abusers.htm  Page KEY

Email transmission to a 'victim' (?) of the legal system / abused court facilities. One of many who failed to address the issues we cover in our exclusive page; all of his associates from within the group (LIPS -one of many FALSE FRONTS-) that introduced him to Mr. Andrew Yiannides also failed to address.

Read of the elements the victim (?) was reminded of and pointed to leading to the need to address the reckless failures and breaches of undertakings the victim (?) shoved in the family closet of the LIPS crowd / mob while all were / are engaging in promotion & use of the facilities that corrupt, as intended, the conditioned morons who elect to ignore the issue of arrogant Constructive FRAUD on 'the sheeple', the taxpayers as we cover in the exclusive page which one and all turned a blind eye to, for obvious reasons.... as the corrupted who also went for and fell to the new ways of the abusers of trust as the excited Lord Irvine 'exposed in the course of his 1999 appearance before the House select Committee *linked to from here.

Page2

Access from here the page where we copied a web-page which the 'victim' attended to, after we challenged another abuser of trust. The only interests of both were to operate as 'legal gurus'. All too eager, ready and able to assist victims of the legal circles they are pointed to - or phish through postings in newsgroups - in order to use them ONLY for the REWARDS FACILITY as long as they keep it all in the family closet, the very elements we have been objecting to for far too long, while persons of such mentalities AIM SIMPLY TO PROMOTE & USE NEW VICTIMS FOR PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE through theft of funds from the national budget, which we cover in the page ALL shoved in the dark corners of the caves they congregate in, in order to plan HOW to maintain the system of operations they fell in love with.

   Mr William Spring was introduced to Andrew Yiannides by Mr. Peter Hayward one of the two front-line organisers of the Litigants In Person Society >>LIPS<<.
   Mr Hayward, out of the blue contacted Andrew, within days of the lodging of an explicit APPEAL lodged at BOW COUNTY COURT when Andrew  was targeted by abusers of that County Court's facilities.
   We urge ALL victims of abused public facilities to access, read the Appeal where the link from here takes one.
   Thereafter one & all SHOULD read all of the material in the page the URL links to; thereat all readers shall recognise the parts of the police in the matter of arrogantly Organised Constructive FRAUD through abuse of the Courts facilities, as Andrew was subjected to throughout 1969-1978.
   Victims, researchers the and serious should also access from here a FORGERY promoted by solicitors and barristers as evidence proper, in a High Court case founded and resting on FRAUD.
   The legal circles in the instance at hand simply relied on the police who were playing fiddle, in tandem with the legal circles and judicial chair occupants for Andrew to dance to.
   Of such activities Justice is served in the United Kingdom as in other pseudodemocracies where followers of the teachings by examples stated in the Old Testament rule supreme.

Interfering ABUSERS of Facilities & Trust  * Page created April 2001 *

November 2010 : The coalition government through the new Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP in an exclusive interview published in the October issue of 'COUNSEL' [*Link to article pages below] spoke of HIS & THE Government's priorities; among them the element of FRAUD such as we have been exposing and pointing to for over 13 years through our pages. We include in the left margin panel images of the interview he gave to David Wurtzel. The article and the new approach to the way the police in our allegedly civilised PSEUDOdemocracy (the one that is founded and rests, allegedly, on principles of law and order) have been addressing ISSUES OF FRAUD most welcome. Andrew Yiannides dedicates the article to ALL ABUSERS OF HIS TIME and patience, named and to be named in our pages.

Victims of the legal circles, the courts and the police, also readers & researchers, after reading the letter below should access the extracts we reproduce in our pages from the work of the late Stephen Knight & other material we point to from the footnote below (*F2).

FAX TO 01923 -239417

Dear Mr Symeou

Mrs Despina Englezakis
c/o 16a Woodside Road
London N22 5HU

End.

    READERS & RESEARCHERS are urged to access and read the affidavit with the attached exhibits we released on line, as we prepare to challenge and assault the criminals who abuse the courts facilities.
We INCLUDE JUDICIAL CHAIR OCCUPANTS in the organised fraud as we point out in our pages. The solicitor who received the above letter engage in a number of questionable activities besides his part in ELECTING TO HIJACK & INTERFERE in the matter of the Summons issued for the unpaid rents, in collaboration with the solicitors Antons & Co of Green Lanes, Haringey, N4 .  seeking the of the        

Needles to say the arrogant abuse of trust by the solicitor Mr Pany Symeou left Andrew Yiannides with no option but to register the fraud of an alleged human at the explicit website SOLICITORS FROM HELL* [*Link]. The very solicitor did engage in a number of other fraudulent in intent activities, typical performances by licensed fraudsters. The solicitor Pany Symeou HAD BEEN ENGAGED to the niece of Andrew, the young lady who was CAUSED TO TAKE HER OWN LIFE after the two of them HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO, EXPERIENCED and BENEFITED from the inhuman treatment the father of his fiancé (and the father's clan en masse) had imposed on the late departed Harita / Haritou Sotiri / Sotiriou Englezakis. All visitors and in particular victims of the FAMILY DESTRUCTION PROCESSES that are organised by alleged servants of the public (such as Andrew Yiannides will be exposing in due course) Should / MUST acquaint themselves with the realities of life within ALL PSEUDODEMOCRACIES as covered in our pages specifically the root of it all and why Andrew Yiannides considered it absolutely essential to EXPOSE IT ALL in the public domain. Victims of any abused public office who are not familiar with the arrangements in place FOR CORRUPTING THE CONDITIONED VICTIMS of the legal circles and abusers of judicial chair occupation* SHOULD ACCESS and read the explicit proof in the page where the link from here takes one.    

The use of Legal Aid Certificates through which to convert targeted assets to allegedly legitimate legal costs, as the two firms of solicitors indulged in the instance at hand, assisted also as they were by abusers of the courts facilities, in their quest for fraudulent conversion of the funds owing to the targeted 'serf', was and remains a typical example of HOW THE SERFS ARE DEFRAUDED OF MUCH MORE THAN ASSETS & FUNDS BY PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY serve Parliament's Law and the assured in law rights of the ill-educated and the conditioned, through fraudulent misrepresentations, taxpayers; the citizens who foot the cost for the maintenance of criminals in public office. The afore-stated realities with our complements to Mr Colin Peters of Bradford whose assertions in respect of allegedly wasted Legal Aid funds in his case / claim against a used person (as the tenants were being used in the case covered & pointed to in the letter above) persistently ignored and overlooked the fact that Legal Aid support is paid for through recovery of funds awarded to the assisted person.... and when one of the assisted persons has no chance of any judgement in his / her favour the other party HAS TO LOOSE & ORDERED TO MEET THE COSTS as we gathered were the scenarios in Mr Colin Peters' case; we stand to be corrected on the last issue, because Mr Colin Peters, very conveniently, failed to support his statements and assertions to us, and never released a statement proper in the public domain, as he was asked to do, when he joined the Community on Line. Over the years we have known Mr Peters we kept hearing of his case and complaints about the legal circles and the courts service, as we heard also of his qualifications, to one and all, that he was / is the Northern co-ordinator of the activities of the LIPS crowd/mob (the Litigants In Person Society). We maintained and were in regular contact with him through plenty of email exchanges more often than not attached to and arising out of the systematic abuse of the courts facilities by the legal circles and public servants.

