JOIN a Network, a   Community on Line. Work with others for the Common Good & A Better World. Challenge & Expose Fraud & Corruption. REPORT criminal activities as YOU ARE duty bound to do. Do so in the Public Domain. Name all Public Servants who act in contempt of Parliament's Law Consider the ruling we point you to and ask: "WHAT BE THE OVERALL AIM OF OUR INTENTIONS, for publishing such truths and realities as we report and expose and as the victims of abusers of Public Office experience?

Publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (link) and ACT with others against the offenders. Join in a class action.

Affiliated Sites For The Above Projected Action   lbduk.org (File update)

JOIN the Community On Line and publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. Use your rights in law (*Link) & ACT with others against the offenders. It is in the victims' interest to work with and for each other's successes through the mass of evidence. All can benefit by creating the data of common practices, as  in the member's case  you can access details of, as we invite you, below.

ACCESS a member's case as registered in June 2002 at the European Court of Human Rights. THE FACTS and THE VIOLATIONS as pleaded by us should be compared with your own experiences. Point to the submitted work by using the links we provide you here. If you refer to or copy the work, ensure that you do qualify the source of the intellectual property. READ of the latest CHALLENGES & EXPOSURES necessitated after the childish assertions by persons who allegedly serve 'Justice'.   (ABDUCTED and raped daily by the very public servants). IF YOU wish to know of why and what is behind it all and the FOUNDATIONS for the rampant abuse of the legal systems in CIVILISED(?) democracies(!) that allegedly rest and are founded on LAW and ORDER YOU MUST access the new site.

ACCESS the member's site for additional information and how solicitors and courts did act in contempt of the LAW.

Join in the creation of the mass of evidence against the offending public servants. It will support actions you and others can instigate jointly and or severally. We cover In our pages such rights, & the laws breached and violated by the state through the public servants who defraud citizens of their rights in law and their assets / properties. Access the relevant page and consider our invitation and your rights.

READ the content of this page very carefully and recognise how each of the protagonists was after self-promotion while at the same time agreeing over what was to come from within their circles, as a mob organised at deceit with undeclared intentions and 'stitch you up, behind your back mate', as fast learners care of the facilities we cover in the exclusive and clearly stated page: * /confraud.htm *

DO Note, both protagonists in this page were proclaiming their intentions to join in the exposures warranted and accepted as the only avenue through which to inform the world, THE JURY AT LARGE, of the facts and the realities of life in the legal system.
NEITHER proceeded to such activities. Both used contact with *human-rights* for other purposes than just their alleged intentions 'to expose the fraudulent activities at and  within the courts / legal system'.
Their main pre-occupation was to use alleged intentions, to publish it all on the Internet, as a lever and to cause the authorities to deal with claims to compensation, sooner rather than later.
Failing to act as honourably and openly, as the Community On Line members do and as the case stated and lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, was never within 'the make-up of the two, actors. Submitting to the ECoHR as 'OUR AIMS' statement of intent cover and as the law provides  was never within  their idea of: "Justice To Be Seen To Be Done & In Open Courts". The 'confidential' settlement under the counter, the constructive frauds on the Taxpayers, their only target.
Fast learners, indeed. Followers of the practices they adopted as their modus operandi, too.
Both went for undisclosed parts in, and endorsement by them both, of the realities we cover elsewhere. In fact the Honorary Secretary of the LIPS crowd / mob declared, in an email that ...... it is all legal!

Below an email from Johan to Andrew. READ IT and consider five important aspects.
(1) Why did 'J' fail to use the judgement and appeal the Order of the day? He did, after all, contact and instruct a firm of solicitors who, he stated would not flinch to even  take the government on!  'J' boasted so, following 'the dismissal of the application as set down by 'J' and as presented to the court by 'J's mentor Mr Lewis (Lou) Foley, who was also the mentor of the old age pensioner, whose case was covered in the Daily Mirror article below, in September of the very year. Read the article and draw your own conclusions as to the roles of such persons for and in the scenarios promoted by Norman and 'J' about their playmate as another of 'the fraudsters club recruits' and 'activist', alleged challenger.
(2) Why did 'J', his mentor and his new solicitors choose NOT TO APPEAL, also the new dismissal?  Why indeed default to proceed to an appeal of the order resting on the application as advocated, settled and presented to the court  by 'J's mentor on the day? The answer, simple ; the scam was simply, theatre for the naive and gullible.
The answer to the above question, lay in the fact that 'J' raised(!) funds FOR payments to the solicitors he had acted against, because of the issues pleaded in the Appeal we publish in our pages. At that point in time Andrew knew that the negotiations for which 'J' engaged a NEW FIRM OF SOLICITORS, were ONLY to settle the 'fraudulent charges' (the FIRST FRAUD, by the legal circles,  through abuse of the courts' processes and facilities). It was clear that the agreed settlement was in accordance with the provisions of Article 38. SETTLEMENT concluded meant THE PARTIES who abused the courts' processes for asset striping and transfer to their circles ( constructive frauds) WERE TO BENEFIT from the conversions. It also meant that 'J' was dreaming of further abuse of Andrew's time, and that much more had been in his plans with others. 'J', after all, attempted, to pass HIS NEW SOLICITORS as the right firm to challenge 'public servants who abuse public office and steal / plunder the citizens' assets / properties.
Read the Appeal. Acquaint yourselves with the realities of life in the legal system.
Prepare for more factual revelations, in due course.
(3) Why fail to contact the Lord Chancellor and lodge substantial submissions to his Lordship, instead of promoting 'the new wrongs' by word of mouth only to other victims?
(4) 'J', after all was aware of the content of a succinct letter the Lord Chancellor wrote in respect of the issues that evolved out of Mr G. H. Screen's case. In the letter his Lordship very clearly stated that he had set up a special team to look into matters of 'judicial conduct' .(Link)
(5) WHY did 'J' fail to confirm if he contacted the European Court Of Human Rights to add the ongoing violations by and in the courts as a gross breach of the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol? Andrew HAD, after all, pointed to that violation and provision which his mates within LIPS, evidently knew not of just like both of his mentors, past and present (at the time)!
The email:
"Andrew, The tape that you dropped at my house, I am unable to transcribe the Judgement you recorded, I will make a copy for you later and a copy for the Lord Chancellor if he so requests one.
Many thanks for your efforts to help me and others that are not given a fair hearing in our so called Courts,  by their determined actions to conceal evidence and hold hearings in closed court rooms, and for abusing our rights to legal representations by Mackenzie friends.
Johan F. "
ASK : ' WHY assert 'IF' the Lord Chancellor requests for one? A wronged party who had already petitioned the ECoHR then establishes through his telephone call & vile attempts that he was ready to go along the path that the party, assisting and guiding the old age pensioner (see article below) AND the person he called ('N') ALSO eager that the procedure to be followed was the dead end alley.  In other words 'NO APPEAL and NO route to Strasbourg, BY choice! BOTH oblivious to the fourth dimension FOR  Abraham Lincoln's famous assertion "...' and there are some people YOU can never fool at any time". AY 1956

The same fraudster was also promoting lies by alleging that affidavits were altered by Andrew before publication on the Internet. The fraudster, the person he called or the authors of the allegedly altered affidavits NEVER raised such issues with Andrew, simply because the FRAUDSTER WAS FABRICATING TO HIS HEART'S DELIGHT.
(*Link)

£100,000 chasing abducted justice

and the victims of the experts multiply as the advocates and promoters of theatrical productions take their victims down the dead end alleys of abducted Justice with promises for an eventual settlement under the scheme we expose [*Link to] in our exclusive revelations.
Joining in, is the new class of experts that 'J' and 'N' knew of, perfect specimens, as recruits in 'the fraudsters club' both. The article above was published at least three weeks before the two crafty engaged in the exchanges we publish in this page. BOTH knew of the simple fact that the alleged legal expert was but an earlier victim of the legal circles and a convert to the new codes of morals imposed by and through the arrangements in place (*Links List). Note the issue and prepare for more revelations. We point to the words used by Norman, giving it all away. 
Johan was to rely on the very expert who was guiding and assisting the old age pensioner. The exchanges between the two LIPS members qualify and clarify, through the double-talk they engaged in, more than enough. (Link)

R28. Read the succinct letter from the Legal Aid Board that covers simple facts AND WHY Andrew was interested in Johan's 'J's' case. The solicitor 'J' spoke of was one of  the two who took part in the attempt to convert and misappropriate  Housing Benefit funds through 'the relevant county court's FREE 4 ALL facilities. THEFT of rents owing to a targeted victim (Link), as had been arranged through the invisible services industry - part of the CIUKU enterprises.
Odds are that the person who sent 'J' to *human-rights* and to Andrew was aware of the challenges that put an end to the attempts by the solicitors and the county court staff and officers to indulge in the usual 'theatrical productions'. The targeted victim will be publishing a succinct affidavit. THE POLICE who negated in their public duties while offering invisible services through their defaults and omissions will be challenged, yet again, to state IF IT BE THEIR INTENTION TO BRING ABOUT PROSECUTIONS of at least two criminals they have been harbouring for years now.

R11. The victims multiply, and of that there is no doubt. In preparation for the warranted exposures and the realities that arose as of the day when 'J' (Mr Johan M. Foenander) visited Andrew after he returned from a trip to Australia contacted *human-rights*  'N' (Mr Norman Scarth) and two other victims received, from Andrew copies of an explicit and succinct affidavit that had been settled and lodged at a County Court, years earlier. It covered much more than the recipients expected and the content / pleadings covered the very issues, that our succinct *Conrad* page covers.
The transmitted copies WERE MEANT AS A WARNING SHOT to actors who were playing a dangerous game as alleged 'challengers & victims of the legal circles / the system of LAW APPLICATION.

I.33.  The meeting referred to by Johan:'J' was one that Norman: 'N' knew of. 'N' had been party to undisclosed secret arrangements. As the pre- appointed' Honorary Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, he knew much more. Andrew had not been invited to the meeting.
The 'controllers and organisers of much the same shambles, for years, as 'J' complained of to 'N'  nonetheless, new LIPS members were directed to *human-rights* and to Andrew for assistance, as happened with and in the case with 'J', himself. For days before the meeting, another member of LIPS was  telephoning Andrew and persistently 'demanded' of Andrew to telephone the self- appointed President of the LIPS crowd . The caller insisted that Andrew should put proposals to the 'Life President' for members to discuss at the meeting. Andrew flatly refused to get involved and told the caller that he would only attend as an observer in order to report any 'LIPS' developments in the Internet Newsgroups, IF the meeting did not turn out to be another sham as the two fiascos in Birmingham in 1998, when in fact the persistent caller himself had been given cause to walk out 'disgusted' as he stated then.
The previous year, Andrew had been invited and was able to attend only the second meeting. At the time Andrew called upon the organisers, for the umpteenth time (since they invited Andrew and The CAMILA Project' to join LIPS as Affiliates) to consider going on line, as other organised groups were doing. The second meeting had been convened solely for the LIPS crowd to select a steering committee with a brief to plan and steer the 'crowd' out of the wilderness.
On that occasion, as soon as the 'life President' walked in, she told Andrew that he should not / could not address the meeting, unless invited by the chair!  Andrew responded by clarifying that he was attending as an invited person who was not prepared to waste his time by going through the same 'cry over each other's shoulders' and tell us what happened to you shams, THE ANNUAL farce that had been on-going for far too many years. IF any of the attendees were there for similar performances, Andrew pointed out, THEN the invitation was misleading and an abuse of other people's trust and time.
The word had been that the self appointed life president was to resign, and a steering committee was to be elected in order to 'plan for the future'. On that basis Andrew was attending that meeting and was to act as observer and reporter on the all important changes.
As sure as the sun rises every day the pantomime was in full swing within minutes. The president who was going to resign did not, on the grounds that there was no quorum. The 'president' was to stay on until a meeting when enough members were to attend and vote in persons who could steer the 'crowd' out the frozen capsule it had been for years. It was but another farce of a gathering, just as the organisers had arranged a few weeks earlier for a Channel 4 documentary on the legal services. Very disappointing results all round with C4 securing and using nothing of substance.Andrew asked the 'president' simply: "How many invitations had been sent out to 'members' and IF it was possible to provide him with a copy of the Articles of Association, the charter or the Statement of Intent of the crowd known as the Litigants In Person Society, and he pointed out that it was something he had been asking, of the president and her lieutenants for years. Andrew then pointed out that 'The CAMILA Project' had delivered, years earlier, to the crowd's  leaders such and to the day he  never received the essential documents.  MORE TO FOLLOW.

