h-rtitle.gif (7604 bytes)

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

WHERE IS JUSTICE? Read below:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

contract.htm                KEY  Page Changes  16 Jn. 2006

hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)JOIN others On Line and work with them for and in the necessary   challenges and exposures for the common good. Link to Information Page

NOTE: WE WILL BE RELEASING LISTS OF ALL PERSONS WHO SET ABOUT ABUSING OUR TIME, ANDREW'S ASSISTANCE & TRUST WHEN IN FACT ALL THEY WERE ENGAGING IN WAS TO ACT AS LOVERS OF THE DOUBLE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS ON THE TAXPAYERS AND AS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS JUST USING OTHER VICTIMS FOR THE REWARDS TO IDIOTS WHO FAIL TO RECOGNISE THAT SUCH PERSONS ACT AS LOVERS OF THE FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS AND NOT AS IDIOTS WHO SIMPLY CAPITULATE TO BLACKMAIL WHILE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT BY KEEPING QUIET THEY SIMPLY ARE  SEEN TO BE ACCESSORIES & ABETTORS TO THE DOUBLE FRAUDS WE COVER IN THE EXCLUSIVE PAGE, ALL TO BE NAMED FAILED TO ADDRESS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

A letter to Lord the Chancellor

Letter below was sent to Lord Mackay in 1995. It points and relates to improprieties and  UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICES born of and attached to fraudulent in intent activities at & from within the courts.
Page1
lmkay01r.jpg (97292 bytes)

Page2
lmkay02r.jpg (155984 bytes)

Page3
lmkay03r.jpg (85476 bytes)
Failure to respond was no surprise. The issues covered were too close for comfort and the truth of the matters stated his office elected to bury in the sand with the head of the department. When genuine, diligent & truly honourable servants of the law and the citizens were to apply the law as Parliament intended, the need for such letters & challenges would not arise. Failure to respond and attend to the issues raised goes HALFWAY TO ADMITTING the very issues the leader of the opposition, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair & the Spokes Person on legal affairs, for the opposition, in the House of Commons, the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng acknowledged in 1995.

Postal service confirmed the Recorded Delivery of the letter to the Lord Chancellor.
lcdcrmcr.jpg (47575 bytes)

A reminder warranted after the postal services confirmation.
lcd2lrcr.jpg (32171 bytes)

Automata from the Court Service promote the usual waffle, as tutored and instructed illiterates in law.cj92mdrr.jpg (66938 bytes)
Nothing but the usual assertions about the alleged independence of the Judiciary to ACT IN CONTEMPT OF ALL LAW, whenever and as they choose or agree with other fraudsters and abusers of trust.


lafacscr.jpg (99451 bytes)

lafcapmr.jpg (99734 bytes)

lastcfar.jpg (43693 bytes)

lafacscr.jpg (99451 bytes)

lcd2lrcr.jpg (32171 bytes)

lcJa97er.jpg (87310 bytes)

lclau98f.jpg (133649 bytes)

 

Lord Irvine the Lord Chancellor writes in 1999 to Baroness Fookes of Plymouth.

The image below & the content is dedicated to the sucker-victims of the divorce industry that is organised by alleged servants of the law & the citizens.
lctbf99r.jpg (75651 bytes)
We invite victims of the legal circles & judicial chair occupants to read and consider / apply the content of the third paragraph to their own circumstances and to contact the webmaster The 3rd paragraph:

  "When considering financial provisions on divorce the courts in England and Wales must consider all the circumstances of the case, and in particular a number of factors, such as the income and capital resources of both parties, the age of the parties and the length of the marriage. The contributions, both financial and other made by each of the parties to looking after the home and family are also taken into account. In addition, the court must look at the needs and obligations of the parties for the foreseeable future, so far as they can ascertain them". 