    On the left we copy email submissions and reminders to a victim of the legal circles [*Link from here]. The victim joined the human-rights.org Community on Line intending - as we were informed and we had no reasons to doubt the 'victims' promotions - to challenge and expose the abusers of the legal system and the courts facilities.
    The victim was one of 8 who expressed readiness to challenge the Law Society for licensing abusers of trust / fraudsters and for issuing Practice Certificates, year in year out, to arrogant abusers of the courts facilities, practice certificates to operatives of organised networks of 'licensed criminals'. [*Link from here to challenges by way of a Defence & Counterclaim against a licensed, by the Law Society, fraudsters]
    We request of all visitors, readers and researchers - and especially victims of the legal circles - to access form here the page where we publish / released a DEFENCE & COUNTERCLAIM document that was served on a solicitor and filed at a County Court, consequential to the solicitor indulging in the usual activities and 'the ever-present convenient defaults' which victims get to know of when in pursuit of justice by retaining and instructing solicitors.
    Many the elements and the foul activities the solicitor indulged in, as an assured protected species and as a licensed criminal operating within a pseudodemocracy, who subsequently had the nerve to institute legal proceedings against his victim for the provision of alleged 'professional services'.
    Many the 'areas of foul impositions on society at large, care of the ancillary and supportive institutions and set-ups, the members of which share common grounding and common aims for 'the serfs' who are kept in the dark by the media Barons and the Intellectual Prostitutes the Barons retain and maintain simply for the suppression of the realities and the truth on many an issue, such as we address in our pages.
    Many the alleged victim-challengers who enjoin with the media Barons in suppression of the realities and the truth of matters the alleged victim-challengers experienced and were subjected to, in contempt of their duties to report criminal activities such as they were the victims of.
    ONE & ONLY ONE the reason why victims of the legal circles and the abused courts facilities. And the reason for their silence : THE REWARDS UNDER THE TABLE (from stolen tax revenue / contributions) as covered in the exclusive page not one of the alleged victim-challengers, who were introduced, sent along or contacted us after accessing our pages on the Internet.
    ALL alleged victim-challengers, are pointed to the elements their Lordships addressed in 1939-1940 when deliberating on the issues the case before them raised. One and all are asked to reflect on the foul ways they engaged in while abusing our assistance which they secured under false pretences while aiming for 'the plundering of the family silver, by working in tandem with the abusers of the courts facilities'. 

October 2010 : the Coalition Government's NEW PRIORITIES relate to long ongoing failures to prosecute FRAUD cases. The Attorney General the Rt. Hon. Dominc Grieve QC MP speaks of police failures, systematically advising victims of fraud to pursue civil remedy. He specifically spoke also of THE LONG TERM DECLINE, such as the victim of of ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES, the founder of human-rights.org Andrew Yiannides was subjected to, by the legal circles between 1969-1978. All and everything due to and care of the police who DISTANCE THEMSELVES & as Andrew got to know of and actually recognise the simple fact that the police (all the way to the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police) were seen to be accessories and abettors to the long ongoing criminality the Attorney General spoke of, in his interview to David Wurtzel for 'COUNSEL' as published in the October issue of 2010.

We reproduce, below, images of the month's cover; also images of the three pages long spread.

Further down we reproduce the relevant part of the article, for the benefit of all victims of the abusers of public office.

Through contempt of the law the imposed states of fraud aplenty and the corruption of the victims of the organised constructive fraud ongoing through the abused courts facilities.

Everything care of the arrogance of the judiciary who asserted and declare 'inherent jurisdiction' to deny justice to the 'sheeple'.

Worse, 'freedom assured by the judiciary to all other alleged servants of the suckers-serfs to indulge as each pleases and or as undeclared 'plans for the sons of men' stipulate, as we point in our pages.  care of long ago as 'determined by nonelected fraudsters who serve such other plans and policies when   have taxes imposed on them for the salaries of fraudsters who misrepresent themselves and one another as alleged servants of the 'sheeple' and the law.

We expect of all who made and have been in contact with us to point all other victims each knows of and has been / is in contact with to the new approach to the long ongoing abuse of trust, fraudulent misrepresentations and contempt for the law by alleged officers of it, the legal circles and the police.

It remains to be seen how many, if any, of the corrupted fraudsters-club-recruits are likely to change their evil ways and contact us with a view to approaching the Attorney General collectively 

JOIN others On Line and publish your Statement of Facts and the Evidence you have. (Access from here member's case at the European Court on Human Rights - paves the way TO PLEAD VIOLATIONS caused through abusive use of the courts in allegedly civilised Democratic States. Victims do not know that IT IS ALL ORGANISED BY the very circles who have been arranging all of humanity's TRIBULATIONS  FOR THOUSANDS of years) Use your rights in law (*Link) and ACT, with others, against the offenders. Join with others and chip in for the creation of the mass of evidence against abusers of public office : the abductors and rapists of Justice. You can then benefit from THE FACTS & THE EVIDENCE that you will help establish. It can all be used in any action, severally or jointly with others, as the case may be. Crimes against humanity are not ruled out when a large number of citizens can come up with evidence and as victims concur and or expand upon the FACTS STATED & The VIOLATIONS PLEADED as LODGED at the ECoHR, visitors can access from here.