IT IS clear that the caller set out to interfere in our work. He used a number of ploys, in his attempts, to bring about an end to the co-operation between 'N' and Andrew.
The two scans, below, do evince the fact that there was continued 'common interests work'. The leaders of the LIPS crowd / mob had introduced other victims to.
One such 'victim (?) / challenger'(?) had been involved in numerous court applications. After one such 'production / presentation' at the RCJ, Strand, London, which Andrew attended, there followed a private meeting at the victim's residence. Persons from the LIPS crowd, who had been assisting the victim, were present. Andrew pointed out that:"As the issues were of a criminal nature, a Section 9 Statement should be prepared, signed and then delivered to the police. It would then be a matter FOR the police to act as their retainers entail.
The victim and his LIPS  assistants, subsequently attended the police at Charring Cross, London after another failed / rejected court application.
We were later informed that in a letter the police sent to the victim, the police were stating that INSTRUCTIONS from the Lord Chancellor and his Lordship's Department 'forbade the police to interfere in the work of the judges'.
That was what Andrew was told by the victim, WHO then refused to hand a copy of the letter from the police to the victim'. We hasten to add that the 'victim' had 'joined(?) the Community On Line and qualified that he was to act as 'OUR AIMS' statement of intent clarify.
The victim, Like 'N' & 'J' never acted in that direction. All three were good at theatrics intended to impress 'victims and others they had been & are targeting'.
The letter from the police we publish here, IS FROM A FAXED copy that Norman Scarth, in his capacity as the Honorary Secretary of LIPS, received from the victim(?).
Recognise the fact that co-operation existed far beyond the telephone call attempts evinced in this page. Such went on and was  to be the situation (until July 2001) despite many more vile activities, behind the scenes by and from 'victims' operating from within the LIPS crowd / mob.

READ below Norman's letter to the Lord Chancellor's Department and note that 'N' sent a true copy by post to Andrew at *human-rights*.
Do not fail to note the fact that the issue was PERJURY - false statements on OATH in order to defeat / pervert and CORRUPT Justice (as if she had been released by her captors and rapists). Norman did what had to be done. He was co-operating at the time with human-rights and acted as the occasion commanded.

NOW ogle over the reply from the Lord Chancellor's Department below. Work out for yourself IF we were and are correct in our conclusions that what victims are faced with: IS, No More, No Less, Organised, Institutionalised  FRAUD AND  CORRUPTION that is serviced and promoted by fraudsters of the calibre we expose in our pages*. (*F10)
You should recognise, WHY WE SAY: "It Is High Time the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor got their act together". They should act as the citizens' servants, they are meant to be.
We particularly expect of our elected representatives TO ACT as COMMANDED in such situations and as the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Spokes Person on Legal Affairs stated what a NEW Labour Government was to do when in office.
The actions taken at government level SOON AFTER WE contacted the Treasury, were evinced in Press Releases. The move to the Treasury and Ministerial office for the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng indicate that we are in for real changes. At least that is how we interpret  the cabinet changes. Time and MORE exposures by victims will bring about THE CHANGES. Below copy of the letter from the Metropolitan police to Mr G Ebert, who declined and failed to let us have a copy, or even to have sight of It, after promoting the 'news from the police'..
Mr N Scarth, also heard of it, asked for and received, by fax, a copy. He agreed with us that the issues it raised were fundamental. Our stance on the issue of POLICING / investigation of AND PROSECUTION of CRIME has been well known among the crowd / mob LIPS that he represented. As the Honorary Secretary of LIPS Mr Scarth exchanged the two letters published  above with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
It is for the average citizens to draw their own conclusions and to recognise WHY we persistently refer  to directors and  actors in matters legal, judicial and policing.
We should emphasise the fact that Mr G Ebert signed up as a member of the Community On Line (*Link) he benefited from coverage of a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice. Many of the LIPS crowd/mob attended. Among them the two in conversation in this page.  Mr Ebert did not publish anything in his free web-site. Evidently, he and the rest of the LIPS crowd were/are only interested in dancing cheek to cheek with the abductors and rapists of Justice in the quicksand all dare refer to as 'Justice Halls' - courts. All have been playing badly tuned musical instruments and drumming up the issue of "NO JURY - no fair hearings...",   in personal exchanges ONLY. The mob apparently DID and DO NOT WISH (like the media barons)  FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW OF THAT WHICH THEY SING & DANCE ABOUT in private. All they ever were interested was and remains HOW TO USE THE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE for the constructive frauds we cover (*Link to an exclusive page). Like others who are leading figures in other 'organised / set-up or taken over FOR deception aplenty groups (*Link to solicitors acknowledgement of such roles in societies that allegedly rest & are founded on principles of law and order). The mobs  simply do not want the public    RECOGNISE THE CAPABILITIES OF THE TRIAD controlling CIUKU Enterprises, that many aspire 'to serve in' for personal gain and other undisclosed reasons/benefits.

The above letter makes clear that in so far as the POLICE are concerned THEY HAVE NO DUTIES to perform and their supremo is not the elected MP who accepts the position of Home Secretary but a non-elected 'appointee' who acts as Cabinet Minister for Justice and MASTER OF CEREMONIES For The Theatrical Productions In Our Courts.
Apparently the police asserted that they are under instructions and the control of the Lord Chancellor! An all too familiar allegation by the police who have other priorities, like 'freebies' (Link). Organising Investigations FOR Tangent Exercises, all about their defaults to comply with and or to attend properly to their duties and retainers is their other great asset. Neither activity falls within INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION OF CRIMES

THE LETTER we publish below was sent by FAX to Andrew. It is from the Lord Chancellor in response to an MP and relates to issues that arose in the case of Mr G. H.. Scriven (*F1 for background)

Page 2.

Below, the fax we were caused to transmit to St. Luke's Hospital in Bradford evinces  our concerns about Norman after the attempts to have him certified, were reported to us by one of his mates from within the LIPS crowd / mob. It was also a case of putting the facts reported to us on record.

We publish in HTML the text in order to introduce links to and from the content(*Link to text)

The image below is from a leaflet which the creator of the Campaign for a Fair Hearing - Suzon Forscey- Moore with help from others, (including Andrew, the founder of human-rights) were handing to the public during the picketing of the courts in connection with 'The Secret Briefings', YEARS BEFORE the stooge and fraudsters' club recruit, Johan M Richard Foenander entered the scene. He was sent along, like a good little lap dog, to mess around with our time and to abuse Andrew's good will and readiness to assist all victims of the TRIAD [*Link]. Little did the fraudster know that Andrew was and HAD BEEN  RESEARCHING, (looking into) THE ELEMENTS & REASONS WHY for 2000 YEARS since the words of Christ (*Link) the ongoing abuse of The Law [*Link]. He benefited from much information about the said work, stretching to over ten years by then. He was told that the research  evolved around fraudsters who were/are gifted with the mentalities of the two in conversation in this page. He was informed of the fact that the 'guru' who was using the Pensioner [*Link] had been identified for that which he was engaging in 'CHILDISH THEATRICS IN THE COURTS'. In fact both of the stooges (in conversation here) were fully aware of the guru's activities and the exchanges recorded by the fraudster Johan M Foenander covered and gave away unwittingly, much [*Link].

The above leaflet relates to an UMBRELLA Organisation. It, the Campaign For Fair Hearing, existed for years. Long before the charlatan, stooge,  fraudsters club recruit, Johan M Foenander came along as a tutored, by others, stooge. He was simply guided by the gurus who were controlling (with their affiliates and associates) the members of the Litigants (loonies) In Person Society.

Access the evidence that we publish in our pages [*Link]. The stooge had seen it all, just as he saw the evidence about his solicitors who engaged in invisible services to criminals. They were involved in the Housing Benefit fraudulent conversions instigated by staff and officers of Haringey Council [*Link].  

A. The persons below NEVER reported - published IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN the very issues that the caller Johan Michael Foenander did put in a letter to Mr Geoffrey H Scriven, very clearly [*Link]

B. The very person, as with others that he shared much in common, engaging in the relentless promotion of the powers that be FOR & in the  SUBLIMINAL SUBJUGATION programme of 'the serfs'.
C.  INDOCTRINATION tactics with the additional promotion that the police and the media simply take no interest in the crimes which they, reported in order to simply promote the type of letter that Mr. G. Ebert was brandishing about AND DENYING US the right to challenge the crap he was selling to the naive & gullible (*Link to how Mr Norman Scarth acted after Andrew asked of him to challenge the promotions by G. Ebert)

D. NOTHING BUT THEIR love for more of the same and emulation of that which they set about to complain about, in the first instance. Adopting the facilities and tactics for the DOUBLE FRAUD ON THE 'SERFS' their new-found moral code.
1. Johan Michael Foenander
2. Peter Hayward
3. Philomena Cullen
4. Norman Scarth
5. Marisa Sarda
6. Nicholas Stamoulakatos
7. Nick Haralabidis
8. Bryan Hudson
9. Lou Foley
10.    art 3.
(For their silence access the reasons *Link)

A three-page letter was sent by a fraudsters club recruit to Mr. Geoffrey H Scriven, a victim of the Divorce Industry. Researchers and readers / visitors are urged to acquaint themselves with the facts stated by the fraudster, in a typical LOVE LETTER, intended only for the usual promotions of the system 'as is' BY MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS and lovers / participants in the DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS on the taxpayers. Visitors, readers, researchers are urged to access the letter from here and to acquaint themselves with the ploys.

Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions. In the alternative IF looking for any specific issue/issues USE the search facility. NOTE: All (*F+) <starF plus digit or character from the alphabet> in our pages link to FOOTNOTE information.

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@

Extremely important in this page: Read the email, in November 1999, from Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander (hereinafter identified as 'J') to Andrew of *human-rights* [*Link from here to the email  in the left margin pane] for it betrays the person's true colours, to anyone who uses grey material, Question:- WHY assert "If the Lord Chancellor asks for...". Recognise 'the relationship' and benefits that 'J' secured [*Link] as a tutored mischief maker and or as another actor who contacted Andrew, on directions from one Peter Hayward of the LIPS crowd/mob and others who were / are guiding such charlatans, as legal gurus -and as intellectuals- covered in the page /protocol.htm. 'J' contacted Mr Andrew Yiannides for and with other agendas, on a mission to accomplish. False promises aplenty, false undertakings which he never intended to act upon, as a lover of the existing ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE FOR RAMPANT FRAUD (through organised abuse of the courts facilities) ON THE TAXPAYERS (national budget) AND CORRUPTION OF SUCH SHYSTERS & BLOATED STOOGES as the two lousy actors (the stars in this page) who engaged and engage in many undeclared parts' FOR the promotion of the corrupt and fraudulent activities in, at and THROUGH THE COURTS.  

