons other than
Mrs Theodorou and her husband to leave. Despite the fact that Mrs Theodorou and her
husband were given the opportunity to stay, they chose to leave. I would have been
happy to have continued and to have heard more from Mr Kazamias. It was Mrs Theodorou's
decision to miss that opportunity.
- Thus, I go back to the rules. The fact that this is a simple
registration of an award under CPR 70.5, There is no outstanding appeal of which I am
aware. There is no outstanding application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal
and accordingly, this Court's hand are somewhat tied, I can see no reason at all to grant
Mrs Theodorou permission to make any application
- The Court is mindful of the decision of Bhamfee v
Forsdick & 0rs  EWCA Civ 799 and the fact that the Court has
the power to restrict people making hopeless decisions. In this case, this is one of them.
- My order in this case is that the Defendant's application
for permission to make an application is dismissed. In the light of the fact that there
have been so many attempts to make applications by Mrs Theodorou, which in my opinion are
all unmeritorious, my second direction is the Defendant be forbidden from making any
further applications without permission of the Court. Bearing in mind Mrs Theodorou has
bombarded the Court with letters, that she did not stay to hear the outcome of the hearing
and there was considerable interruption, bearing in mind the Claimants were not present
either and I have not taken their letter into account, I make the Third direction. That is
there be a transcript of the whole of the hearing, including the interruption, plus my
judgement prepared at public expense.
- I hope that sight of the transcript may dissuade Mrs
Theodorou from continuing on this course. If she does decide to make any further
applications, having sight of the whole transcript of the hearing, including the
interruption, as well as the judgement, will assist any Circuit Judge.
- That concludes this matter.
'The Times' Law Report relates to duty / obligation to challenge Judicial chair occupants.
Andrew dedicates it to Mr Loukas Kazamias, the dreamer and abuser of Andrew's time. His
only interests were to co-operate with the abusers of the courts' facilities and
processes, all the way to the cash under the table scenarios as organised and arranged by
abusers of the courts facilitie, in contempt of all principles of law. Access above the
scenario and the transcript which Mr Kazamias objected to Andrew's intentions to publish
it in the public domain; in fact he threaten to institute court proceedings for obvious
reasons, to gray matter users. Mr Kazamias even threatened to beat up Mr Yiannides, in the
presence of Mr Yiannides' mother and sister, if he proceeded with the intended
publication, as above, for the benefit of taxpayers / UK serfs.
All and everything
with the blessings of the police, the media Barons and their lapdogs. And, apparently,
Ministers who are responsible for the Police, for the Courts and for the Treasury handling
the contributions of the taxpayers to the national budget, indifferent to it all!!!!
On 8th December 2008
Mr Andrew Yiannides, when attending court for the hearing of an appeal lodged at Wood
Green Crown Court, by Mr. Nicholas Stamoulakatos, the Founder & Legal Adviser of the
ILfHRoUN (International League for Human Rights of the United Nations) challenged a Crown
Court judge and asked him to stand down, in the matter of the appeal, from an
improper prosecution and recklessly conducted hearings(?) before Magistrates.
The challenge was called-for because the judge disqualified himself due
to his unreasonable behaviour & obstructions to Mr. Yiannides to exercise his rights
and duties, as an intervener, at the time. Intervention was warranted AFTER the Barrister,
who was acting on instructions from the Crown Prosecution Service presented to the court
false scenarios BY SUPPRESSING MATERIAL FACTS & by promoting inexcusable and
unjustifiable opinions and states in respect of the accused person, Mr. Nicholas
Stamoulakatos who had appealed wrongful prosecution and inexcusably entered judgements by
Haringey Magistrates Court, in contempt of the facts, the fcat that concocted evidence was
used as acceptable and because of contempt for the law applicable in the circumstances
attached to an alleged offence by Mr. N. Stamoulakatos.
The first image on the right is of the article, in the Law section
of 'The Independent' newspaper EIGHT DAYS AFTER the challenge, relative to a Court of
Appeal scenario when their Lordships alluded to the DUTY OD BARRISTERS to challenge
The second image is of the first page relative to a complaint
about the behaviour and conduct of the Judge the accused had submitted earlier complaints,
to the authorities.