The image of the Court Order on the right EVINCES THE FACT that the abusers of trust acted, as soon as a victim of members of the legal circles & arrogant abusers of the courts facilities, USED HIS RIGHTS & PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, the realities in order to EXPOSE the offending Public Servants who indulged in abuse of the facilities of the courts for Constructive Frauds and CONVERSION OF ASSETS & PROPERTIES TO THE LEGAL CIRCLES.  (*F3)

Visitors / researchers NOTE: The victim set up a home page, as a member of the human-rights organisation's concept and facilities for the Community on Line. He then simply sent out a Press Release informing one and all about his *crookjudges* Web Site & the abusers of the courts' facilities acted, immediately. Without any application, by the victim (so he informed Mr Yiannides) A MIRACLE : he received  the Court Order we reproduce (image) on the right. It was rushed out to him, granting him permission for LEAVE TO APPEAL. Do not overlook the date when the document / order was date stamped. It is obvious that the hand written order WAS RUSHED OUT first thing in the morning before changing the date of the rubber stamp. A Miracle 20th century style, we are sure all will agree. And there exist plenty of charlatans & stooges who, as maintenance engineers & promoters / users of the existing methods of operations, they are running around 'selling and promoting the practices'. Their only aims to INFLUENCE SHYSTERS and to INVITE lovers of fraud to indulge with them in the very same practices we cover in our exclusive page which NOT ONE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS who contacted us over the last 11 years addressed, for obvious to us reasons. (*Link to the exclusive page where we expose the blunt & arrogant CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES & CORRUPTION OF CONDITIONED & INDOCTRINATED MORONS). 

The affidavit below relates to matters which the solicitor Pany Symeou, who interfered in the case he had no input in and or for. Nor had been instructed to act in the matter of the long overdue and outstanding rent liabilities. As a qualified solicitor his only interests and concerns ought to have been the fraudulent activities in which the tenants engaged, as used and tutored stooges who were too  happy to co-operate in the constructive fraud as intended beneficiaries, care of the contribution from Local Authority staff and officers. Needless to say, all were relying on protection by the police and by abusers of the courts facilities. Nothing unusual as far as Mr. Andrew Yiannides was concerned, after 34 years of research and investigations in all aspects of Law Enforcement and in particular the activities and practices, by Officers of the Court who engage / indulge  in constructive fraud on the citizens. The ongoing research, ever since solicitors, barristers and judicial chair occupants, all the way to the Court of Appeal, acted in contempt of the law in a matter of Commercial FRAUD. One and all ignored and through defaults to address the creation of a blunt FORGERY, in the matter of a High Court action, exposed themselves and exhibited arrogance befitting only 'licensed criminals'.

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

Case Number 706523

Between

(suing for himself and as agent for the Second Plaintiff)

(Suing for herself and as principal for the First Plaintiff)

and

(Sued as an individual and as a Public Servant)

AFFIDAVIT OF HARITA KYRIACOU IOANNIDOU

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

I Harita Kyriacou Ioannidou of 16a Woodside Road, London N22 5HU, in the London Borough of Haringey MAKE OATH and say as follows:-

Save where otherwise expressed I depose to the facts set out in this my affidavit from my own knowledge and from documents that I had and or have in my possession and from conversations I had with any other party referred to herein, who in the past confirmed the factuality of what I repeat, and I firmly believe to be true because conversations and or matters herein deposed of by me were not at all relevant times denied and or challenged by such others as I refer to.

I am the widow of Kyriacos Petrou Ioannides and the natural mother of our five children namely:- Maria, Andrew, Despina, Costas and Savvas. Throughout my marriage I had been treated contemptuously by my husband. I have over the last three years come to recognise that my daughter Despina was similarly treated throughout her marriage to Mr Sotirios N Englezakis; simply as a vehicle and provider and her husband making all decisions as to every other's ‘rights’ without any reference to such others whose lives were being affected by such decisions. Because of the similarities I gave such information to my daughter Despina over the last two years which I believe to be fundamental to my daughter Despina and to any other of my children and, I asked of her to record such facts for posterity. I wish for any others who may wish to deal with and or consider the errors of their ways to have access to and knowledge of the events I related to my daughter because of the effects of such mentalities; the effects they all had to live through over the last thirty years. I wish to emphasise that what I related to Despina are but truthful and factual events and matters. What lessons are learned and or derived from such knowledge and how the facts of life within my marriage affected me and others it is a matter for those who peruse and relate to those facts and seek proper counsel and professional opinions as to the makings of ‘the families’ of both my husband Kyriacos and that of my son-in-law Sotirios.

In accordance with my wishes, and as I directed my Trustees in my last Will, I am presently dealing with such other specific issues of importance and relevance in separate to this affidavit's wherein I cover such other issues that have disturbed and upset me over the last few years. Through this specific deposition / affidavit I wish to deal with aspects as I depose of below. My statements pertain to issues that arise and arose out of contacts and experiences I had with and through my son-in-law Mrs Sotirios N Englezakis and the effects of his attitude to marriage to my daughter who was never ‘sold to him’ as a slave in some backward country. He married my daughter in the United Kingdom as a grown up woman with her own business and with a reputation of impeccable character and with a large social circle who respected and loved her.

My granddaughter Rita Sotiriou Englezakis took her own life on 3rd December 1993. Every one in the family knew of the conditions in the family and home that her father Mr Sotirios N Englezakis had created and imposed on everybody through indifference to every one in the home my daughter worked so hard and kept for years, without ever uttering any complaints and or referring to anyone her feelings; quietly she suffered like I did for the sake of the ‘family’ as she repeatedly has told me and others over the last two years.

In the latter part of 1994 and throughout 1995 my elder son Andrew was assisting his sister Despina to deal with problems in connection with two properties in Hornsey, North London, which her husband handed over to her in October 1994; the two properties her husband had been treating as revenue and income generating properties since she instigated the acquisition of those investments. She never spoke to anyone of the cruel indifference she was subjected to by her husband throughout her marriage; however after she instituted divorce proceedings, following additional liberties and abuses her husband indulged in at her expense, she begun to speak of life with the man she decided to divorce; the matters she related covered much more than the aspects everybody in my immediate family knew of; the issues that lead to the suicide of their daughter Rita S Englezakis who, like everyone else, was neglected and cruelly treated as persons of no consequence and or as humans with any rights to decide for themselves. I myself had many an unpleasant experience with my son-in-law over the years; like my daughter I never spoke of such matters. Her problems within her marriage she simply treated as ‘her private life’ in accordance with our upbringing; suffering quietly irrespective of the consequences, which in her case did not include ‘keeping quiet about the needs of her children, as everyone got to know of; the needs her husband ignored; his failures to consider the mother’s pleadings and demands of him lead to the bitter pill of knowing that one of your children took her own life because her father was for ever pre-occupied with other matters than the needs of the children and or their mother who was giving so much without any respect and or recognition for her sacrifices. My daughter, evidently, to men of the calibre of my late husband and my son-in-law Sotirios are simply providers and ‘convenient amenities’ for and in respect of each and every decision of the ‘man of the house’, for the one who wears the trousers.