IMPORTANT introduction to parties and page: Victim 'J' was directed to *human-rights* by the manager of the LIPS crowd/mob, Mr Peter Hayward. Andrew did not seek the identity of 'the director' at the time. 'J' later introduced another 'LIPS' member/person, Miss Ormila Bhopal who NEVER disclosed to Andrew that she HAD been assisted by Mr Norman Scarth who was operating from Leeds at the time as the allegedly hono(urable)rary Secretary of the crowd/mob [*Link to his capabilities, as a fraudsters club recruit]. The latter was assisted initially by 'J' and subsequently by Andrew with 'J' party to, and witness to Andrew's part. One problem the new victim was facing, at the time of the introduction, was the need to recover bundles of documents (*F4) from the courts. The bundles were essential in and for the preparation of 'an intended application to the European Court of Human Rights. Not all the bundles were traced, by the court staff at the RCJ, and one bundle in particular was found to be lacking a substantial number of pages/copies.[*Link to an exclusive letter to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the 'need to recover documents', and find out HOW and WHY the ECoHR complied with the demands submitted by human-rights].

• Recordings were made of telephone conversations with the court staff confirming the fact that documents were missing.
• At the time the court staff were blaming other parties for what, in law, would amount to 'tampering with the evidence', indictable offences.
• The recordings of the exchanges with the court staff were made by Andrew from 'J's residence.
• The original tape recording was handed to the victim. 'J' was asked to make a copy of the recording and clear instructions were given to the 'victim of those circumstances'.
• The victim was to transcribe the telephone conversations and to submit a signed and witnessed copy to 'J', who would then proceed, with Andrew, to confirm the factuality of the transcript (by listening to the copy of the tape recording). [*Link from here to an instance when Andrew used the same tactic in order to secure contemporaneous evidence in support of such realities]
• 'J' and Andrew would then submit their own statements of facts/truth, with a copy of the relevant telephone bill that would confirm date, time, where to and duration of call/calls.
• That which is stated below should be read in conjunction with the facts and realities that 'arose' in connection with the other 'victim's part, Miss Ormila Bhopal, as enacted after she was introduced to *human-rights* and to Andrew by the agent of the 'LIPS' crowd/mob, the maintenance engineer of the system, in place, which he, Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander and his like-minded affiliates, fell in love with. [*Link from here to the parts of another LIPS introduction fo the o]
•  

Both LIPS 'victims' defaulted to act as had been discussed and agreed. Months later 'J' handed to Andrew the copy of the tape, after declaring that the other LIPS member was a waste of time and a hopeless case. 'J' expressed concerns, like Andrew, at the waste of roll upon roll of FAX paper because of endless and useless material the other victim was transmitting to both 'J' ('J' alleged he had been / was the recipient of such invasions but he never produced any evidence in support of such assertions) and to Andrew. Over a year later, in May 2001, Andrew had been given cause to refer to the copy of the tape because of inexcusable and unjustified assertions the other LIPS victim, Miss Ormila Bhopal was making about all persons who tried to assist her, including Andrew who had made it possible to that victim to go on line and to benefit from a free *human-rights* web-site. It was at that point in time that Andrew realised the tape, given to him (by Johan M.R.F) contained another recording from which part of the tape the transcripts, below, made in late September 2001.

It should be noted that Andrew was never told of, or made aware of the exchanges and the opinions expressed by the parties to the conversation transcribed below. At no time was Andrew invited to express any views on the assertions and or the issues that relate to and should be / were / are of concern to him. In the circumstances Andrew afforded an opportunity to 'J' to justify and or to explain blunt falsehoods and unjustified assertions 'J'  was making, in the course of the telephone exchanges, with the other member of LIPS, about the material and the pages published at *human-rights*. Reference to the material could easily establish that 'J' was simply seeking to create and or generate problems between two persons who *had common cause and goals to work for" and HAD BEEN co-operating, for some considerable time by then. [*Link from here to the foundations of and for such activities behind the scenes. A new web-site, where Andrew reveals it all, is under construction. Andrew sets off with revelations about the God that persons of Johan Michael Richard Foenander's morals, worship and follow the teachings of. 'J' was and remains a perfect specimen of, as a follower of the 'teachings by examples stated', in the most vile of works ever presented to 'the sons of men'].  

It goes without saying that 'J', allegedly, had similar goals and aims, whereas the exchanges published below establish, otherwise. ALL ASSERTIONS AND MISCHIEVOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS by 'J' will be dealt with appropriately with and through links to other material and more than adequate documented evidence will be used /pointed to [*Link from here here to an email in the left margin]. The material will cover the machinations and the real aims and intentions of the LIPS crowd. 'J', as an agent provocateur and through duplicity of purpose he was playing at cat and mouse, intending that Andrew could be treated as a mouse, by 'J' and his colleagues within the LIPS crowd/mob. The targeted mouse has been establishing since release of the material in this and other pages that while the 'cat' was playing and benefiting - while testing Andrew's resolve / patience and Andrew's knowledge and grasp of *the practices* within the system - the presumed mouse was grinding his tiger's teeth while looking into the activities of persons of Johan's mentality to other citizens and in particular 'the element of *THE RAMPANT FRAUD (on the taxpayers) THROUGH THE COURTS' as he, Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander was not simply aware of, BUT AN ACTIVE PARTY TO and a conscious playmate in the very area of criminal activities FOR MORE OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS. [*Link from here to the funds under the table facility, the REWARDS FOR PLAYING THE FIELD - *link from here to proof. *Link also from here to the arrangements in place to fall for. *Link to persons, like 'J' and 'N' who run around using victims of the system; they act so ONLY FOR MORE FRAUD THROUGH THE COURTS, as 'N' wrote of after it was so organised that he should end in correction & mental institutions for him to set-up 'Law Centres'. All as 'organised and planned for by the Lord Chancellor', who spoke of such facilities when he addressed the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in November 1999. *Link to the confidential arrangements for cash under the table - proof on affidavit. *Link to 'J's' knowledge that what he had been subjected to AND HE WAS ENGAGING IN were criminal activities click on the images of each of the 3 pages and THEREAFTER link to the page where we have published the letter in HTML format, for links to and from its content. The author relates to the activities and THE PARTS OF the chap, Hussein, who introduced him ('J') to the use of the other victims game as the Hussein chap did when he initiated 'J' in the practices which another known *fraudsters club recruit*, Johan's chum Lou Foley was engaging in, too. Just like 'N' and other *fraudsters club recruits* who operate as the LIPS crowd/mob, also their affiliates within other organised groups and movements engage in. The HTML text of the letter can be accessed in the page .org/someploy.htm where the appeal covering some of the activities 'J' was subjected to, is published. HE CHOSE TO SUPPRESS THE FACT & REALITIES as a moron (who was drawn to the system as is) and or as a blackmailed fool who elected to treat the criminal activities (in the courts) as immaterial in THE WORLD OF THE FRAUDSTERS WHO ENGAGE IN THE DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS consciously. Visitors can Link from here directly to a page where we expose another LIPS crowd/mob fraudster and her parts in the evil world of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, through the courts, as maintained in pseudo-democracies with the evidence in the page for all concerned, and in particular the victims and the taxpayers to access].

BOTH  persons, had been wronged by the legal circles and the courts. As one reads through their explicit exchanges one cannot but note the manner in which each covered the issues of concern and interest to them. In the process both exposed their individual traits and 'the duplicity of purpose inherent in the activities they engaged & engage in as maintenance engineers and lovers / users of the system as is. [*Link from here to the explicit page where we expose such persons as nothing else but fraudsters club recruits'].

The first one ('J') instigated the telephone call at a time when the former was under a lot of pressure. A third person had approached 'J' out of the blue some years earlier, one Hussein Saheed of whose activities Johan ('J') wrote an explicit letter to Mr Geoffrey Scriven, another Divorce Industry victim of the courts and the legal circles. Hussein's appearance on the scene occurred in much the same fashion as others were, care of the organisers of the lives of 'the serfs' in the United Kingdom:-

• Mr. Norman Scarth. *Link from here to an explicit page exhibiting his chosen area of activities as an abuser of trust and as an accomplished and committed to the system, as is, fraudsters club recruit]
• Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander. *Link from here to an explicit page covering some of his parts & participation in criminal fraud on the taxpayers.
• Mr. William Spring. *Link from here to a page where we copied the Home Page from his personal human-rights.org Community on Line, website. Victims, visitors, readers and researchers should have no difficulty to recognise why the false promotions by the victim who benefited from an Order granting him Leave to Appeal, even though he had not lodged such an application at Court. It should be noted that the order, intriguingly, sprung out of the blue as soon as he announced, in the newsgroups, that he joined the human-rights.org Community on Line & that he fully intended to expose and challenge >>> IN & THROUGH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN <<< the abusers of the courts processes & facilities. Needless to say after he received the Leave to Appeal Order he simply took up residence in the cave where the LIPS crowd/mob have been congregating for years. The LIPS crowd/mob AS an organised group of FRAUDSTERS CLUB RECRUITS had and have only one interest. Their aims were and remain to act and operate as alleged legal gurus WHO ACCOST & ASSIST TARGETED (pointed to) VICTIMS CREATED THROUGH FRAUDULENT COURT PROCEEDINGS, BY THE LEGAL CIRCLES & COURTS. The only interest of the LIPS crowd/mob was and remains to coerce and guide the victims they are pointed to and target, to go for the REWARDS UNDER THE TABLE, to persons who, like him, subscribe to the stipulation that amounts to blackmail because the aim is to suppress the criminal activities from the taxpayers, as the media Barons, through the Intellectual Prostitutes the Barons retain and maintain have been organising and arranging for decades. *Link also from here to the disputed, and prophetic plans of the abductors and rapists of both Democracy and Justice, as researched and presented by the creator of this website, Mr. Andrew Yiannides.  
• Mr. Nick Haralabidis Party to the attempt to cause us to publish uncalled for racist element which Lord Irvine introduced in a letter [*Link to the letter] which were attributed to Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven and we never heard of before we will release a FAX to Mr G H Scriven which he failed to respond to, leading to the conclusion that he was party to the vile ploy.
• Ms. Marisa Sarda [*Link from here to a page where we expose her parts in attempts to create false instruments that could assist the fraudsters from within the Inland Revenue to use her evil lies which she wilfully made sure WITH HER ACCOMPLICE Mr. Patrick Cullinane were not for their target to know of].
• Ms. Anita Tierney
• Mrs. Veronica Beryl Foden and many other affiliates and associates of the LIPS crowd/mob all of whom proved to have been deceitful charlatans and fraudsters. All seen to be lovers and aspiring users of the ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE FOR THE TWO CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS.
• Not forgetting the charlatans who were/are fronting the UKMM and the FnF, both groups known to be targeting and using victims of the family courts and the Divorce Industry. The front men of the UKMM. one Barry Worrall and one Ian Kelly, sent an unsolicited invitation to Mr Andrew Yiannides (the founder of human-rights) and both failed to respond to explicit requests / demands. In the meantime, for years the UKMM's alleged legal gurus, recognised to be using many victims of the divorce industry for their own personal ends. (Evidence will be released at the right time in respect of the unsolicited invitation by and the failures to respond to requests / demands made of the UKMM's front line who operate as maintenance engineers of the system as is).
• Visitors, readers, researchers are urged to access the page .org/4deceit.htm where we publish proof that the managers / gurus of the LIPS crowd/mob when it came to delivering upon their promises, as alleged challengers, they simply proved that which their activities and propositions had already established over the previous five years. We emphasise that Mr Andrew Yiannides, was contacted by the managers / organisers / controllers of the crowd/mob soon after the explicit appeal we publish in our pages was lodged BOW County Court (*F12). The alleged victim-challengers of the system of operations through the court, as lovers of the rewards under the table (suppressed from the taxpayers as covered in the page our visitors can link from the above URL) they simply   cash in on the facilities in place FOR REWARDING LOVERS & PROMOTERS / USERS OF THE SYSTEM. The page we point to links to an explicit paragraph where the obvious cannot be overlooked by the victims of the free-for-all Administrator / 