The third and fourth images are carbon copies of pages 1 & 2
of a Formal Adult, Culture and Communities Complaint Team (Second Stage) at Cumberland
Road, Wood Green, London N22 7SG.
Victims of the relentlessly abused public services, also readers and researchers are
invited to access the material facts and the realities covered in the page *linked to from here.
All should consider the simple fact that the events that led to the
prosecution of Mr. Nicholas Stamoulakatos, occurred within the very Local Authority,
Haringey (the Republic of) where the New World Order Code of Morals & Ethics rule
supreme. [*Link from here to the page where we relate & publish
evidence in respect of the use of FORGERIES used & promoted by Haringey Council staff
and officers. All were engaging in theft and misappropriation of rents owing to private
landlords whose properties were occupied by APPROVED HOUSING BENEFIT ASSISTED & USED
FOR SUCH CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES created as used by Haringey Council staff and officers]
The URL links to, two photographs in the left margin / window pane. The
photographs are of the state Mr Andrew Yiannides was rendered in when three Secondary
School thugs assaulted him in a 329 bus. The three engaged in the rights the New World
Order creators have been affording to the new generation citizens, thugs in reality, who
benefit from such rights during the Education provided by Haringey Council (the Republic
thereof) and as arranged & organised by alleged servants of the public and
specifically servants of 'the Law' : the police and judicial chair occupants.
ALL SHOULD NOTE that, as with the assaults from young thugs Mr Nicholas
Stamoulakatos, benefited from before the events that led to the tribulations and the
prosecution he was subjected to, THE THREE THUGS WHOSE ACTIVITIES, IN THE BUS, WERE
RECORDED BY THE BUS COMPANY'S VIDEO EQUIPMENT, WERE NOT PROSECUTED and better still, the
Victims Support Group maintained by Haringey Council (the Republic) rubbed salt in the
wounds of the victim wilfully and maliciously ignoring it all.
Complaint to the Court
You read, in our pages, of the 'arrangements in place for
the constructive frauds on the 'serfs', through the provisions
of Article 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Consider, therefore, why
there exist among those who
- visit the newsgroups,
- blow their trumpets about 'the system',
- proclaim their disaffection and
- 'disgust at the practices' in the courts,
- assert personal knowledge and experiences,
- YET FAILED AND OR FAIL TO PUBLISH ANY EVIDENCE
- in ANY WEB-SITE, through which to
- inform and prove to
- Mr and Mrs Average of that which they profess
- WHO BUT THE REAL SHYSTERS, are party to the above
fraud on YOU, Mr and Mrs Average?
Go To: http://www.uk-rights.org/comonlin.htm
and consider stating the facts of your own experiences in a personal web-site / web-pages.
Join with others and work together in exposing and challenging all offending Public(!)
Servants(?) who misconduct in public office.
JOIN the COMMUNITY ON LINE if
you have been cheated out of your rights, by the legal circles and or were denied
protection, under the law, by the police.
If you have the evidence against
the offenders, you can publish it in your personal web-site as your rights in law provide.
Be not fooled by planted mischief-makers and read of the directives from THE authority (*Link)
Every citizen is duty bound to
report crime and if the police ignored or ignore you, USE YOUR RIGHTS, EXPOSE THE
OFFENDERS who ignore the law.
Visit the Stephen Lawrence page (*Link) and note how Parliament provided for your rights. Yet,
our Law Enforcement Agencies simply ignore such provisions, and act as contemptuous of
your rights as a member of the *human-rights.org * Community On Line * has pleaded and
lodged at the European Court on Human Rights. Through defaults and omissions, the police /
authorities fail (*Link) to protect you and in fact they actually torment and
torture you, the victims.
READ OF SUCH PROVISIONS and
exercise your rights! Challenge and EXPOSE THE VILE OFFENDERS, who endorse and
promote crime through defaults and omissions in the purported exercise of their public
duties, AS YOUR SERVANTS.