My other children knew of and were aware of the facts and the events that lead to Rita taking her own life; everyone knew how my son-in-law had behaved and treated everybody before and after that loss of life; no one seemed to care what my son-in-law was doing to my daughter and their children, especially over the previous four years since and after Despina sought help and assistance from her brothers and spoke to all about her circumstances; even more so and in particular over the two years before the suicide; no one cared what my son-in-law was doing to his wife Despina, nor how he treated her; especially after she had told everybody that she had made it clear to him she was not consenting and or agreeing to her husband getting involved in ‘private business arrangements with his brothers and his sisters and or in the private companies they were setting up overseas. Despina told everyone that all she had consented to was for her husband to loan their private funds (which throughout their marriage he had under his control and at all material times purportedly did so for and on behalf of both of them) to the private business and company her husband, his brothers and his sisters had set up and were parties to. Everyone got to know of such matters which through his own statements my son-in-law repeated and never denied whenever his wife raised the issue’. Everyone knew of the fact my son-in-law was treating the issues as nothing but a business arrangement and used the interest return on the loan as the best interest the couple were to benefit from at the time and circumstances. Everyone knew of my son-in-law’s declarations that HIS PRIVATE BUSINESS affairs were with and for his brothers and sisters, in reference to HIS PART in the business he had loaned the funds to.

ALL GOT TO KNOW OF THE FACT that my son-in-law adamantly refused to and repeatedly failed to furnish to his wife any documented evidence that HE HAD SECURED HER OWN INTERESTS in respect of the loan facility and or her rights as the wife who had worked throughout her marriage to him. Evidently Mr Sotirios N Englezakis elected to overlook the fact that Despina had her own business and hairdressing salon long before she married him. Everyone knew my daughter Despina carried on working throughout her marriage and that she even returned to work after a mastectomy operation. I myself got to know of the fact that my son Savvas attempted to secure an instrument from my son-in-law whereby he was to authorise HIS WIFE to seek and secure copies of such documents and clarifications from solicitors in Cyprus who were acting for and in respect of the business deals her husband and his brothers and sisters were engaged in. My son Savvas told me at the time that his brother-in-law flatly refused to comply with his wife’s demands and or with her rights in law; and that he did so in the presence of an uncle who escorted him on the day to the barber shop my son-in-law maintains and run in Seven Kings, Essex. Savvas knew as of that moment that his sister was being obstructed of any right to know and or to have the right to seek professional advise as to the matters her husband was getting involved in and was treating as personal and of no interest and or even concern to the wife he treated as a slave and provider, and not as an equal or as a human being with feelings and or rights in law. Everyone knew of the ‘loan facility’ and the explicit copy document, which my daughter secured along with other important papers. My son Savvas knew as to when and how she secured that copy along with other copies from the files of papers her husband maintained at the matrimonial home; it was after she was left with no other choice following her husband’s adamant refusals to put her mind at ease and to furnish her with evidence that he had secured her interests. Savvas was in fact entrusted with copies of the documents for safe keeping at the time. These events were before the suicide of my granddaughter Rita. Following the suicide of Rita my daughter endured a number of very cruel and badly misdirected acts by her husband; these included an attempt by her husband to use the very doctors others had used and relied upon. I am now to depose of such other activities separately on affidavit for reference to the appropriate bodies and authorities; the implications on society, at large, and the use of such ‘misguided services and the abuse of office by persons who should know better than aid and abet deceptions and impose on others the misguided and the dishonest are unacceptable to the victims they create and to the society they create. I suffered from and experienced the results of such services as my daughter-in-law secured with assistance from others.

Between January and December 1995 I had been the victim of many a vile telephone call from Mr Sotirios N Englezakis. I was also witness to a number of such calls, always instigated by him whenever he felt like causing more aggravation and or adding to the problems his stubbornness had introduced in the home and family my daughter Despina had ‘created for him’ and he used as he saw fit; as a typical male of the middle ages and through caveman mentalities my son-in-law resorted from verbal abuse to PHYSICAL VIOLENCE; these matters were recorded, by Andrew and the police who had to attend the matrimonial home on two occasions. The suicide in the family was not enough to cause my son-in-law to reconsider his selfish arrogance; the consequences of his gross indifference to the needs of others; he ‘wore the trousers’ in his household and he had the right of absolute power and control over every other, he evidently imposed HIS decisions on all and everyone else was simply to be used by him with no rights of their own. I was witness to many a boastful exclamations from my son-in- law in the course of the aforesaid telephone calls; particularly after my daughter decided that enough was enough; that she needed to protect herself and her interests from the deceitful, uncaring and arrogant male chauvinist who used to intercept mail addressed to her and carried on doing so after going their separate ways; even after he agreed to the divorce my daughter initiated. The first I knew of the interception of mail was when my daughter applied for references to the bank where the two had maintained a joint account from the onset of their marriage; the bank where my daughter sought to open her own private bank account had not heard from the couple’s bankers; her husband boasted to my daughter that ‘HIS BANKERS’ were not likely to oblige her and or furnish references to the new bank she had contacted. My daughter had no choice after that but to ask of the couple’s bankers to send copies of intercepted letters not to the matrimonial home but to her hairdressing salon which the couple had leased to Mr Panayiotis and Mrs Eleni Michael. My daughter needed her own private bank account where she could bank and use rents from and towards the renovations of the two properties in Hornsey which she begun to renovate with assistance from her brother Andrew; the two properties were in a deplorable state when he handed them over with other intentions which HE MADE clear later through actions and declarations; my son-in-law did not content himself to let his wife carry on as she had set out to do; he had to interfere and cause problems with any assistance and or services he could ‘secure and master’. Apparently in December 1995, while I was in hospital my son-in-law assaulted my son Andrew after my son challenged questionable activities and ‘happenings’ at the ground floor, the hairdressing salon that was leased to Mr P and Mrs E Michael. Evidently the police defaulted to prosecute my son-in-law for the physical act that caused injuries and my son Andrew was left with no option but to instigate a private prosecution. Andrew had made it clear over the year that unlike others he was not minded to abandon his sister to the conniving ways of the man who had caused so much pain to his sister and had gone as far as to seek deceitfully and improperly ‘medical services on demand in order to subjugate another’, who happened to be his sister; and all because my son-in-law wanted to advance the interests of his paternal family and those of his brothers and sisters as he had been doing for over twenty-eight years. Andrew had told my son-in-law umpteen times that he should cease his conniving tricks and attempts to impose his dishonest ways on my daughter. Everyone in the family knew my daughter was instrumental in buying the two investment properties in Hornsey; also that my son-in-law had been using the two properties as ‘revenue and income generating investments and that he had been using the funds as and how he alone decided without any consideration of the needs of his wife and or their children. No one expected and or anticipated Despina’s resolve to get on with her life and or the assistance she was receiving from Andrew. Everyone knew of my so-in-law’s private business affairs such as he got involved in with his brothers and sisters and that he had failed to account for anything to his wife; all except Andrew were content to stand by and watch and hear of the maligned and conniving ways her husband was indulging in with assistance from whosoever was prepared to play their part in the promotions of the dishonest ways of my son-in-law; such persons evidently included the Lease holders of the hairdressing salon business my daughter created and maintained for some twenty years before going to work in the unisex salon her husband created at his barber shop in Seven Kings. I was made aware of the fact that Mrs Eleni Michael (the Lease holders at the hairdressing salon went as far as to speak of and complain to a priest at my local church; the priest repeated her complaints to me when he attended to my needs while I was in hospital; I told my daughter of such matters and she wrote to the priest immediately thereafter because the matters Mrs Eleni Michael raised pertained to my daughters unwillingness to sell the two properties in Hornsey, North London, for and in respect of the needs of the private business affairs of her husband and or for the needs of his brothers and his sisters; and my daughter informed me then that she had had enough of others being afforded opportunities to use ‘her hard earned earnings and investments’ for their private FAMILY needs while her own family was neglected. My daughter had told Mrs Michael and in the presence of Andrew (while they were renovating the property where the hairdressing salon is) that my daughter’s resolve was that since Mr Englezakis had gone into business with and for his brothers and sisters ‘they’ ‘as a family’ should provide for their own private family business the funds they needed; my daughter had made it clear she was not consenting to sale of any properties in the United Kingdom for and in respect of the private business deals of a family that had treated her with contempt throughout her marriage to Mr Sotirios N Englezakis and had resorted to such vile activities and proclamations in respect of the daughter THEY as a family had caused to take her own life; also that what that family did to her personally and how they treated and used her other two children had been unacceptable to her as the mother who had lost the most caring and loving of her three children the apple of her eye, her pride and joy as she referred to the daughter lost under circumstances that were directly the result of my son-in-laws blind indifference and uncaring attitude and because of the megalomania of her husband and his other interests for and with his brothers and his sisters.