Johan M R Foenander was sent along (introduced) by Mr. Peter Hayward 'the manager / director of the LIPS crowd/mob in late July / early August 1999. After a theatrical production on 11th November 1999 (purporting to be an appeal from the sham of an alleged hearing on 1st October 1999 before a Master at the R.C.J), the fraudster, Johan, thereafter retained a new firm of solicitors for the distribution of the funds secured through the arrangements we cover in the exclusive page the very page which NONE OF THE ABOVE FRAUDSTERS ever addressed; their failures establishing beyond any doubt that the BLUNT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES (through contempt of all law and evidence) FOR CONSECUTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS are acceptable to such persons. Throughout the hearing at the RCJ the fraudster Johan Michael Foenander was 'the silent star' while the guru assisting him, one Lou (Lewis) Foley, (as he discussed with the person he telephoned, as visitors to this page will be reading below) engaged in uncalled for mannerisms leading to the expulsion, from the court, of the guru who 'knew best'. Nothing but dust in your eyes productions as organised by charlatans who engaged & engage in such activities and scenarios; all intended to lead to additional 'costs awards to solicitors, as in many other cases we were called upon to attend 'and witness'. Nothing but the usual arrangements with and through co-operating mentors (maintenance engineers and users of the system as is) and new victims 'sucked into the system. Such persons acting as seasoned lovers of the provisions and the conditional rewards, under the table, to idiots who consciously elect to act in contempt of the law, knowing full well that the rewards in such circumstances constitute bluntly organised fraud on the budget / the taxpayers and NOT COMPENSATION PER SE.

The background to the introduction of Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander prior to him being sent along 'to play as a cat plays with a mouse (such were the games all LIPS crowd/mob fraudsters indulged in after contacting Mr Andrew Yiannides) was born of claims against solicitors who were party to the usual abuse of the courts facilities in the course of Divorce Proceedings primed and cultured by public servants. The proceedings against the solicitors were settled and issued by one Hussein who was sent along (out of the blue) apparently in full possession of the facts attached to and arising out of the fraudulent activities at, in and through the courts imposed on the 'victim'(!) Johan Michael Richard Foenander. The visitor / mentor offered to 'the victim of the solicitors' his services as a Barrister who, allegedly, was operating out of solicitors offices. With the victim's collaboration the visitor instigated (drafted/settled and issued for 'J' proceedings against a firm of solicitors who had acted for 'J'. That action was struck out, on application to a Master, by solicitors who were acting for the insolvent (as we knew to be the case) Solicitors' Indemnity Fund on behalf of the solicitor and THE LAW SOCIETY'S PROTECTION RACKET FOR IT'S MEMBERS, the OSS. There arose the need to challenge the striking out of the action and 'J' ..... allegedly needed assistance while a petition of his, to the European Court of Human Rights had been / was benefiting from the rewards under the table facility..... and the condition to silence..... the suppression of the facts from the taxpayers, care of such fraudsters and the media barons with the Intellectual Prostitutes the barons retain, acting precisely as stated by John Swainton over a century earlier.... and as covered in 'the plans for the sons of men on planet earth' millennia ago'. [*Link from here to the explicit letter the 'victim-convert and lover of the operations through the courts wrote to another victim-convert in February 2000]

We should point out that Mr. A Yiannides had been shown originals and copies of letters and other documents that confirm the opening statements (above) made by Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander to Mr Norman Scarth. The aforesaid disclosures and access to documented evidence, after the hearing on 1st October 1999. The said production / scenario, alleged hearing before a Master, simply intended to lead to 'the planned-for application' by the alleged guru, the known vexatious litigant Lou-is / Lew-is Foley. And such activities / scenarios in contempt of the provisions FOR APPEALING DECISIONS ENTERED BY ANY COURT TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY. Between them, mentor and alleged victim, recklessly oblivious to the fact that Mr.Yiannides observed and noted more than enough, on 1st October at the RCJ and at the residence of the fraudster who miraculously was being represented at the time (in other matters but not for the application / scenario / scripts on 1st October) by the firm of solicitors Anton & Co. in Haringey, north London. Mr. Yiannides had challenged the aforesaid solicitors for their parts (in collaboration with another solicitor) in the National Scandal Activities born of and resting on the Housing Benefit Scams and Constructive Frauds, through the courts, that we cover in our pages. Intriguing was the fact that the aforesaid solicitors had written to one of the  many offending solicitors (who allegedly had represented the fraud of a victim-come lover of the arrangements in place for rampant constructive frauds on the taxpayers) that their client was not interested in an offer from the other solicitors because their client's case at the ECoHR (Strasbourg) was nearing completion.(*Link to the letter).

Of essence, however, was and happens to be the manner in which both ('J' & 'N') exchanged views on the issues and the persons they covered in the exchanges, which we publish below. Their 'antics are typical of victims of the legal circles and the police authorities', the officers of which invariably ignore blunt criminal activities by persons who are PRESUMED TO KNOW OF & SERVE ALL LAW'.