"Do for, by and with yourself that which
satisfies you so long as that which you do does not infringe upon and or violates the
rights of any other". © AY 1972
BE GUIDED BY AUTHORITIES WHO DEFINED YOUR RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS AS DERIVED FROM AND DEFINED AS : "THE CONVENTION IN LEGAL TERMS".
The development of and FOR THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, in modern times begun with the Magna Carta, in
Europe. Below, in as simple as can be defined, the principles of rights and freedoms,
clarified by Mark Janis, (fellow) Richard Kay (professor) and Anthony Bradley (professor).
- 1. Men are born and remain free
and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness.
- 2. The aim of every political
association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man; these rights
are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
- 3. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no
individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefrom.
- 4. Liberty consists of the power to do whatever is not injurious to others; thus the
enjoyment of the natural rights of every man has for its limits only those that assure
other members of society the enjoyment of those same rights; such limits may be determined
only by law.
- 5. The law has the right to forbid only actions which are injurious to society.
Whatever is not forbidden by law, may not be prevented, and no one may be constrained to
do what it does not prescribe.
- 6. Law is the expression of the general will; all citizens have the right to concur
personally, or through their representatives, in its formation; it must be the same for
all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal before it, are equally
admissible to all public offices, positions, and employment, according to their capacity,
and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents.
- 7. No man may be accused, arrested, or detained except in the cases determined by
law, and according to the forms prescribed thereby. Whoever solicits, expedites, or
executes arbitrary orders, or has them executed, must be punished; but every citizen
summoned or apprehended in pursuance of the law must obey immediately; he renders himself
culpable by resistance.
- 8. The law is to establish only
penalties that are absolutely and obviously necessary; and no one may be punished except
by virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offence and legally applied.
- 9. Since every man is presumed innocent
until declared guilty, if arrest be deemed indispensable, all unnecessary severity for
securing the person of the accused must be severely repressed by law.
- 10. No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided
their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
- 11. Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the
rights of man. Consequently, every citizen may speak, write, and print freely, subject to
responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the eases determined by law.
- 12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen necessitates a public force; such
a force, therefore, is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular
benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
- 13. For the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration a
common tax is indispensable; it must be assessed equally on all citizens in proportion to
- 14. Citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or through their
representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to supervise
its use, and to determine its quota, assessment, payment, and duration.
- 15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an accounting of his
- 16. Every society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation
of powers not determined has no constitution at all.
- 17. Since property is a sacred and inviolable right, no one may be deprived thereof
unless a legally established public necessity obviously requires it, and upon condition of
a just and previous indemnity.
Consider the above in the context of our founder's proclamation on true
Democracy and do not fail to note the obvious : Society, CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE OF EVERY PUBLIC
AGENT AN ACCOUNTING OF HIS / HER ADMINISTRATION.
- When the representatives of the citizens
- fail in their public duties and
- assume the right to dictate to, instead of
serving, the citizens,
- the citizens can and should "take the law in
their own hands" and
- the citizens can "use it in accordance with
the provisions the representatives put in place".
- There is no need for
- abuse of body and
- misuse of mind.
- There is no need for revolution and bloodshed.
THE CITIZENS HAVE THE MEANS TO
EXPOSE AND CALL TO BOOK ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE STILL DREAMING OF SERFDOM DAYS.
- It is time for public servants to cease behaving
as Lords and Masters.
- It is time for them to 'humbly serve their
employers, the citizens' AS THE LAW PROVIDES.
THE CITIZENS HAVE THE WORLD JURY
TO RELY UPON FOR DELIVERY OF JUSTICE OUT OF THE BONDS HER ABDUCTORS AND RAPISTS HAVE BEEN
HOLDING HER ALONG WITH DEMOCRACY.
- It would appear that
- the media barons and their stooges
- know not the true meaning of either.
- Through defaults and omissions to publish and
- deal with the facts,
- the realities and
- the truth
- THEY helped develop that which they expect of us
to deliver to our children.