Everyone was made aware that my daughter had no funds of her own (in any account she could draw on; her husband had been transferring and moving their joint funds out of their joint account to other bank accounts over which he had absolute control (even his sister in Cyprus had access to such funds) with her husband asserting that he was so doing on grounds that he was investing ‘wisely their funds’. My daughter needed to proceed with the renovation of the two properties she was ‘lumbered with’; she had called for assistance from others within her maternal family; only my son Andrew went to her rescue; all others ignored her plight and her needs. In the summer of 1996 my daughter Despina, my son Andrew and I found out that the other of my children did with intent deceive Despina, Andrew and my person; they had secured our signatures through deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations (as I depose of in another affidavit and as Andrew deposed of in a Section 9 statement for reference to the appropriate authorities); all others subsequently failed to keep and or adhere to an agreement the others had ‘used’ (subsequently to be cancelled) after my son-in-law’s attempts to use the services of willing playmates in the medical profession which activities Despina asked of Andrew to challenge by writing to them as she had asked of him; she recognised the deceptions and the intentions of the conniving Mr Sotirios N Englezakis; and relied upon Andrew who knows of the law and can, as an educated person express and write of the issues precisely and succinctly. My other children having introduced the element of an agreement and through their promises to assist Despina (without any intention to honour their undertakings) they simply sought benefit and personal gain for themselves as my son Andrew deposed of in the Section 9 Statement I referred to above. It was and never had been the intention of any other than Andrew to assist Despina; the others through defaults and or with intent sought to aid and abet the dishonest maligned and cruel megalomaniac Sotirios N Englezakis; others merely used Despina’s needs as a vehicle through which to serve their own ends and their dishonest goals at the expense of Despina, in the mould of the upbringing they received and benefited from through their own father’s dishonest and deceitful ways. Such damages as the others caused, however, had been and were also directed at my person, not merely my daughter Despina and now are the subject of complaints and the preparation of a legal action returnable on ALL participating individuals as I depose of herein.

In December 1995, in the course of my stay in hospital I suffered a heart attack; everyone got to know of ‘that additional health problem’. I was not made aware of the events which lead to my son Andrew and my daughter to institute court proceedings, because while those activities and events were unfolding ‘my health condition was uppermost in their minds’. It was not until some two weeks later and after my son had instituted a private prosecution against my son-in-law at the Magistrates Court (as I refer to above) because the police defaulted to take any steps to protect my daughter and or my son from the interference and the violence my son-in-law had resorted to. After the institution of the private prosecution by Andrew I heard proclamations from my son-in-law that the police in Barking, were allegedly mostly clients at his barber shop and that they would do nothing (as indeed happened, for they allegedly failed to serve the initial Summons the Magistrates’ Court sent to them for service). As to the matter of a contract on my son’s life (reported to my son Andrew at the time by a third party and thereafter to the police and my daughter’s solicitors and some four weeks later to me) my son-in-law proclaimed and boasted that the police are in his hands (in Greek, implying ‘services bought’). My son-in-law also boasted in a telephone call following the Court hearings and the ‘arrangements under which he had secured an alleged ‘not guilty decision’, that he was going to freeze my daughter’s bank accounts; also that the contract he sought to place in respect of Andrew’s life was in Andrew’s best interests; over the previous two years he had been asserting also hat his attempts at and with the doctors (relied upon and used in respect of my son Costas) that my son-in-law simply sought such ‘services’ because it was in MY DAUGHTER’S BEST INTERESTS. How he dared make assertions and or expect others to concur with his vile attempts and the deceptions (seeking a next of kin certificate and ABUSIVE powers over another) with assistance from co-operating persons was and remains inexcusable. What was most offensive was the obvious and that he was seeking such abusive powers as HE SAW FIT IN HIS OWN PERSONAL interests in the promotion of his megalomania through abusive violations of rights as to the properties he wished to convert by hook and by crook to funds for his commitments with and for others without any consideration for and or to his wife whose wishes and plans he had ignored throughout their marriage AND CARRIED ON IGNORING AFTER HE CAUSED HIS OWN DAUGHTER TO TAKE HER OWN LIFE with assistance from his paternal family. In advancing his assertions and using an alleged mental condition in respect of my son Costas (whose wife and others had imposed on him, whether with his consent and or through HIS OWN FOLLIES is open to question to this day) my son-in-law ELECTED TO IGNORE what his family had done in respect of and to his teenage sister Theonitsa many years earlier; my son-in-law was prepared to advance a questionable condition in respect of my son Costas WHILE he ignored the fact that his sister had gone as far as to murder her own child. I reminded him of such realities in his paternal family and on one instance I demanded of him to cease making proclamations about my son Costas and to cease also referring to my son Andrew as an ass. My son Andrew had in the meantime told me not to concern myself and not to worry about the boastful assertions which my son Savvas had made in respect of the theatrical productions at the Magistrates’ Court; Andrew also pointed out that Savvas’ references to ‘such financial impositions as Savvas had referred to’ simply exposed his complicity in promoting Mr Sotirios N Englezakis’ dishonest activities behind the scenes. Andrew also told me and assured me that he was challenging at a higher level the decision and part the two Magistrates played in ‘absolving Mr Sotirios N Englezakis while the two remained on the bench to serve other purposes than simply absolve the dishonest and deceitful Mr Sotirios N Englezakis. Andrew wrote to the solicitor who purportedly had been acting in the interests of my daughter Despina while the conniving Sotirios N Englezakis had been let loose to indulge in vile activities that were ongoing and reported to the solicitor IN WRITING. I was assured that my son Andrew and my daughter had taken such steps as were essential at the time in order to refer the matters to the European Commission on Human Rights because of the violations of the rights of Andrew in the course of the proceedings as were directed by the Magistrates’ clerk who saw fit to indulge in abuses of office; my son Andrew told me that the events at the Magistrates’ Court were nothing but typical ‘theatrical productions as directed by the director for and in the interest of the legal circles irrespective of the law and the rights violated’. All in the interests and the service of the self perpetuating cancerous growth industry - the legal services. In the course of another telephone call my son-in-law proclaimed to my daughter Despina "And let your brother put me in prison?"; this was after Despina challenged him about lying on Oath. My son Andrew assured me that in the event Mr Englezakis attempted to or indulged himself as he had asserted, or sought to freeze Despina’s bank accounts Mr Englezakis and all others who assisted him through defaults and or complicity would be in trouble and legal action could be taken against them for any damages that Despina suffered as a consequence. Andrew told me that he had already raised the issues with Despina’s solicitors and that they had already been instructed to assist with the need to refer the matter to the European Commission on Human Rights (without stating to him the grounds to be used and raised). No attempt was made by the conniving Mr Sotirios N Englezakis to freeze Despina’s bank accounts through the erroneous assumptions that he had secured services such as he sought at and through the theatrical productions at the Magistrates Court.