J.     I've got a letter of complaint... right.... I was set up with, you know....., racial contents...., to the state where I was almost at breakdown point, after three and a half days of deliberate lies by her barrister! Yeah?( R.11 )
N.    Yeh....
J.     And they turned and said, 'Well, oh you know, they didn't'... eh… when I wrote to them after the investigation, they didn't find it was racially motivated! Right? I said can it not be racially motivated... what is a divorce proceedings got to do with the colour of his skin... if he' hasn't be promoted... or anything else … the.... the.... the... facts of a divorce proceeding is eh...., to...., to....., to.... for the divorce and..., and... ancillary relief matters.... In other words,  your assets and your income…
N.    Hm…
J.     Right?  Nothing else!  Right?   Not the colour of your skin or whether you are … Oh..., oh...., oh...., you sleep in the house.... or you sleep in the street!!!  Right? It is the fact that she had more money than me because she had taken money from my accounts and we've even got the evidence..... gone into various other accounts.... and we showed the judge what these cheques she had made from my joint account I gave her..... into several other accounts (R.12) that she'd stashed money away … and also, you know the Calderbanks!!!!  You know what Calderbanks are?
N.    Eh, ah. only vaguely…..
J.     The Calderbanks are offers that you make to settle,
N.    ....... eh.. eh…
J.     Every time that I made an offer to settle from the outset, ah… right ? They wanted treble, they wanted treble of what I offered!!!  Then I said you have the house.  They said NO. Then I said look..... ah, then I phoned up...... they were getting false valuations, my solicitors, her solicitors, everyone!!!  So I said if these are values sell the house now !!! Right ?  And then they said NO!  Right? Ah… I said 'look it's gone on long enough'... and I said, 'I am marketing the property by the same firm of the estate you used! They didn't like that! They said, 'You can't do that!' ....Aahh, I said, 'Watch me!'  And I had it marketed by the same agents that they used; the solicitors used, and rather than say it was worth 180 to 250 thousand, eh! I was offered 47 thousand for it.  That was years ago!  Right?  Because it had broken its back… and because it's got worse...., the same person who offered 47 thousand ehh...... he is the highest bidder for this house.....  as a plot of land for 18 thousand....
N.    Yeah..., eh ....
J.     Yeah?  So the judges were totally wrong..... and then...... I found that this solicitor that is now put this charging order and wants to sell the house and everything...., we've got proof from the..., from the...., eh...., ehhh... the surveyor and the valuer that was in court, eh...., to show that he was asking the valuer to give false valuations on the property!!! Against the.... the... real valuation that he gave in the... the...., because he said the property is not worth a light because it's ......eh, its... breech eh...., its broked..... it has to be pulled down and to pull ehh... ehhh   between the two house you'll have to support the other two properties and.... and...... and you know.... eh.... therefore it's not worth ehh... the value of land it's sitting on!!! Because whoever buys it will have to pull it down, he'll have to remove all the rubble, so all that cost comes into it …. You understand what I am saying? [*Link from here to the appeal warranted in order to challenge the constructive frauds through abuse of the courts 'facilities'. For that work, the FRAUDSTER 'J' was sent along by the LIPS organised Mafiosi. He did benefit from the work while he was just abusing Mr Yiannides' readiness to assist and work with victims, while the fraudster 'J' was just messing about with the rights of Andrew Yiannides,  as a   self-assured cat while of opinion that the targeted Andrew Yiannides was a mouse].
N.    Yeah, yeah, ehhh…
J.     And that's clear as daylight, even the valuation, so now, even the valuation of theirs, you know this...... this....... 180..... 250......(*PI2) and when I told the judge, eh… he didn't want to know…. He didn't want to know….(*PI3) And.... and.... but..... but...... but...., I mean they can't rule on Pinochet that.... that..... that.... Lo… Hoffman could..... you know....... shouldn't have been there.... and then..... then.... then turn said that Judge Singer could interfere with the first hearing and then hear the second hearing....... the Appeal!!!   Right? And then..... then..... I've got the evidence!!!  Right?  About the Appeal the..... the.... the..... ehh... ehh.... even the solicitors offered it to the barristers..... the QC...... and every one else, and then at the last minute the.... the ehh..... you know..... they were told they will not show the evidence and they warned them they will be black-listed. And now, because of that, my solicitors are back peddling now (R1) and they don't want to represent me in any case.....
N.    Yeah?
J.     Because of … because these letters now..... because they went to Europe.... and obviously, because the other side have got hold of them, as well,  now.... so now there's threats (C3) coming on..... and my solicitors are not given a Legal Aid Certificate to practice any more!(R13)  Right? Eh, that they didn't met the criteria or whatever, but it is not that, they were warned that they would be black-listed, they gave me the letters showing they were warned in front of me, right?(C.14)  Ah… therefore they are being black-listed, never mind anything else.
N.    Hm… hm…
J.     And its wrong, its wrong, Norman, I mean now, I mean even if it ended up with bah...., I can't see how any judge or any court can order to put me on the street… but, eh...., oh....., Lou turned and says no, we'll take a claim* [*Link from here to example of Lou's activities] against them before the 23 days is... ar… before the 23^rd of November to get a much bigger claim …..(C.15)
N.    Yeh… eh…
J.     Because the.., eh..., eh.... , the judges and taxing masters can't refuse to look at the barrister's...., barrister's affidavit! You know? The barrister is hiding the solicitors and if the barrister was in charge of the case free from the solicitors and he could see I was being blackmailed, right?  Eh,  you know he can't,  you know he had to show that evidence!(C.16) Right???  And he is a gentleman, Nigel Lee!!! Right???  So... and he's seen this evidence, now, and he's turned round and said it's chronic!(R.17) He didn't realise what was going on, because the bundles that he had was not the same bundles that the judges had in front of them!(Link)
N.    Yeh, eh….
J.     Yeh?  Eh.... So the newspapers will have a song and dance(I.8) about it in the end(C.19), but in the meantime they'll gone try and crucify me eh..., they will gone try and pick all the furniture and everything else and leave me, eh..., you know eh…. to lay off the street but how about my brother, my brother's flat up the road...., up the road, which he's been eh….. well he is not paying rent for.... any more(C.20), because he's been..., it's been badly damaged by his landlord..., you know the.... the..., you know... he is...., he's renting a flat there and rabbety(!) ceilings and all that, so he's been living with me for the last five years…..
N.    Yeah, yeah…..
J.     Right?  Or six years even.  And yet he has a share in this property.... so he is well within his rights to stay put….
N.    Yes, yeh…. eh…
J.      And all...., and how are they going to distinguish between my brother's assets and mine in this property?  What the television? The carpets and everything else? Are they going to come and rip them up? Ah? The washing machine? They got no rights to come and do that..., because..., I mean, is it under Article 3? …. that you cannot be deprived(D4) of your..., you know..., your… your European Convention?  Deprived of your rights? ……
N.    Ehm…ehm.. I forget now ….. eh.. eh….
J.     (cont.) your rights …. Article 6 is..., is...., is about, you know...., not having a fair hearing ….
N.    (int)… Yeah, eh..., eh...., Article 3 is about inhum…. eeh... eeh.... inhuman treatment and….
J.     (int) … This IS about inhuman treatment, .... in a way… isn't it?
N.    Yeah…. Yeah…. Yes...., yes..., eh…..
J.     You know something?  I will have to make another application to the European Court and say, this is what's been going on now….
N.    (int) ….. you…..
J.     (cont)... and the last judgement they had, I mean even...., even.... Lou has turned and said it was totally fraudulent.....(C.21), I mean look at it! Right? The… eh..., eh...., the judge, the...., eh...., eh...., master, again they switched! They... the same, as my other cases..., they switched(C.22) the master on the day before the case to a different master.  I mean.... if you go before the other master the..., eh... case is supposed to be before, Norm...., Norman....., for three months, eh..., eh..... you know.... it was supposed to be laid before him, he has never seen the case at all! Yeah?
N.    (int) Yeah..., eh….
J.     So, there was no intent, it was never ahm..., ahm..., ouhm..., ouhm..., ouhm..., in front of the other master, ah..., ah...., and it was always, ah..., ah..., they were waiting for the last moment, because you, eeh..., in case you prepared staff, then all your staff will be uhn..., uhn..., null and void because you know it was before the wrong(C.23) master, yeah..., so I had to alter my affidavit and eh...., and thing on the night before the case to show that this is been moved, you know! And.... ehm..., I just can't believe it!!! I just can't believe that...., but ahm...., what do they do?   I mean the next thing they do is to put a bullet(C.24) through my head, you know!!!   Ehm....., ah...., but....
N.    Eh..., ehm..., well they put it to somebody else's head, not yours....
J.     Yeah..., yeah...., eh...., eh....., see I...., I have such concrete evidence ah!!!  I mean if I..., if I..., if I filed...., if I fetched you that...., the...., the...., barrister's affidavit and you looked at it, you'll realise this is blackmail, it is genuine blackmail, and yet they, ey......, the courts don't want to see a barrister's affidavit!(C.25)  Yeah!!!
N.    (int) Hm..., Well the thing is what..., what... to do, then..., that..., that..., that..., thing really! Eh...…
J.     Exactly!
N.    I..., I can only suggest, and ehm...., and please don't take ehm...., I...., I know very little, you know..., ehm…..
J.     Oh No! You've done very well(C.26)...…
N.    No..., no... don't... but don’t think I've great knowledge.  I know a little bit, I know certain things but...., but... eh..., eh... there's an awful lot I do not know and because there is an awful lot none of us...., you know..….
J.     (int) Oh yes, because, because it's not our, it's not our field…… s
N.    (int) Even barrist.  Even lawyers.... will tell you, eh...., when I..., when …eh.... in the..., eh...., in the midst of this...... when I was desperate for somebody, I was trying to fight back when I was in need, I felt.... I've got to hand some, see if I can get a lawyer to deal with some of it for me... because I can't do it on me own,(C.27) you know?
J.     (int) Exactly…..
N.    I can't, so I tried to get a lawyer...…
J.     (int) …  Yeah….
N.    I tried four different firms( R.28 )….
J.     (int) ….. Yeah…..
N.   (cont) ….. and each of the... said, oh no...., that's not my field!(C.29)   I don't deal with that type of thing! They passed me on to someone else, who said, 'Oh no, I don't deal with that sort of thing now I will put you on to one of other partners who..'
J.      (int) ….. Yeah….
N.     (cont) …. So they put me on to the other partners and she took details, all and everything, and THEN SUDDENLY said "Oh but I can't be there at half past 10 in the morning, sorry...., you know...,  you'll have to get yourself back for …..
J.     (int) …… Yeah …..
N.    (cont) ….. Anyway he couldn't get his head back, so that, so I tried another firm(C.30) of solicitors and they said " Oh, no, we are too busy now, so I tied four firm of solicitors and none said…. Three of them said "Oh no it's not our…. you know we don't deal with that type of thing, so none of us can be expected to know……
J.     (int) ……. Yeah …...
N.    Eh…m..., every detail, every aspect(C.31) of the law …..
J.     (int) ……. Yeah…..
N.    But my.... oh... it' s just...., bearing in mind that I am not speaking with authority but I would only...., I would just think whether you should make an application for committal of those(C.32) that you would say have committed either perjury or contempt of court….
J.     Oh that is all the lawyers(C.33) and my wife, because there was a penal notice against my wife on one of Orders as well!!!
N.    Well, well, eh... are you on income support or anything of that sort of thing?
J.     Oh, I am on..., on...., on.... Reuters pension, you know, I am on ehh..., Reuters medical pension…..
N.    Yes….
J.     You know…… but….
N.    Yeh..., eh....
J.     They are giving me..., they are giving me…..
N.    Do you have to pay court fees?  Or are you..., have you...., is your income sort of you..., you... are exempt from(C.34) court fees?
J.    Oh, no..., no..., no..., I have to pay the court fees, I've already paid out, you know!   Like I said, for this other case to one firm of solicitors, now there's another firm, so they start attacking two and threes to try and..., to try and divide you....... and...., and....., and you know...., now they are threatening with this thing that Lou has taken(C.35), they've sent me a letter, threatening that they are going to eh..., ah..., eh..... if I don't….. agree, for that matter to be postponed, to a half day hearing that they are going to go for costs(C.36) and all sorts of things and, and various other things and threats been made to me..., you know.... by the firm of solicitors that got the judgement in front of that……
N.    That … that's eh...., to…. one advantage I've got.  I am on income support and that sorts of..., I am exempt from court fees.
J.     (int) …. Yeah …. Yeah …
N.    So I can take action without it cost me anything …..
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….. Yeah…
N.    You know, as far as fees go, eh…. eh, now, if you've got to pay fees... then OK that's more… more…. more money to spend,(C.37) isn't it?
J.     Yeah….. Yeah…..
N.    Eh…. Eh…. Eh..
J.     It doesn't matter, I'd sooner pay the fees and get justice!!! Right?
N.    Yeah, yeah……
J.     I am a one family …..
N.    I am not certain what the fee would be / is for ah..., eh..., eh...,
J.     If it's an unlimited sum and you are taking out against all the firms of solicitors(C.7)……
N.    No, no, if you are going for committal then a sum of money doesn't come into it then….
J.     Doesn't it?
N.    No, no, if you are going for committal to prison
J.     (int) …. Yeah…..
N.    If you were going for a claim yeah, you can make a claim against them, yes…
J.     Yeah…..
N.    That's…. that's one ……
J.     How many, how can you….. You can't go for committal unless there is… there is… there' s an Order made before, is there ?
N.    Eh….. Yes, you, you can actually seek an Order for the …… I , I am not speaking with authority here…. I am only thinking as I understand it and what I've been reading up these lately, I and… , I believe that you can… eh… eh… seek an Order for committal of all ….
J.     The firms of solicitors ….
N.    Anyone that has committed contempt of court, apart from perj…. Without bringing perjury into it…. Anyone that's committed contempt of court , who had deceived the court or tried to deceive the court,(C.38) eh, that is contempt of court.
J.     OK.
N.    And you can seek an Order for committal for that, now I'm not certain what the fee is for that but money doesn't come into that you see, you are not asking for money from them, yeh… yeh you can make me ask for it, you can make me put in a claim for all sorts of… for damages money as well …..
J.     Yeah, and, and, and setting aside all those false judgements(B.7)… against me …
N.    Eh, eh, yes, but what were you, was Lou, were you and Lou thinking about actually?  This is a case against you and whether it's good and whether it's right or wrong or legal or illegal, now what you are thinking of doing, what I've actually done here in fact, it's make a claim, although I've won my little case(C.8),   I've also made a claim against the nephew for…. for four hundred thousand pounds….
J.     Yeah…
N.    Now, if I hadn't won over the possession matter(C.39)….
J.     Yeah…..
N.    Then that…. could well have put a stay on any possession or Order, but you know, even… even if he's … the possession order hasn't been granted, you know that…. even if I hadn't won that little bit …
J.     Yeah…..
N.    My claim against him would have been much bigger than the.. eh… eh… than the value of this house(C.40)… so, so I was hoping that would make a stay on any of the possession action, well the possession action doesn't matter because that's been decided in my favour(C.41) anyway…
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….
N.    But I still got this action against him for four hundred thousand pounds eh…. well is that what you and Lou were thinking about(C.9) doing now, you
J.     Yeah…..
N.    You put in an action for....., against them, for more(C.9) money than what they are claiming from you and…..
J.     Yeah…..
N.    And then that would have to put a stay on any possession until… until the … eh… your claim against them were determined, wouldn't it ?
J.     Yeah….. yeah , yeah so… in other words all, all, all the other cases would be stayed pending, pend…. pending the outcome of that case …
N.    Yeah… yes… yeah…. And being as you are in possession of the house, your house is, you know, your house is the opposite… and then they eh, eh, I, I wa… that was my thinking when(C.42) I took this house, although I didn't take it out ONLY for that, I took it out because really I am been done great harm, you know…..
J.     Yes…. yeah...., yeah...., yeah…
N.    Whether you can, .... whether you are thinking of doing that .... anyway, are you?
J.     Lou said that for a cost of four hundred pounds, you can go for unlimited damages against all the firms(C.9) together….
N.    Well, do that, I would say do that …..
J.     That's what I am asking him to(C.43) do, because he can bring that quickly to the front, it will stay, stay, all these other matters…. You know….
N.    Yeah…. Yeah….
J.     You know, you know, because eh, eh, all these other matters will have to be set aside, or stayed pending the ……
N.    To be stayed until such …. Because … yeah…. Yeah…. That's the best thing to do I would say….
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….
N.    Again there is the other question of seeking an Order for committal as well….   that…. that would be a separate thing.... that would be entirely separate…. It might be a way of…. Eh… ehm…. well ….
J.     When they'll be committed for the offence, surely any costs are…. that have been won by them by deceitful means(C.44) should be, should be wiped off as well….
N.    Ehm…. Eh....
J.     Naturally …Or they won't be committed will they?
N.    But they don't make it as easy as that as you know …..
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….. Yeah…..
N.    You know, they, they … if you got an Order for committal(B.9) and they were punished in some way or other….
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….
N.    For, deceiving the court..... then possibly that wouldn't put a stay on everything, but.... no.... that probably wouldn't mean that you would have won all that but it would be very good grounds for you seeking to set all that aside….
J.     Yeah.… yeah…..
N.    You know, assuming that, even they were not committed to prison, the fact that if they got censured or punished in some way or other by the, by whoever, by, by application for committal….
J.     Yeah…. Yeah….
N.    Then that would be..… well you would be able to use that in any action you took….
J.     The unfortunate part is that you can't put the two judges into prison,(B.10) can you?  You know the two judges that were part from the start … you know you will never get anything against them… I mean, even though I've got the proof, by witness statements and everything eh… right …
N.    Well look, have you, have you read that staff that I sent you from… ehm…. Jim Hulbert?(R.45)
J.     The Hulbert one? Yes I've read, yes I have, yeah ….
N.    Well, have you read that through?
J.     No, not completely, because I have been reading so much staff lately , I have been …..
N.    I don't….. I … Look that of Jim Hulbert's through, oh, wait a minute, you haven't got his affidavit, have you?
J.     His affidavit?
N.    No, no, transcript of(B.11) the hearing actually! Of the hearing before Mrs Justice Smith. Ah, she goes into some..... quite some extensive discussion that 'if a judge did a certain thing, if he was outside his jurisdiction, if he did with malice(C.46) then its outside his jurisdiction and you can go for him
J.     Yeah!!!
N.    You're not… you are not going to win because… eh, its like..., like..., like... this area of Jim Hulbert's. This Mrs Justice Smith said, 'Yes, its quite proper, you can sue this judge', so it's..., it's...., it's eh, and he can be sued and he could be prosecuted in the criminal court. She said that!
J.     Yeah…. Yeah…..
N.    She then adjourned it for six months, and then changed her mind…
J.     Yes, but…. that's his case…..
N.    Ah, she wasn't saying he would win, but you are fully entitled to …. etc., etc., and do it.
J.      What was that again?
N.     The...., the use of power of office, right?.
J.      Yeah exactly, yeah...