- THEY WERE AND WILL REMAIN DREAMERS
- SO LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THEIR SILENCE AND
- CARRY ON IGNORING THE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN
Founder *human-rights* (NGO)
London - United Kingdom
eXtra: Visitors/readers are urged to read first the article
published in the London Evening Standard, as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home
Secretary in 2003 [*Link to the article we reproduce for obvious reasons].
While there, above it, the explicit
letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier.
Accessing the material pointed to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It
should assist 'recognition of the citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in
truly democratic states. The above in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such
civilised and, within the law, approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by
governments, the explicit challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of
alleged victims of the legal circles to have ever contacted us [*Link to our explicit
submissions to (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) the Home
Secretary. WE acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of
an alleged victim whose only interests were (i) the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING
QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her parts
in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to mess
about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides].
Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998 [*Link to the letter] and note the results evinced in the
newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching its
destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the
job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do [*Link to the evidence we
point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system fraudsters who
were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers / organisers of the LIPS
crowd / mob].
seriously concerned and all taxpayers who have as yet to access the exclusive page where
we expose the arrogant arrangements (created by alleged servants of the law and the
public) FOR *constructive fraud through abuse of the courts facilities AND, THE
PLANNED-FOR CORRUPTION OF MORONS. The victims of the legal circles and the courts, (as
taxpayers) OWE IT TO THEMSELVES and to their offspring to acquaint themselves with the
ORGANISED CRIME THROUGH THE COURTS leading to REWARDS UNDER THE TABLE for 'victims' who
agree to keep it all under their hats, the hats that cover their devoid of grey matter
heads. [*Link to
the exclusive page all of the alleged victims-come-legal-gurus we encountered and name
/ expose have FAILED & REFUSE TO ADDRESS - as alleged legal experts, the
implications in terms of law applicable to the activities we point to]. We state the facts and publish evidence in respect of the
activities and convenient failures to act as the law commands of law-abiding citizens who
recognise the fact that under Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights there
exist provisions FOR OBLIGATIONS TOO, not simply rights of which such morons seek to make
issue of and rely upon as *self-promoting* experts at law. [*Link from here to the most
obvious of SELF IMPOSED MENTAL BLINDNESS SUCH evil persons afflicted themselves with]. One
can only surmise that they act so, as 'the protected sidekicks of the criminals who have
been in control of the legal systems and the courts for at least 2500 years that a
diligent person who refers to our quotes page CAN read of and recognise.
readers and researchers who accessed the page where we point to the arrogantly ORGANISED
FRAUD IMPOSED ON THE TAX PAYERS (through abuse of the courts facilities) IN CONTEMPT OF
ALL LAW need to be informed of the fact that the victim(s) (in this case / page) were
informed of the simple fact that Mr Andrew Yiannides had/has been objecting to the blunt
and crude CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES by the legal circles which activities, evidently, are
endorsed by the Law Enforcement Agencies : (a) the police and (b) the judiciary. The
victims were told that Mr Yiannides recognised the fact that criminal activities were
ongoing in the courts, way back in 1972, and, they were pointed to the evidence published
in our pages. They benefited, also, from full particulars relative to the fact that his
solicitor, Mr Kypros Nichola of Nicholas & Co. as a trusted friend (from secondary
school / high school days) and as a fellow compatriot (of Hellenic Cypriot Christian
Orthodox origins) DID ATTEMPT TO CAUSE HIS CLIENT, Mr A Yiannides to abandon his High
Court action against fraudsters. They were told most emphatically, that FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE ATTEMPT THE SOLICITOR ADDUCED AND USED A BLUNT FORGERY [*Link to the evidence and read / note upon
which licensed (by Parliament (?)) criminals the solicitor & fraud of a friend and
agent at law of 'the targeted serf', was relying upon when indulging in the promotion of a
blunt forgery. **Link from here also to the
extract from the work of the late Stephen Knight when he was researching 'the role of the