In July 1996 I suffered a massive heart attack and everyone knew of that event; I was hospitalised and Despina and Andrew were most anxious not to disturb me with the matters that were ongoing at the Magistrates’ Court. After I was released from hospital and when Despina and Andrew considered I was fit enough to take it all in and recognise that my son and my daughter were not going to abandon their rights I was told that in the course of the Court proceedings and on OATH Mr Sotirios N Englezakis specifically ALLEGED that my son Andrew sues everybody (which was and is false) and that my son Andrew had even SUED ME PERSONALLY. Andrew told me that what everybody anticipated and expected of me was not to survive; that my son-in-law felt free to make such false declarations on OATH on reliance that I was not going to be around to denounce his fabrications; 20 months have passed since and at no time the dishonest fabricator apologised and or made any amends to anyone in respect of the malicious and maligned falsehoods he saw fit to promote on OATH and as an alleged Christian. At the time Andrew also told me that my son-in-law may well had introduced that element in the erroneous belief that it could not be challenged and or that it could be used for other purposes, on instructions from others for and in respect of other ulterior motives; he also told me that he had been obstructed by the director in the theatre of Justice, as he referred to the Clerk and the Magistrates Court, and the proceedings that were misconducted in the manner of High Court proceedings he had been victim of many years earlier; he paid dearly then for being used by his own solicitors who even advanced and indulged forgeries in order to protract and generate income through the added bonus of causing the case to be struck out because of alleged inordinate delays CARE OF THE CO-OPERATING THEN SOLICITORS who thus obstructed, perverted and corrupted justice with the conscious consent of persons who know of the law. Those activities at the High Court were but and through the services of the very solicitor that others relied upon and used in order to impose damages on me and my daughter Despina and their terms and conditions on both of us. The latter exploits have been referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors by my son Andrew in accordance with my wishes; my daughter Despina and I will be seeking damages and remedies in respect of the breaches of trust by family members because of the deceptions and the constructive frauds all indulged in through and care of the services of the very solicitor they all knew offers such illegal services to others while causing damages to his own clients irrespective of the violation of the rights of the clients while relying on erroneous beliefs that the deceived clients will find and or receive no assistance to challenge the dishonest the solicitor assisted and or his own breaches of trust that may be termed and or advanced as negligence and or mistakes by his subordinates and not himself.

I DO HEREBY STATE AND RE-ITERATE ON SOLEMN OATH that my son-in-law Sotirios N Englezakis did falsely rely on such declarations as he promoted and advanced in respect of my person. I am still around and I do challenge him to produce any evidence upon which he relied and or relies to support the falsehood that my son Andrew ever instigated any legal action returnable on my person. And I hereby declare that my son-in- law is but a liar of the worst kind and of the lowest denomination of the human species because he dared implicate an old ailing woman through his maligned and malicious statements to a Court of Law, on OATH and as an alleged Christian. I further declare and state that Mr Sotirios N Englezakis through such declarations as he made in reference to my person he PERJURED himself in a Court of Law. I further declare that in the event that Mr Sotirios N Englezakis and or any other acting for and or on his behalf should dare adduce any document in respect of the law suit which is nothing but a figment of his fertile imagination, such a document will be nothing but a forgery in the mould of the documents that my son Andrew suffered from in the course of the High Court proceedings I referred to above. Everyone of my children and persons in our family circle got to know of the Forgeries and the activities by solicitors years ago and that the police defaulted to act on the grounds that such matters are within the rights of those who administer justice in our Courts in the United Kingdom. Everyone knows that my son Andrew has repeatedly declared that such activities are but activities by the licensed dishonest in pursuit of THEIR INCOME GENERATING PRACTICES, solicitors who misguide and or ‘use the greed and dishonesty of their clients’ for their own benefits when they find co-operating partners in the deceptions and abuse of the Court’s processes and facilities. Everyone knows that Andrew has been researching ever since those issues in order to establish whether it was an isolated case or habitual practices as others have suffered from in pursuit of Justice in our Courts.