 

 

 

lcd2lrcr.jpg (32171 bytes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Contract - Some Attempt *Page created 27 April 2006*
undercon.gif (1065 bytes) *Page Revised: August 04, 2012*
Site under reconstruction. Please report any problems to the webmaster (email below)
VISITORS ARE URGED to access and READ THE IMPORTANT update and ADDENDA we were obliged to introduce in January 2002. We had no choice but to REPORT THE CRIMES TO THE TREASURY. Our observations and knowledge of the constructive frauds made us accessories if we kept quiet, like the alleged victims who work towards the implementation of the schemes by the abductors and rapists of Justice, the Goddess. You will find the addenda statement at the top of the Updated Pages File. We are sure that you will share with us our concerns and most profound disappointment at and with persons who adopt and promote activities which they know are nothing but downright crimes. We refer to our exclusive page where we expose (as conscientious law abiding citizens) the Confidentiality Between Fraudsters that exists care of the BEST OPEN SECRET.
Guidelines on Navigating through the extensive material: access instructions.  The first step for visitors to acquaint  themselves with the extensive material should be to use the SEARCH FOR facility. Just type in any word or combination of words / issues that are of concern / interest - need information and our views about. Remember that our views rest on factual experiences and research with evidence in support. We urge visitors and in particular victims of the legal circles and the Law Enforcement Agencies to access the introduction page to the Community on Line (*Link).
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@

THE BACKGROUND to the shooting of a documentary

In January 2005 Mr Dave Mortimer, the founder of the UKFathers@yahoo group for victims of the family courts, was contacted by 'the producer', as we are referring in this page to a University student whose chosen subject was the media, the 'producer' promoted. He was referred to Mr Andrew Yiannides whose work and research over the previous 33 years, in part, relates to and covers most of the work at this web site. The 'producer' apparently, having visited the website of a number of occasions, he wished to use the website and the creator's work for his Masters' Degree Project, a documentary.

Evidently, the student : 'producer', as part of his final year work, wished to 'shoot a documentary' about the work of Mr Andrew Yiannides and the material in the pages at this website, in general. The student's approach to the subject-matter was commendable, to say the least. In brief, he stated that he wished to create a documentary about the material and this website and about the person who put it all together. What was most interesting, however, was the fact that the student / 'producer' intended to 'create a documentary, whereby one half of the final cut / edit would be exalting the work and the other half would be ridiculing the work and its creator'.

Mr Yiannides informed the student that he would be most happy to co-operate in both respect and in every way called for, because he was very familiar with the practices from within the media and he pointed the student to the words of John Swainton, who was the Chief of Staff at 'The New York Times' in the 1860's (*F1). The student was also informed of the fact that at that very point in time, in Greece, half a dozen courageous reporters were exposing in live broadcasts, on Satellite Television, fraud and corruption within the Justice System and the Church too.

When Mr Yiannides travelled to Stockport, for the shooting of the documentary, he copied 8 hours of the live broadcasts from Greece and took the copy to the producer who was going to view the two recorded programmes with Greek students at the University and discuss the elements being aired openly in Greece, without interference from any quarters.

DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE SHOOTING OF 'THE' DOCUMENTARY

The first image below is of the contract that 'eventually' was posted to Mr Andrew Yiannides, for endorsement by him. It should be noted that ONLY ONE PRINTED & SIGNED DOCUMENT WAS SENT by the producer's mother. It should also be noted that the document was signed / endorsed by the producer / on behalf of the production company. Preceding the delivery of the received document the events stated below should be of interest to all readers and researchers.

  • The producer informed Mr A. Yiannides that he had been advised by the University (his tutors) that the need arose for a release contract, in order for the producer to be able to use the video and the material that was 'shot for the producer's (student's) needs'.

  • Mr Yiannides was thereafter informed, by the mother of the student / producer, that a contract had been posted first class, and such failing to reach him, Mr Yiannides telephoned 'the producer / production company' and informed the mother of the student that the postal service failed to deliver the anticipated and imminent delivery.

  • THE SAME SCENARIO was repeated three times.

  • In the meantime the producer contacted Mr. Yiannides and stated that the need arose for some footage to be shot of Mr Yiannides leaving home and travelling to the Royal Courts of Justice with shots evincing visits (entry to) and leaving (exiting) the Royal Courts of Justice.