Freemasons in modern states']. The fact that the
aforesaid solicitor when introducing a BLUNT FORGERY to the targeted 'serf', the solicitor
acted precisely as Christopher (a public servant and admitted Freemason) spoke of to the
author of 'The Brotherhood'. The *victims*(?) in the instance at hand, had been pointed to
the extract from 'The Brotherhood' and to the parts, three alleged Freemason bashers,
engage(d) in, (1) Maurice Kellett, (2) Paul Talbot-Jenkins and (3) the
puke production machine Mr James Todd of VOMIT repute. The three aforesaid persons and
'the victims' were told most emphatically that Mr Andrew Yiannides objected to and did not
subscribe to the constructive frauds imposed on 'the serfs' and taxpayers -in general-
through abuse of the Courts facilities. ALL FIVE had been pointed to Mr Yiannides'
response to the last judge who addressed the issues that arose and WERE APPROPRIATELY
CHALLENGED through the explicit Appeal, in 'The Breeding Grounds - case. [***Link to the explicit appeal
that caused the abusers of the courts' facilities to change their adopted practices as
they HAD indulged from the onset]. The first two
named here received copies of the explicit affidavit lodged at court in the case that
caused other abusers of another County Court and the Lord Chancellor to announce the Bill
of Rights In 1997, copy of which the victims in the case at hand did read [*Link from here to the affidavit when
'the issue of the rewards (compensation?) to *victims (?)* of the abused courts facilities
was pleaded] XXXX and their like-minded associates
within the LIPS crowd/mob, also the third named & most of his affiliates and
like-minded pseudo-challengers HAD BEEN POINTED TO THE RESPONSE of Mr Yiannides H.H the
judge on the day of the final judgement in that case. exchanges with as in and
that person's parts in the type of scenarios that are created and rest on the ORGANISED
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS.
3. The need arises
to point out that many lovers and users of the system as is, converts to it all, they are
also most proactive in promoting all the negatives they can come up with. Worse still,
they most certainly cannot excuse or justify their offensive suppression of the positives
they should have been / be promoting. Promotion of the negatives simply exposes them as
persons who act so in order to subliminally indoctrinate non-thinkers and the conditioned
who have been subjected to the usual abuse of legal system and the courts and no
protection for them by the police. Targeting victims, as Johan Michael Richard Foenander
was (by Mr. Saheed Hussein) and as he himself targeted a member of the Community on Line
(Mrs Roz Kellett) after he returned to the UK from the special mission to Australia) was
and is part of the organised Crimes against the citizens. Of such activities the methods
of operation. The fact that such persons target, seek and aim to use 'new victims of the
system of operations through the courts', suffices to draw the only correct conclusions,
WHEN THE VERY CIRCLES ALSO ENGAGE IN SUPPRESSION OF THE POSITIVE. One such positive being
THE PRECEDENT CASE in respect of UNADULTERATED RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS/ HEARINGS at court.
We refer, of course, to the part of the transcript we published, in our pages, as soon as
we received it from Mr Norman Scarth. The TRANSCRIPT & POSITIVE ELEMENT, even Mr
Scarth himself, the person who benefited from the right to record and secure an
unadulterated record of a Court of Appeal, hearing, WILFULLY SUPPRESSED ITS EXISTENCE WITH
EVIL INTENTIONS. In so far as Mr Norman Scarth and his associates, also their affiliates
were / are concerned such matters are of no relevance to 'the serfs'. All part and parcel
of their contributions and services to CIUKU Enterprises (CIUKU = Crimes Incorporated
United Kingdom Unlimited). Of such activities, defaults and operations the contributions
& services towards the maintenance of the system as is'. That such persons also
engage in deliberate erratic spelling of Mr Yiannides' surname points to wilful intentions
when one considers the simple fact that the offending charlatans do not wish for their
email exchanges with Mr Andrew Yiannides to be picked by Internet search engines.[*Link from here to the page
where we published the first two pages of the transcript when permission was granted by a
full panel of the Court of Appeal. Read the exchanges with the applicant and then
consider WHY DID the beneficiary suppress the existence of a precedent Court of Appeal in
respect of the right to secure and benefit from UNADULTERATED & NOT TAMPERED WITH true
records of proceedings / hearings at court. Consider WHY NOT POINT others who could have
or SHOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFITING from the precedent case reported in the public domain by
Andrew at uk-human-rights.org & BETTER STILL "Why seek to further abuse Andrew's
time and readiness to assist victims of the legal circles WHEN POINTING TO THE Court of
Appeal Precedent Case was in line with the 'intentions and EXPECTATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
as asserted by the spokes person of the Attorney General in the House of Commons, and
reported in Hansard well over a decade earlier].