And I hereby re-iterate that other issues, events and matters of which I have been the victim of through dishonest practices following fraudulent misrepresentations and deceptions I am deposing separately ON OATH on affidavit. The events relevant to such matters command reference to officials and the police and I have authorised my son Andrew, under the General Power of Attorney Instrument I have granted to him (because he knows of the law) to act on my behalf in the event that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors fails me in respect of the deceptions that my daughter Despina and I were and have been the victims of throughout. Deceptions and breaches of trust by my own solicitors (recklessly entertained at the behest of others) are unacceptable activities leading to justification of my son Andrew’s reference to legal services as nothing but the self perpetuating cancerous growth industry; promotion and conscious entertainment of deceptions and dishonesties by solicitors and persons who should know the law and should know better than partake in contempt of the law while violating the law that public servants are meant to uphold and SERVE.

At the time when the Magistrates case was ongoing, I considered it significant that my son-in-law fetched his son Neophytos to the United Kingdom, in order for my grandson to watch his father’s performance in Court; the young man had nothing to offer to the proceedings. His father did bring my grandson to visit me in hospital; his father, however, stayed outside and waited in the car. Following the ‘conclusion of the Magistrates’ Court hearings my son-in-law dashed his son overseas again; he did so knowing full well that my daughter Despina had asked of and eventually wrote to her son to deal with the facts of life and to make an effort to correct the errors of his father’s ways by attending to the issues of the present (the CD player that his father determined and arranged for him NOT to have) and to the circumstances leading to the attempt by his father to seek and secure (through deceptions) the dishonest services of the very doctors others used earlier. I was made aware in the course of telephone calls and I know that my daughter also wrote to her son Neophytos; she asked of him to attend to the issues; she was most concerned as to how and when the statements from him causing her to stay away from hospital (for two days only) and the need for her son to relate to the doctors the matter of the ‘cancelled CD player which his mother and his uncle Andrew knew of because my grandson telephoned his uncle Andrew when the company were not prepared to accept my daughter’s undertakings to the company; the issues arose because of the wilful ‘references’ his father had arranged with his staff, if not himself uttered and ‘HIS BANKERS’ statements at the time. My daughter had no choice but to write to her son because of the manner with which his father was USING HIM and persistently promoted through him terms and conditions in respect of the financial arrangements his father knew of and or should have been advised were the next step in the matrimonial proceedings and the divorce he had agreed to. Through a specific letter my daughter made matters clear to her son, to stop his father using him in his efforts to promote assertions and expectations that were nothing but attempts and vehicles for arguments towards theatrical productions by THE solicitors. That specific letter was called for after her own solicitors attempted for the umpteenth time to suppress the funds her husband had loaned to the private company of the Englezakis brothers and sisters. Through that letter my daughter made it clear that she merely wanted to settle the financial issues between herself and her husband in a manner such as she put forward in the letter. Her son did not respond but acknowledged the letter in telephone conversations. My daughter Despina and my son Andrew wrote that letter for specific reasons as I refer to below; they explained to me that they had done so in order to cause the solicitors to recognise that my daughter was not game and or the usual candidate for the dishonesties of the legal professions. True to form my daughter’s solicitors were not prepared to deal with the issues as they were instructed; my daughter’s solicitors went as far as to declare that it was too much and too soon. Andrew later sent a copy of a Court of Appeal ruling whereby my son Andrew pointed out that a party to court proceedings was not entitled to "..... unless the evidence COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE available at the first instance BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE " and Andrew pointed out that it was not a case of any diligence but abuse and breaches of trust by a solicitor who was blatantly, through defaults, seeking to serve the other side. Despina and Andrew had determined that the expectations and dreams of the megalomaniac Sotirios N Englezakis and his brothers and sisters would not be served through such devious and dishonest attempts; and my daughter decided after another attempt was made by her solicitors to work with and or for the other side to move on and changed solicitors. My son Andrew explained to me that Despina’s solicitors were simply attempting to convert funds (and properties they knew existed) to alleged legal costs through such defaults and activities and the ensuing Appeals that would be ‘encouraged’ after the SUPPRESSION OF THE FUNDS which later would become a bone of contention ‘AND NOT ACCEPTABLE’ to any Court under any pretext, care of the original failures to plead the existence of the funds on loan overseas. Andrew also told me and his sister Despina that the breaches of trust that could lead to appeals and or further theatrical productions would be nothing but violations of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Commission on Human Rights; the article specifically provides that no citizen could be deprived of his properties (which includes moneys) unless it be through due process of law and it would be arguable if abuses of the Courts’ processes could in law be relied upon as ‘due process of law’ considering that the beneficiaries would be alleged ‘professionals who know of and in the service of the law’. Andrew also told me that he was challenging the proceedings at the Magistrates’ Court on a very important issue. He had been denied the right to record the proceedings which the Court themselves also failed to do as he had demanded throughout. He was therefore challenging the theatrical productions at the Magistrates’ Court as a violation of Article 6 because by the very failures to record and or permit recordings, he argued that any decision and ruling of that court was not in compliance with of Article 6 and the provisions for OPEN COURT HEARINGS.

I was made aware in June 1997 that my daughter and Andrew decided to institute proceedings returnable on my son-in-law Mr Sotirios N Englezakis and Mrs Eleni Michael for her part in the attempts to subjugate and cause damages to my daughter in co-operation with Mr Sotirios N Englezakis; also on the clerk to the Magistrates who had abused his position and his public office and had gone as far as to cause the arrest of and demanded of the THREE magistrates on the day to commit my son Andrew to prison for allegedly refusing to give evidence after challenging the clerk for advancing and promoting falsehoods and attempting to suppress documents and material facts from the THREE magistrates. I was informed last month that Service of the Summons had been effected on Mr Sotirios N Englezakis and on Mrs Eleni Michael after the former returned to the United Kingdom ‘quietly’, which my daughter Despina and my son Andrew recognised as the result of knowing a Summons had been issued. Copy of the Summons they ensured was passed to him last Summer in order for him to recognise that the more he listens to solicitors and the more he indulges in deceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations the deeper and bigger the problems he has to face in respect of the dishonest, vile and maligned activities he relishes in. In view of the fact that Mr Sotirios N Englezakis returned to the United Kingdom and was and has been content to carry on along the dishonest path he set himself upon and because he failed to correct the errors of his ways, especially in respect of the fabrications he sought to promote and advance at the expense of my son Andrew and because he relied upon my medical condition at the time, I submit by way of the exhibit, marked "HKI.1", attached to this my affidavit, true copy of an article in the Local Authority magazine "Haringey People; therein my medical condition, at the time, is covered. The article establishes the fact that reliance was placed by the fabricating Mr Sotirios N Englezakis whose falsehoods were not recorded as challenged. I HEREBY RE-ITERATE that Mr Sotirios N Englezakis advanced and promoted FALSE ASSERTIONS which I was given to understand were recorded as ‘unchallenged statements’ by the director and that such were entertained by the actors on the day in Court, irrespective of the fact that the false assertions were irrelevant and immaterial to the issues before the Court.