FAX - MESSAGE:

ATTENTION: ADMINISTRATION / Management / Records

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: patient Mr Norman Scarth - ward C2

We have been receiving conflicting reports about the above patient who, we are given to understand, was discharged yesterday from hospital and or, of his own volition, having discharged himself with his wounds still not properly healed, left hospital.

Kindly furnish and fax back the relevant information and the true position as recorded at the hospital, regarding the above patient and his condition.

Your co-operation and assistance will be appreciated. We need to know of the facts and to determine how best to deal with the situation when we speak with Mr Scarth again.

We are concerned about his well being and welfare and your prompt response will assist us greatly.

Sincerely

Andrew Yiannides NDD., ACFI., ATI.
records@human-rights
(human-rights.org - Registered In the USA)

The average reader, all Members of Parliament, 'the serfs' representatives and the media barons along with the Intellectual Prostitutes (*Link to definition) they retain and maintain as alleged reporters of the facts of life in all of the allegedly civilised pseudo-democracies, in the modern world, are invited to read the above letter and to consider IF THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER COMPLIED WITH HIS OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES as we point to in our pages. We ALSO URGE visitors and readers to read of the very childish attempts by another person, in the know, who was seen to be reckless in his approach and attempts at abuse of Mr A. Yiannides' time. (*Link to the explicit revelations relative to a BARRISTER'S attitude to 'duty to report crimes').

Johan had been told of the attempts and HE WAS SHOWN THE EVIDENCE from the onset. Later he was given copies of the Affidavit and the attached exhibits, that were/are published, by and at *human-rights*. 'J' was shown evidence that the relevant issues were reported to Ministers, to the Legal Aid Board, to the Lord Chancellor and his office and to the Fraud Investigation Department of the Social Security, at Quarry House, Leeds.

Johan proudly had declared, to *human-rights*, that his 'supportive solicitors' when he was jailed, allegedly for contempt of and or failure to comply with a court order, cried but did not appeal because they were blackmailed by the bench that the sentence would be doubled, if they dared challenge the court's Order. The very solicitors abandoned him for the purposes of the application to strike out the action against his previous solicitors. He had seen the evidence covering the abuse of the Legal Aid Facilities in the attempts to convert the Housing Benefit funds AND THE FACT that the solicitors never placed themselves on record in the action that was struck out, was irrelevant to 'J'. For weeks he carried on exalting the solicitors because they gave him a letter, he said,  for the purposes of his application to the European Commission/Court in Strasbourg.

Typical of all LIPS, 'J' was asserting that the solicitors he was proud of, as he had spoken to *human-rights*, to Mr Norman Scarth he was asserting that they were being 'punished' for the reasons he was promoting to Mr Scarth.  Imposed terms and blackmail activities from within the legal circles, apparently are in order. Such practices in addition to the FALSE INSTRUMENTS that allegedly are legitimately secured court orders, such as Andrew learnt of and noted as of 1972 when his solicitors procured and adduced a FORGERY through which to exert pressures and to influence him to abandon a High Court action and or to pervert justice. Andrew recognised as of then that the Great Metropolitan Police were simply conscious accessories and abettors to the rampant fraud and corruption in our courts!

NO FRESH ACTION, UNLESS ALL COSTS MET (wake up fraudsters)

Johan was informed that if the Order, striking out the action against the solicitors, was not appealed and successfully set aside, no fresh action resting and arising out of the same cause or causes of action could be issued or instigated. There existed a proviso / precondition :- *All costs arising out of and ordered by the court to be paid to parties in the original action, that was struck out, should be paid up first*. 'J' was asked to look it up in the 'White Book'. No Appeal proper had been lodged at court, as 'J' qualified to Mr Norman Scarth. It would therefore appear that the solicitors who secured 'costs judgements', albeit as a result of improper activities at and in the course of court proceedings, were after their pound of flesh, and the question arose: Why was Johan ('J') ignoring the provisions he was made aware of?

NORMAN'S LITTLE CASE

We assume that Norman at the time, late October / early November 1999, was referring to the property in Leeds, where he was staying and had been looking after his terminally ill friend. The 'win' he, probably, was referring to, was the right not to have been forcefully evicted before probate of the Will and the official appointment of the trustees and executors of the Will of his deceased friend. There had been an attempt to remove Mr Norman Scarth, by force, and more than likely he was referring to the improper attempts to remove / throw him out, in the gutter as he put it to persons he contacted at the time. Norman benefited from much support from us, on the basis of what he was declaring to one and all as factual and truthful. We recognised, that otherwise was 'the scenario' in the course of his trial, in April 2001; also from what transpired later when be breached his agreement with Andrew who supported him for years. He took it upon himself to indulge in childish antics in contempt of an authorisation granted to him by Andrew, the founder of *human-rights*. 

CLAIM MORE THAN

The suggested / planned scenario somehow reflected the practices of the person who drafted, settled, issued and 'helped 'J' initially to institute the proceedings against the solicitors, who had the case against them struck out. 'J' had informed *human-rights* and produced reports, from a forensic(!) investigator who had been retained/appointed to look into 'the activities of the person' who settled the Statement of Claim and instigated the proceedings. According to the investigator that person 'allegedly' misled and deceived a number of solicitors, some of which had 'done work for 'J' while the person was working with / for /or operating from the solicitors offices / premises. Innocent(!) the solicitors who to all intents and purposes had been acting for 'J', as 'J' believed because the person was and had been operating out of the premises of the relevant solicitors, who also charged 'J' for alleged services rendered. Some labyrinth of frauds and deceptions, WOW.

AN APPLICATION DISMISSED AND NO APPEAL! (*Link to the reasons WHY)

The shenanigans by the victim, 'J' (Mr Johan Michael Richard) Foenander, who was sent along to indulge in 'cat & mouse' tactics, with Andrew's human rights, should be seen in the true light of events (in chronological order) after reading the letter from his solicitors to another solicitor, months earlier. The arrangements for, and the directions to Mr Johan M. Foenander to attach himself to Andrew (the founder of *human-rights*), from Mr. Peter Hayward of the LIPS crowd/mob. The first contact (telephone calls, followed by fax transmissions) almost two months after the letter from 'J's' solicitors who wrote in the context of the letter we point to, above). Anyone can work it all out, when taking in the implications arising out of 'HOW the use of the courts' facilities FOR  rampant fraud & corruption, in particular WHY the 'tactical carrot in place, for donkeys to go for'. The arrangements, by the legal boffins who set it all up, are EXPOSED, by Andrew, in the exclusive page /confraud.htm, the name deriving from CONfidentiality between FRAUDsters.  

The 'thing', AN APPLICATION as prepared and presented to the court by 'a vexatious litigant with rights of audience and representation of another', most impressive! IT WAS dismissed as Andrew expected, hence the recording you can read of and about in the margin on the left [*Link]. Note our fair comment about it all, and WHY the fraudster was RELYING ON and asserting "IF' the Lord Chancellor wants...." a copy. Such waffle from a person who APPROVED of the double frauds on the 'serfs', the taxpayers; approval of, promotion and working towards the very 'rewards under the table' the main motivating factor for such fraudsters, all too eager to work towards such goals.... especially with the plans being formulated and presented to the House of Commons Select Committee by the Lord Chancellor the very month when the theatrical presentation was enacted AS ARRANGED BY THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT WITH RIGHTS OF REPRESENTATION for others in and before they courts. The very vexatious litigant roaming the streets of central London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. with a van equipped with a loud hailer doing that which Mr Geoffrey Harold Scriven was doing by writing letters to persons in authority. Yet Mr Scriven was being Summonsed to court [*Link] while the other was being granted rights of audience IN ORDER TO IMPRESS Andrew, who knew of all the lousy acting techniques that amateurs were adopting AFTER ENDORSEMENT & APPROVAL OF THE CARROT PLOY = "Award under the table IF you keep quiet"). Billions STOLEN FROM TAX CONTRIBUTIONS while the schools, the hospitals and the pensioners are denied essentials. And the media barons, with their editors party to such arrangements in the pseudo-democracies they sell to the public as the genuine article.

No Appeal was lodged and so we were informed, BUT THE REASONS & MOTIVES are very clear. The sold soul who approved of and endorsed the double fraud on the 'serfs', the 'shitizens', was also making sure that the taxpayers SHOULD NOT GET TO KNOW OF THE ACTIVITIES & THE FACILITIES ABUSED. He had been under the impression that the arranged theatrical production ('as discussed between the two in the transcribed exchanges you are reading in this page) were bought as sold, when in fact HIS PARTS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE 'SERFS' were to be further and additional proof of the hopelessness the victim's (of the New World Arrangements - in place) end in, with the carrot at the end of the tunnel for those who endorse and adopt such moral codes. Simply put: "THE REWARD UNDER THE TABLE, FOR THE DUMB MUMMIES (*List) and those who collaborate in such theatrical productions Andrew's only   interest". Such fraudsters (as the two stars in this page) simply run around selling their fraudulent misrepresentation to countless victims they are pointed   to, just like the charlatans who sent an unsolicited invitation to Andrew (*Link). At the hearing of the application the person who settled it spoke for and on behalf of 'J'. J's agent / representative / litigation friend was dismissed and asked to leave the court. 'J' was left to act on his own; the bench 'forbade' Andrew, who was attending as observer, to pass even a note to 'J'. Andrew decided to record the dismissal / ruling in order for the applicant, 'J', to use the recording for the drafting of the court's Order for presentation to the Court in order for the court to endorse / perfect it and thereafter, for 'J' and his agents / representatives to proceed to an Appeal. The usher of the court proclaimed the act of recording the judgement (for the succinct reasons given) 'contempt of the court(!). There was even threat for arrest and a custodial sentence!