  • The Producer drove to London with an assistant and the essential equipment. He arrived at the residential address where Mr Yiannides awaited for the producer's arrival who should have brought along the printed and signed DUPLICATES of the contract. The producer / student arrived WITHOUT the 'essential contracts' which the student's tutors stipulated.

  • The additional shooting, for which the producer drove to London, done, Mr Yiannides suggested a similar sequence with a visit (entry and exit) to the Law Society's head office in Chancery Lane round the corner from the Royal Courts of Justice.

  • On departing from London, the producer assured Mr Yiannides that he would ensure he personally would post 'the essential contracts'.

  • There followed two more non-deliveries, with the third posting reaching its destination.

  • On receiving the contract, the first element that arose and was  duly noted by Mr Yiannides raised the question: "WHY ONLY ONE"? Surely any one who was applying common sense to the need for such a contract, should not have ignored the fact that the second party to the agreement / contract OUGHT TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL : DUPLICATE OF THE AGREEMENT. In other words, TWO CONTRACTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED to Mr. Yiannides; both signed by the other party. Mr Yiannides would simply sign both, retain one for his records (and needs) and forward / post the second copy to the production company.

  • On receipt of the contract, as posted and received, Mr Yiannides telephoned to state his disappointment at the implications. The student's father answered the telephone and addressed the caller (from London) with the words "Yes Johan".

  • It was obvious that either a call was expected from 'Johan' or the telephone system used by the producer was fitted with an LED display showing the number calling the producer and the father simply read the first three/four digits 0208 hence the rush to assume the caller was Johan, Michael Richard Foenander who lived (and probably still lives in South London).

  • Mr Yiannides simply asked if the son was in and his call was transferred to the producer/student. It was only natural that Mr Yiannides should enquire as to WHY the salutation and the error of assuming that the call was from Mr Johan Foenander.

  • The producer referred to earlier conversations with Mr Yiannides, when he spoke of shooting a second documentary when FIVE CASES (the problems faced by  five victims of the legal circles and the courts, as the producer himself had been too and Mr Johan Foenander had been, also) WOULD BE BRIEFLY COVERED and thereafter FIVE SEPARATE & EXPANDED DOCUMENTARIES (one for each of the five cases covered briefly) would be shot.

  • The student / producer was pointed to the fact that in the pages at uk-human-rights substantial facts, realities and REALISATIONS were published about a number of victims of the legal circles and the courts, as Mr Johan Foenander had been and was projecting / promoting relentlessly without any reference to the material facts stated and covered at this website relative to the activities and convenient defaults and failures to deal with / address the issues noted while the alleged victim was abusing Andrew's time and the trust he was granted as an alleged victim of the legal circles, who was noted to have been engaging in too many questionable activities, operating in tandem with the legal circles and other known converts to the New World Order Code of Ethics.

  • Mr Yiannides had spoken of the core elements in many cases to the student when expanding on the common factors, in many of the cases referred to in the pages at the website. In the circumstances the student was told that any diligent researcher would have to apply himself, by way of introduction, to the practices by the legal circles and from within the courts, in order to identify and cover the most common elements of which Mr Yiannides had spoken extensively and pointed to, in the course of the visit for the shooting of the documentary in Stockport.

  • The above references to the proposed other SIX documentaries, naturally were intended for general screening and distribution in order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC (*F2) and make 'the serfs aware of what is in store for them when they end up in the clutches of the legal circles and alleged Public Servants whose one and only DUTY IS TO SERVE THE LAW AND THE CITIZENS, as the law provides.

  • Mr Yiannides acknowledged the earlier exchanges in respect of the proposed SIX OTHER DOCUMENTARIES (after the student was to secure / benefit from the degree he had been studying for) and informed the producer, that he was not happy with the content and stipulations in the contract he received.

  • Mr Yiannides informed the student / producer that he was to apply himself to some of the elements he was not happy with and submit an amended contract.  Mr Yiannides then explained that he was going to submit TWO PRINTED & SIGNED by him contracts which he would be posting to the producer. He emphasised that the amendments in no way would interfere with the needs of the producer, the student's project. Mr Yiannides also qualified that his rights to use his work for his own intended purposes, which were to inform and educate Mr & Mrs Average could not possibly have been ignored by the producer, whose initial statement of intent implied also that such was to be 'the producers' ultimate aim. 