4. In our pages
we relate how an accomplished and committed fraudsters-club-recruit, Mr. Norman Scarth,
through fraudulent misrepresentations and under false pretences secured from Mr. Andrew
Yiannides a copy of the letter from the Rt. Hon.Paul Boateng. Andrew received the letter
after solid and sound in law submissions had been delivered to the Rt. Tony Blair, leader
of the Opposition in 1995. It should suffice to simply re-state, here, that Mr Scarth
NEVER HAD ANY INTENTIONS to challenge and or expose the abusers of the courts facilities;
indeed such proved to have been the case with just about every other who fell in love with
the arrangements in place for rewarding the victims of the abused court facilities FOR
AGREEING TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ONGOING IN THE COURTS. Visitors
readers and researchers who have not accessed the pages where we publish evidence in
respect of the activities and the convenient defaults, omissions and failures by the
craft-y (and wily) Norman Scarth & Co., should access (from the link below) the page
created and released in the public domain AFTER he had the audacity to come along with
'wise' propositions and promotions as an allegedly honourable 'victim' who allegedly
wished for and expected 'co-operation' with the person he treated as if one of the suckers
he and his chums had been targeting FOR USE (as committed lovers of the cash under the
table arrangements) IN THE PROCESSING OF FRAUDULENTLY CONDUCTED COURT PROCEEDINGS all the
way to the European Court for Human Rights. We cover the parts of such persons, in the
exclusive page which he and ALL of his chums, elected to bury in the dark corners of the
caves where they congregate to plan their parts in promotion & usury of the system of
operations for fraud aplenty on the taxpayers and the corruption of the conditioned
victims of the legal circles and the abusers of judicial chair occupation, AS ALL
PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED, before electing to convert to front line soldiers and maintenance
engineers of the organised fraud through abuse of the courts facilities and processes. *Link
from here to the page created on receipt of the letter from the
deceitful Norman Scarth, who even though HE HAD INDULGED (earlier) in abuse of the trust
he had been benefiting from, for years, he attempted to impose his plans and those of his
affiliates on Andrew. He arranged for one of his affiliates (another who had been
benefiting from support and assistance for years, Mrs. Roz Kellett, to announce and
distribute, in the newsgroups, unauthorised assertions about the letter from the two
legally qualified politicians (both Barristers). On that occasion another time-waster and
abuser of trust, who had been promoting all manner for false intentions about 'crook
judges' jumped on the bandwagon; he promoted more unauthorised assertions about the
content of the letter from the two politicians. And ALL THREE never PUBLISHED ANY EVIDENCE
as to the foundations for their promotions and allegations about 'the abused courts
facilities'. The last even had to audacity to assert that it was too late for Andrew to
chastise or complain to the abusers of trust...."because the horse had bolted".