Sworn this the .............. day of ....................... 1998

by ...............................................

To the Court
To the Defendants
To the Lord Chancellor’s Department

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

Case Number ED 706523

THIS IS THE EXHIBIT referred to in the affidavit of Harita Kyriacou Ioannidou  marked ‘HKI.1’

Sworn this the .............. day of ....................... 1998

by ...............................................

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

AFFIDAVIT OF
HARITA KYRIACOU IOANNIDOU

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

FOOTNOTE common to most web-pages at this website

MOST IMPORTANT:- In October 2010, the coalition Government's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' the monthly legal banter magazine, specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves from cases of (small-fry) fraud and he asserted that he was making that element his department's priority*

*Link from here to the evidence.

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, WHAT the coalition of the Con-LibDems, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY WILL IN FACT ATTEND TO THE RAMPANT FRAUD, and IF IT WILL DEAL with the criminals who abuse public office, especially when faced with appropriate submissions and claims that will be delivered in due course. Visitors/readers are urged to read the article published in the London Evening Standard, as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in 2003

*Link from here to the article we reproduce in another webpage and consider "Why tolerate the arrogance of the legal circles who had and have the audacity to assert to the lawmakers that they, the lawmakers have nothing to do with the law"?

While there, above it, the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. ALL alleged victim-challengers who contacted Andrew Yiannides, by the time the letter was sent to the Minister, received copy of the letter just as they received copies of other letters submitted to government maintained Ministers and other official appointees to public office. Accessing the material pointed to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in truly democratic states. The above in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such civilised and, within the law, approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by governments, the explicit challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of alleged victims of the legal circles to have ever contacted us.

*

Link from here to our explicit submissions to (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) and, the Home Secretary. We acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged victim whose only interests were (i) the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides.

Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998

*Link from here to the letter

*Link from here to the evidence we point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system fraudsters who were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers / organisers of the LIPS crowd / mob..

    1.    *Link from here to the page where we publish - released in the public domain - the explicit affidavit covering the facts of life within our allegedly civilised pseudo-democracy. Read there of the parts alleged servants of the public and the law, arrogantly, engaged and engage in, One and all simply acted and act in contempt of the law and in line with the plans of the criminals who have been and are in control of the lives of 'the serfs' / 'the sons of men on planet earth', as planned for and created by the followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works ever to have been presented to mankind. *Link also from here to the page where we publish an extract from the Old Testament and consider the alternative lesson by examples stated in the works of Aesop, whose passing preceded, by a few centuries, the introduction of the Old Testament by the creators of the alleged creator of all and everything. *Link also from here to the obvious, to the blunt contempt for the law by alleged victim-challengers of the abused court facilities for ORGANISED CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS on the taxpayers; we refer to the page where we point to the many 'dreamers & charlatans' who endorsed and adopted the arrangements FOR the sucker-serfs (the taxpayers) as created by abusers of trust and the courts facilities.
    2.    *Link from here to the page where we publish evidence in respect of the arrangements and the facilities in place, for the arrogantly organised constructive fraud on the citizens through abuse of the courts facilities in PSEUDO-democracies. *Link also, from here to an extract from 'The Brotherhood', resting on extensive research by the late Stephen Knight. The extract covers also the parts of Local Authority officers, staff and workers, also mainstream services, such as telephone and banks, when 'the serfs', are targeted by abusers of judicial chair occupation issue FALSE INSTRUMENTS that lack accountability by the very authors who simply act in contempt of the law. *Link also from here to Legal Arguments and Legal Brief, founded and resting on Acts of Parliament, explicit provisions in law in respect of and applicable to the use and issue of any instrument (such as a Court Order) that lacks accountability by the author who was made / SHOULD BE AWARE of any law that applies to facts stated & pleaded in respect of activities intended to defraud any citizen in the United Kingdom, as Parliament enacted. *Link also from here to a House of Lords ruling when their Lordships were called upon to apply themselves to ACTS & FAILINGS by solicitors; in their deliberations they clarified the law in respect of:-  (a) conspiracy, (b) dishonesty, (c) lies, (d) deception, (e) failure to act leading to the imposition of any wrong on third parties, (f) suppression of known 'plans intended to cause damages to third parties whether overtly or covertly.
    3.    *Link from here to the page where we reproduce / relate material facts and realities which the victim of Institutionalised abuse of the courts facilities published as a member of the human-rights.org Community on Line. The victim's recognition of the need to challenge and expose abusers of public office and in particular the abusers of the courts' facilities in line with the victim's acceptance of the Community's Statement of Intent reflected in the page 'OUR AIMS' [*linked to from here] the principles upon which the foundations and the need to expose and challenge abusers of public office and to expose the Intellectual Prostitutes retained and maintained by the media Barons simply to serve the undisclosed agendas of the media Barons, and their affiliates, as covered by the words of John Swainton, in the course of his retirement speech (moving out of the firing / sucking line). [*Link from here to the very words used by 'the insider' who had no choice but to dangle, as a puppet on the strings of the puppeteers *Link also from here to the gratitude expressed to the media Barons and their agents by David Rockefeller in the course of the secretive & conspiratorial meetings of the Bilderberg Group's members, attendees, most of whom allegedly servants of the people in the PSEUDO-democracies the media Barons and their lapdogs have been misrepresenting as the genuine article, for over 100 years, when one considers the elements covered in 'The Protocols'* [*L], first published in 1902 in Russia'. *Link from here to the page where visitors, especially readers and researchers can read of the thoughts and conclusions of the creator of these pages / website. All of it founded on the elements arising out of the disputed 'Protocols'. Read and draw your own conclusions friend and foe alike; remember that at the end of the day it is the facts and the realities, the manifestations leading to the attempts to impose, to realise the conspiratorial plans of evil persons, one and all followers of the very evil 'deity' created / presented to mankind some 2300 years ago by wily, crafty and evil persons. Let not go of the fact that some 300 years later, the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, was recorded by the creators / editors of 'The New Testament' (300 years further on) to have qualified to the scribes His own observations, as you will be reading in the page where we draw your attention to some of the issues raised on reading 'The Protocols' as Andrew Yiannides, the creator of these pages and website noted when researching the disputed publication].
    4.    xxx
    5.    xxx
    6.    xxx
    7.    xxx
    8.    xxx