Johan, who was given the tape for HIS NEEDS, did nothing of the kind. Within days he simply announced that a firm of solicitors with clout (and would even take legal action against the Lord Chancellor's Department) had been put in funds(*important) and were instructed on the issues(which?). Johan even recommended to another victim of the legal circles to retain the same solicitors. He was overlooking the fact that all other solicitors of his choice simply helped themselves with assistance from others. He knew that the victim he was 'advising' to 'use his new solicitors' had not been served by a number of solicitors ALL FAILING to act as instructed and as the rules of procedure provided; he had also been informed that one of the firms of solicitors who engaged in the attempts to convert Housing Benefit funds to alleged legal costs, through abuse of the Legal Aid facilities, was none other than the solicitors who represented him before the Court of Appeal, when he benefited from a custodial sentence he spoke of. The very solicitors he was telling Norman had been facing problems over the Legal Aid facilities, the other victim that Johan sought to advise HAD challenged years earlier. The abuse of the Legal Aid facilities by the very solicitors in collaboration with others were fully documented and additional evidence will now be published by the targeted victim (Link).

RESPONSES to Fabrications
1.  Stuttering Proves Lies. The obvious was not missed by the target who was co-operating in accordance with 'OUR AIMS' statement of intent, at the time (October/November 1999).
2.  More lies and stuttering. 'J' is called to account when and how the vile assertions were made to him. Seeking to stir up problems between the parties who were co-operating in the essential exposures, at the time, give away 'J's' intentions : Divide and rule were the instructions from the parties who sent him to Andrew. His own attempts to introduce 'the solicitors who were put in funds(!) by 'J' that did nothing(?) for the stooge/fraudster club recruit, except attend to the distribution of 'the funds' to those members of 'the legal circles' that 'J' had determined should benefit THROUGH HIS DEFAULT TO APPEAL THE STRIKE OUT OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE SOLICITORS. Nothing unusual from such stooges; all in accordance with 'the established practices' AS APPROVED BY 'J' and such other victims who decided to 'join the fraudsters' club'.
3.  Give you a place? What was the stirrer dreaming up, when in the same breath he also says "You are owing them a favour..?"
4.  Who said they would be?  Responsible for what? What was ever changed and who / how was/is it implied other work is attributable to the parties the stirrer was addressing with his vile opinions that were borne out of his wild imagination.
5.  The letter will be published in these pages with letters that Andrew wrote for 'J' while the hypocrite and sycophant was indulging in calls intended to cause rifts and problems. Intended for publication in our pages, other documented evidence that cover MANY A CRIME. It is in the public interest and every citizen's duty to report CRIME, 'J'. As the silent accessory to the serious crimes you covered up, while seeking to discredit us, we will simply invite ordinary citizens to consider the Appeal you ignored; also, the subsequent one that we published in our pages AFTER you set off on your special mission to Australia. It will be for you to justify, IF YOU CAN, WHY, after going along the route you chose in October 1999 you then sought of Andrew to settle a FALSE affidavit from which YOU DEMANDED that material facts be suppressed! Congratulations for your childish attempts! Could anyone who gets to know of such facts fail to conclude  that only criminally indulge in attempts that are nothing but wilful suppression of facts. We can only suggest that you compare your motives with those of the legal circles that you cover in your own words in this page. ONE THING YOU HATE, LIES ?
Libel? Big words! Foundation please for the vile attempts 'J'!
Why assume Norman had not accessed human-rights? Did not the person who objected to references to judicial chair occupants state he was going to challenge in much the same vein as Geoffrey Scriven, the offenders and abusers of public office?
Still 'J' sought to create friction as a typical mischief maker, or even as a tutored / planted 'guru' who nonetheless sought and benefited from much assistance.
He saw to it that our valuable time was wasted, for so he and his 'mentors' thought. All the while Andrew was simply looking into such persons' vile (anagram of evil) activities and their very convenient defaults to report and expose the criminals they simply desired and wish to rub shoulders with and or dance with, cheek to cheek, in the quicksand of the places they dare promote and refer to as halls of justice.
He 'deliberately set out to abuse our trust in, and acceptance of, him as a genuine challenger who wished 'to expose the whole mess and the money laundering facilities through the courts that he persistently talked of!
Like many before him, he ignored the adage: "TALK IS CHEAP", and none come cheaper than big words from persons who act not their 'assumed roles IN REAL LIFE!
It is evident that 'J' did elect to ignore all reminders that qualify: "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!"