Andrew's response was VERY CLEAR. "The horse may have have bolted, friend but the
horse recognises only one rider, the person whose name is on the letter (as recipient) AND
THE OWNER OF THE HORSE WILL ENSURE THE HORSE KICKS THE TEETH IN OF ARROGANT ABUSERS OF
5. *Link from here
to the provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights, in the page where we
point to the Provisions under Article 29 of the Combined Treaties of the European Union,
covering among other issues FRAUD & CORRUPTION. *Link also from here to an email the victim and her husband reveiced
from Andrew, when the facts and the realities had to be put on record. Readers and
researchers should access the email and consider the disclosures relative to the
methodology used in order to secure the evidence published in our pages. It is imperative
that 'the threats by the husband of the victim' be considered with the propositions and
intentions of another accountant, Mr Ashok Mahadjin, who, aslo, was introduced to Andrew
by the very LIPS crowd/mob. *All were aspiring to operate as the approved legal gurus
waiting in the wings, of whom Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor spoke when responding to
the Home Affairs Select Committee, in November 1999, linked to from here]
6. The element
pointed to, above, *the disappearance / omission of the letter *i* from the surname Yiannides*
MIRACULOUSLY has been part of the ORGANISED wrong spelling of the surname by a number of official
bodies. Intriguingly interesting the obvious : such creations by the parties / persons who engage in such activities
intended to block & obstruct Internet searches connecting the name with the work of
the person whose name was / is spelled wrongly. The offenders mostly under the influence
of the organisers of the lives of the sucker-serfs in a pseudodemocracy, as managed
and arranged by abusers of public office and trust., most if not all members of secretive
set-ups such as the international Brotherhood of Freemasons, an allegedly charitable
Organisation [*Link from here to a common factor,
founded and resting on the roots of the Old Testament and alleged Gnostics roaming the
planet, building temples (wherefore the name free-masons). The convenient
wrong spelling of the name invariably attached to or born of specific wrong-doing
including fraudulent in intent activities / failures by alleged servants of the public and
the Law. One need only consider the simple fact that in these days a SEARCH ON
THE INTERNET points one to thousands of web-pages where a name is referred to. In the
premises when an image of a letter / document is published in the public domain WITHOUT
the article re-typed also as text, in the page where the image of the article or letter is
published, THERE EXISTS NO WAY of finding out what a particular person has been up to, or
in what areas of activity the person is involved..... hence the convenient failures of
alleged victim-challengers (the converted to the cash under the table and keep it between
us dreamers) NEVER ADDRESSED OR WROTE BACK to Andrew Yiannides, to express their views and
opinions on subject matters they were pointed to AS PUBLISHED in the public domain by
Andrew Yiannides which matters themselves, allegedly, were challenging BUT CONVENIENTLY
failing to expose the abusers of public office and the courts facilities in the public
domain. One and all failing because each and everyone had adopted the ways of the
impostors, the abusers of public office. By and large followers of the teachings by
examples stated in the most vile of works ever to have been misrepresented to mankind by
the creators and the followers of the vile work. Serious readers, researchers and victims
too, need to access the most revealing of extracts from the offensive work at .org/convicti.htm#Star and note with what other reading young
Andrew compared the offensive act by the alleged creator of all and everything. Interestingly
one reads in the second mainline religion >Christianity<, see Gospel according to
St. Luke, where at 25.27 one reads of 'The Coming of Son of Man' (as in
Mat. 24.29-31; Mk33.24-27). Make of such recorded material in the New Testament as you
think fit reader / visitor BUT USE GREY MATTER >THINK as you should and NOT
AS AN INDOCTRINATED / CONDITIONED sucker-serf. Consider the ways imposed on
society by religious leaders and politicians; if not all most members of such secretive
set-ups as the Freemasons, The Bilderbergs, the Illuminati, the Common Cause, etc., etc.
RETURNING to the main thread here, one HAS TO CONSIDER most seriously the element : "
WHY the obviously deliberate wrong spelling of the surname Yiannides!!! Any name CAN BE
SEARCHED on the Internet and thousands the web-pales where the surname is mentioned; many
the instances when Andrew Yiannides (where the re-typed text pertaining to
any act) CHALLENGED WRONG ACTS by alleged servants of the public and the law,
such as in the instance at hand; also as in the case of the HOUSING BENEFIT fraudulent
demand for the return of £1200 from the Letting Agency P.P.E Ltd. by Haringey Council.
The demand by the obedient servants of the public who set about serving their masters
(from above) by spelling wrongly the name of the one who attended the Review that ended up
with Haringey Council withdrawing the allegedly legitimate refund from the Letting Agency
well after the tenant had moved out of the let flat and the landlord HAD RECEIVED THE
FUNDS PAID OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND. In effect Haringey Council staff and officers
were demanding the return of funds paid to the targeted sucker-serf, the property owner
(retired persons who let their ex-residential home through Letting Agency to the imported
new cultures and religions : refugees and asylum seekers as arranged by followers of
the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works ever, The Old Testament.