FOOTNOTE:
   FX   1.   Andrew was most disturbed to note that the Lord Chancellor had introduced other elements than those we were familiar with. Andrew wrote to Mr Scriven and sought clarification as to WHY the Lord Chancellor introduced racial elements through use of the words "Jewish or otherwise". We never heard of such elements before, in Mr Scriven's case. We received no response and did not benefit from any explanation or clarification from Mr. G. Scriven. In the circumstances we did not publish the Lord Chancellor's letter in the Scriven pages and, as we maintain to this day, 'for good reasons'. We qualified that we were not going to afford anyone the opportunity to accuse us of promoting racial prejudices and or indiscriminate and lax use of such material. Now we publish, the letter, because of the other elements the letter 'introduced' at the time. We clarify that as Mr Scriven NEVER responded to our legitimate requests, we considered it possible that the introduction of the letter (bearing in mind the method and WHO was used to bring it to our attention, also because of other questionable attempts to implicate Mr Andrew Yiannides in inexcusable and concocted scenarios, exercise of caution was very well founded) was an attempt through which to create false impressions as to our credibility and thoroughness. We rejected, and ALWAYS reject, any unsubstantiated assertions and allegations. In the circumstances any person who wishes the issue clarified and WHY the Lord Chancellor used / introduced such elements, in his letter, the person / persons should seek clarification from His Lordship and his office or from Mr Scriven, himself. In the meantime we emphasise that we did not and we do not subscribe to the generalities the offensive words introduced. We merely publish the letter for information (as to the ploys used by the managers of CIUKU Enterprises and the stooges they entrap / suck into their evil world as clarified in the exclusive page EVERY TAXPAYER SHOULD BE POINTED TO & READ) and for clarification on the other issues the letter raises and covers.
[NOTE the arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor about complaints re: JUDICIAL CONDUCT, in the closing lines of the last paragraph, were being promoted in a different context than the implied 'undertakings' by the Lord Chancellor, who was sacked in 2003 AFTER EXPLICIT SUBMISSIONS to government via a letter to the Rt. Hon. Frank Field, ex-Minister, whose private office ignored our letters years earlier. [* Link to the relevant page & PROOF OF OUR SUBMISSIONS]
   2.    Mr Nicolas Stamoulakatos was introduced to Andrew (the founder of human-rights (NGO)) via suspect quarters. At the time (1994) Mr Stamoulakatos, allegedly, was seeking contact with someone who could translate some of his works (books 'on matters legal') from Greek to English. He failed as of then and carried on failing over the years (14 years by May 2008) to come up with one single book / work of his, for the intended / promoted translation. However, he used many tricks and numerous deceptive ploys through which many the attempts for the creation of scenarios he and others could use for undeclared plans that could place him and others in positions to damage the work of Andrew and Andrew's intended / ongoing exposures of the criminal activities at, in and through the courts. All of Mr N Stamoulakatos' evil ploys were recognised and challenged accordingly; we simply inform our visitors that he even set up a bank account soon after the charlatan made contact with Andrew. The psychosis of this actor, about the free masons could only be matched to that of 'The Master of The Subliminal Indoctrination Brigade', Mr James Todd of VOMIT repute; also with that of Mr Maurice Kellett and Paul Talbot-Jenkins, among others, who shared / share between them many a common personal opinion and view with not one of them ever coming up with any evidence in support of their strongly expressed opinions.
   3.  WE HASTEN TO INFORM visitors that 'J', Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, was NOT REFERRING TO THE APPEAL we publish in our pages. The appeal in our pages was settled and lodged at Lambeth County Court after the creators of the CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH THE ABUSED COURTS' FACILITIES SET ABOUT DEMANDING THEIR SHARE OF THE LOOT, the funds received / to be received (under the table) by the co-operating in the scams fraud of an alleged victim FROM TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTIONS, as 'J' and his solicitors 'arranged', in his case. 'J' a recognised 'lover of the system as is' and 'a fraudsters club recruit [*Link to relevant letter] had been sent along by the manager / director of all fraudsters / members of the LIPS crowd/mob, Mr. Peter Hayward, simply to test our stance and resolve on the issue of 'FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM'. Among other activities, he also engaged in various fraudulent misrepresentations to others and to us. At one point he attempted to promote a firm of solicitors that he retained to distribute the proceeds from the second fraud on the citizens while he was a conscious party to the frauds. [*Link to the relevant scheme and arrangements for carrot loving asses]. In his exchanges with 'N' Mr Norman Scarth, he had the audacity to misrepresent and another set-up, as a new idea (from him) whereas' the project' he was promoting existed long before he came on the scene. *Link to evidence published in the left margin/window, evincing the simple fact that the LIPS crowd/mob's 'managers' had been party to and 'supporters/affiliates' of a scheme that we challenged as just a proposition for the planting of another rotten-apples tree in a garden full of similar fruit producing trees'.  
   4.  The problem of securing the return of bundles of documents is one of the most objectionable obstructions to the rights to 'unhindered justice'. We were caused to act on the occasion when the European Court of Human Rights wrote to the member of the *human-rights.org - Community on Line* Jesus Rosalia Baldwin Del Castillo that her case, 'had not been processed to extinction of Domestic Remedies'. We were / are VERY FAMILIAR with the ploy used and we prepared for it accordingly, (through the submissions / Petition to the ECtHR). Mr Yiannides simply told the member that the submissions to the ECoHR had been presented in an appropriate manner and the element HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. We wrote to the court an appropriate letter [*Link] and through the necessary challenges (to the proposed action by the ECrtHR) Mr Yiannides secured the return of the documents lodged with the ECrtHR. Thereafter we prepared an essential Power of Attorney in order for Mr Andrew Yiannides to proceed with essential submissions to The Treasury [*Link to grounds]. The PoA as settled and delivered to the member for endorsement was later published by us at the member's web-site (the work and intellectual property of Mr. Andrew Yiannides), the member however, defaulted to endorse and return the Original to Mr Andrew Yiannides and we invite grey matter users to work out WHY 'the victim', failed to comply as called for HAD THE SCENARIO presented through the letter of the ECrtHR been true and factual. In respect of the documents which Miss Ormila Bhopaul sought assistance for, as A TYPICAL* LIPS* introduction (and fraud of an alleged human) she engaged in many scenarios and scripts with other affiliates of *the fraudsters club recruits* front; visitors / researchers can link to a  typical scenario and look forward to more revelations about that lousy actress and her affiliates. Others who contacted is with similar problems were encouraged (and some assisted) by us to STATE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED in personal web-sites. We provide below such URLs:-
A.   http://www.tribulations.freeservers.com
B.   ...
   5.    Visitors who have not accessed the explicit appeal which Mr Andrew Yiannides settled and lodged at Bow County Court years earlier should do so. Readers and researchers should get to know of the fact that the pleadings by Mr Yiannides included material and legal argument which the alleged 'genius', the allegedly Honourable Secretary of the LIPS crows mob, discovered years later when he accessed a Law Report (that was published in 'The Times'). The explicit appeal had been referred to him and as with the others who contacted Mr Yiannides, the elements pleaded and the challenges as ARGUED with a mouthpiece at the Lord Chancellor's office had also been clearly stated to Mr Scarth, also to the rest of the fraudsters club recruits  from within the LIPS crowd/mob, those who were in contact with Mr. Yiannides as of the time when Mr. Peter Hayward & Mrs Philomena Cullen contacted him, in 1992  [*Link to the appeal].
   6.    The craft-y one is referring to the warranted APPEAL, which he discarded to the trash cans, in order to lodge an application in respect of the action that HAD BEEN STRUCK OUT, as if the action was still alive at court!!!. Readers, researchers and victims of the courts / the legal system (as operated in the United Kingdom) should simply read an earlier appeal, which we released in the exclusive page where we cover THE BILLIONS PLUNDERED ANNUALLY, by the legal circles, through abuse of the courts' facilities. [*Link to the most open secret the media elected to ignore but for the reason that one and all from within are simply promoters of the CRIMES AGAINST THE TAXPAYERS in all of the pseudo-democracies they proclaim to be the genuine states] In the page we expose the fraudster and his parts in and for ©"The Self Perpetuating Cancerous Growth Industry" (as Mr A Yiannides coined for the legal circles to have been / be the only way to describe their activities & operations through the courts / legal system). The arrogance of the fraudster to assert that the appeal as settled was not founded or resting on what the legal circles and the courts HAD IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYERS THROUGH HIM [*Link to WHY imposed on the taxpayers] was and remains the most evil of assertions from a fraud of a human and an alleged Christian, at that, one who allegedly attends regularly a Roman Catholic church in his area because there exists no Dutch Reform Church in the area.
   7.    Persons who are in contact or are contacted by Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander, the con of a victim and maintenance engineer of the system (as is), the one who only SEEKS GAINS FROM & THROUGH the CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES that have been ongoing in and through the courts for centuries, should enquire of him as to which affidavit, by Mr Norman Scarth, he was alluding to, in the course of the telephone conversation he recorded; also, why he concocted falsehoods about changes in the statements of others b y Andrew (and upon which foundations such lies and concocted fabrication). The really concerned 'taxpaying citizens' should ALSO ask of him to explain WHY, since he had been shown the evidence (intended for release in the public domain) about the targeted property for conversion to legal costs, back in the 1970's (saved through appropriate challenges in those days) AND the evidence in respect of the invitation to Mr Andrew Yiannides to join the Society of Lawyers in England & Wales, WHY WAS HE PROMOTING VILE LIES to Mr Scarth? Readers, researchers, victims and concerned / interested visitors should refer to: (a) Aeschylus, 6th Century B.C classical Hellas (Greece), (b) the Gospel according to St Luke -circa 4th century AD, (c) William Shakespeare, (d) Charles Dickens, (e) Charles Louis Montesquieu in the quotes page art this web-site and use grey matter to draw their own conclusions as to the true colours and character of the fraud of a human, and used / tutored stooge who works with the agents and followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works ever to have been presented to mankind back in the 3rd century BC.
    8.   * Link from here to the affidavit we publish covering the Comprehensive Particulars Pleaded (by Andrew Yiannides) as had been the case when Mr Andrew Yiannides settled the Defence & Counterclaim, in 1992, when use of a rogue builder had been the core element for the scenarios through which the blunt attempts to impose the plans of the criminals in control of the Law Enforcement Agencies in the United Kingdom, on Mr Andrew Yiannides. Link from here to the Appeal that was lodged at Bow County Court in 1992 after an abuser of judicial chair occupation set about imposing his evil ways on 'the targeted serf'. The really concerned and interested readers and researchers should read the briefly stated facts in that case, in order to get to grips with the fact that 'the serfs' in the United Kingdom are faced with ORGANISED FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS & CORRUPTION OF MORONS OF THE CALIBRE & MINDSET OF persons such as Peter Hayward, Philomena Cullen, Peter Prankerd, Nicholas Stamoulakatos, Nick Haralabidis, James Todd of VOMIT repute, Johan Michael Richard Foenander, Norman Scarth, Paul Talbot-Jenkins, Veronica Beryl Foden, Marisa Sarda, Patrick Cullinane, to name but a few who made it their business to abuse trust and worse to interfere in the background  xxx 
    9.   It is imperative and of utmost importance that victims, readers and researchers access a letter sent (in 1996) to Antons, the solicitors who were acting for Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander in July 1999. The letter we point to, from here*, relates to attempts by TWO SOLICITORS, COURT STAFF and possibly Court Officers, all of whom engaged in highly questionable activities, through which ALL intended to convert moneys owing for the occupation of rented accommodation to legal costs. The other solicitor, Mr Pany Symeou, had been retained to defend another court action; an inexcusable and unjustified Summons & Claims by a tenant who was used by others (whom we are exposing on the Internet) and encouraged to carry on defaulting to meet his contractual obligations, in respect of rented accommodation. For months the used and encouraged tenant was blaming Public Servants -the staff operating out of the Social Services maintained by Haringey Council- for allegedly failing to process an alleged Housing Benefit Application, by the Defaulting tenant. Staff & Officers (apparently) at Edmonton County Court participated in arrogant & inexcusable attempts through which ALL INTENDED to convert the rents due (and owing to the provider of the accommodation) to 'legal costs' through inexcusable, as intended, theatrical productions at Court. The solicitor Pany Symeou and the firm of solicitors he was operating out of, -Graham Whit & Co.- TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES to issue INSTRUCTIONS to the COURT to ignore the property owner's application for judgement on the grounds that there subsisted NO DEFENCE to the claim for the rents owing, also because the used tenant failed to enter any appearance or Defence. IT IS ESSENTIAL that readers and researchers take on board the element of *NO INSTRUCTIONS to & OR RETAINER* existed for the property owner's solicitor to act as he did, in respect of the DEFAULT SUMMONS, which the owner issued and served prior to the concocted and fabricated claim by the USED TENANT, which the solicitors Antons issued out of Edmonton County Court without any reference to the Summons that was served on the tenant who relied on the staff of Haringey Council to promote the alleged unemployment state, and Housing Benefit application which the fraudster (tenant) Mr Nihal Wijemuni had been relying upon to provide him (and the others) the avenue through which to evade his contractual liabilities to the property owner and provider of the accommodation he had been benefiting from. Needless to say, THE USED & ENCOURAGED TENANT, was also relying on the local police to ignore the law and the physical assaults on Mr Yiannides, also the damages to properties caused by the used and encouraged tenant. Readers & researchers should access the explicit affidavit we released in the public domain, read of the realities of life in our allegedly civilised society and the parts played by the members of the Law Enforcement Agencies (Police & Courts) an other alleged servants of the public and the law.  y     of staff assistance   and  solicitors who wrote the letter the We
   10.  *Link from here to a page where we expose the organised constructive frauds on a victim (initially) when three properties were converted to allegedly legitimate legal costs charges, all care of abusers of judicial chair occupation. The link takes one directly to the paragraph where we point to an extract from the transcript of a hearing when Andrew assisted the victim / prospective / aspiring fraudsters-club-recruit, (NOTE: the 'victim' (!) was sent along / introduced to Andrew through the the LIPS crowd/mob) in her appeal to restore back to the court's list her case / claim against the solicitors who set her on the road to destruction through the usual constructive and blunt fraudulent court proceedings. Read of the arrogance of a judicial chair occupant who went as far as to assert in his deliberations "WE FINISHED WITH YOUR CASE HERE - meaning the United Kingdom, naturally - implying thus "now run along to the European Court for Human Rights for your reward under the table..... as long as you carry on keeping it all in the family closet.... the family you have elected to join and you have been working with and for, while making a fool of the idiot who is assisting you. NOTE: The aspiring fraudsters-club-recruit assumed that she was playing with a mouse, as a cat does, but she never considered the simple fact that the presumed mouse was a tiger biting its time and would bounce at the right time and deal with her and the circles she was rubbing shoulders with by EXPOSING THEM ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is for the average victim of the legal circles and the courts to consider the element of 'the divide and rule / control the suckers' such as the destroyed through abuse of position / public office power who as conditioned non-thinkers can then be used for more of the same through the rewards on offer. Through such arrangements the element of divide and manage / controlled 'the serfs, the stooges, the suckers, the non-thinking morons'. Many the victims and alleged victims who run around asserting opinions and without any evidence blaming Freemasons for the problems they encountered and are faced with. All were told by Andrew Yiannides that their duty was to report and state the facts behind their tribulations in the public domain and not to carry on complaining about the police, the media and their Member of Parliament. All were pointed to the words of John Swainton to his colleagues when delivering his departure speech ON RETIRING & MOVING OUT OF THE FIRING LINE, AS Chief of Staff at 'The New York Times'. One and all sooner or later ignored their rights to state the facts and the realities, the criminal in essence activities they were subjected to and victims of. Even persons who recognised the need and agreed to use their rights and published in the public domain the facts of life from within an allegedly civilised Democracy, fell to the ploy and in the scenarios reported to Andrew, always recognised and known front line soldiers and maintenance engineers of the system of operations. *Link from here to a typical example when one such abuser of trust and convert to the system of operations, one Ormila Bopaul set about blaming one of the alleged experts on the usual promotions and assertions without any proof that the Freemasons were / are responsible for everything.  
   11.  *Link from here to the page where we point to VERY CLEAR PROVISIONS IN LAW. All alleged victim-challengers who were introduced to Andrew or contacted us directly, all recognised aspiring fraudsters-club-recruits and most known lovers, front line soldiers and maintenance engineers of the established system of operations were pointed to the provisions in law and to the brief where the link takes visitors, readers and researchers. NONE ever addressed the issues they were pointed to, as covered by the -brief- application of the law to facts and events all were claiming to have been and be victims of, not to mention the fact that some were more than conscious parties to and organisers for more of the same, as the star and caller, who recorded his telephone exchanges with Mr Norman Scarth, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander engaged in with a know fraudsters-club operative, one Lou Foley. *Link from here to the page where we point to the activities the two engaged in, in order to afford an abusers of judicial chair occupation, to create a false instrument, an allegedly legitimate Court Order FOR MORE LEGAL COSTS AWARDS to the legal circles, as intended by all, care of contempt of the law and the usual arrogance by alleged servants of the law and the citizens; the sucker-serfs, who are kept in dark (by one and all) and called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of fraudsters & criminals in public office]. 
   12.  *Link from here to the explicit appeal when violations in contempt of the provisions assured under the European Convention on Human Rights were pleaded by Mr Andrew Yiannides. When settling the appeal Andrew was aware of the established promotions by the legal circles and copy of the Appeal was posted to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, at the House of Lords. Confirmation of receipt at the House of Lords was secured when Mr Yiannides was also informed that Lord Mackay directed the staff to refer the papers received to the Department. A telephone call and exchanges with the head of the Department lead to usual assertions by the Lord Chancellor's agent promoting the habitual waffle and 'advice', in respect of 'the prescribed' need to extinguish all avenues in the home Courts, implying 'all the way to the House of Lords'. The assertions, as soon as the Lord's Chancellor's agent was told by Andrew that the appeal was to be lodged, by way of a Petition to Strasbourg, the ECoHR. Thereat the dreamer / fraudster was simply told that THE JUDICIARY, in the United Kingdom, HAD NO JURISDICTION to apply themselves to the matters stated and the violations pleaded in the appeal, SIMPLY BECAUSE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS -for 44 years- failed to make the necessary provisions, such as the introduction of an Act of Parliament whereby the judiciary COULD address such issues and violations as the caller, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, pleaded. Thereafter the dreamers and abusers of the County Courts facilities arranged for the scenario, briefly stated in the page linked to from here, where the appeal was later published, in the public Domain. MOST RELEVANT was, and remains, the fact that the managers, organisers and controllers of the LIPS crowd/mob (Mr. Peter Hayward & Mrs Philomena Cullen) contacted Andrew within a couple of weeks of the lodging of the appeal at Bow County Court, out of the blue, and promoted an impossible scenario as to how they got to know of Andrew's proposals for 'The CAMILA Project'. Gray matter users should not need any other to work out for them as to how the organisers, managers and controllers of fraudsters-club-recruits got to know of Andrew's existence, specifically & especially, at that point in time. 
   13.  *
   14.  * 
   15.  *