  • The producer accepted Mr Yiannides' submissions and stated that he was looking forward to receiving the 2 signed amended contracts (one of which he would be returning, after signing it, to Mr Yiannides) in order that he could proceed with presentation of the produced end product to the University. Mr Yiannides, on his part, reminded the producer that part of their initial exchanges and at the conclusion of the shooting, Mr Yiannides was to receive a copy of all the shot material for his personal use only and for possible suggestions for voice-oversee towards the editing of the intended edits of the documentary.

  • The posting of the amended and signed contracts was delayed with intent and  the producer did not contact Mr Yiannides in order to report non-delivery or to enquire about the situation, as Mr Yiannides had been doing whenever the posted contracts, by the mother of the producer failed to arrive. Mr Dave Mortimer was accordingly informed and the apparent luck of interest to even look at the amended contract was intriguing.

  • The two signed contracts wee posted 3 weeks late and when Mr Yiannides enquired as to the one that should have been signed returned to him, a week after posting, the producer stated that no delivery had been affected by the postal services. In the circumstances two new printed and signed contracts were posted. SIX WEEKS LATER, when Mr Yiannides telephoned to enquire about the fact that he had not received his copy of the contract, he was informed that there had been no delivery of the posted contracts.

  • Mr Yiannides simply pointed to the fact that whereas he was telephoning the production company, each time there had been failures by the postal services to deliver to him the original postings, he, the producer failed to act likewise. The producer then stated that he had shot another documentary and his needs, as he had intended had been served, that was why he did not bother to contact Mr Yiannides.

  • Mr Yiannides simply enquired about the copies of the shot material he was meant to receive and he 'informed that ALL HAD BEEN DELETED, GOT RID OF. There could only be one spontaneous remark to such 'revelations' Mr Yiannides told the producer and the clue WAS IN THE FAILURE TO SECURE A SIGNATURE TO THE CONTRACT AS SUBMITTED, TO HIM, BY THE PRODUCER / PRODUCTION COMPANY.

  • Mr D Mortimer was then informed that an interesting proposition had been made to him, by Mr Peter Hayward of the Litigants In Person Society after Mr Yiannides was contacted by the LIPS crowd/mob, back in 1992, Mr D Mortimer had been told a couple of years earlier that the LIPS mob controller/managers contacted him within weeks of him lodging the explicit Appeal (*F3) at Bow County Court.

  • Following the developments and the announcement by the producer of 'the documentary', Mr D Mortimer was told that in the course of the early meetings and the exchanges with  Mr P Hayward, of the LIPS crowd/mob, when Mr Yiannides informed Mr P Hayward, that he had engaged in the long research on the practices and the criminal in intent activities within the courts, fully intending to publish his findings in a book in order to expose the abusers of the courts facilities.

  • Mr P Hayward offered to publish such a work, himself having been a victim and he too wished for the public to be made aware of the criminal activities within the legal system and the courts. Mr D Mortimer was THEN TOLD HOW Mr. Yiannides reacted to the offer and what he told Mr. P Hayward at the time: -

  • "You can contract with me to act as the publisher of the intended work. You should be prepared to remit an advance of something around £25,000 (twenty-five thousand pounds sterling) and you will be receiving the final draft months thereafter. You, Mr Hayward, will be paying the advance subject to the condition that you will be the publisher with whom I am prepared to contract for the publication of the work. However, you will not be contracting with me only on the basis of any agreed percentage share of the net sales income.  You will also be contracting with me to HAVE THE PUBLISHED BOOK ON THE SHELVES WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL CORRECTED AND PROOF READ COPY. FAIL TO PERFORM AS THE SAID TERMS STIPULATE AND YOU CAN KISS YOUR 25,000 GOOD BYE.  NOBODY Mr . Hayward is to be afforded the chance to bury my work, if by any chance such a ploy be contemplated by you in offering to act as a publisher of my work".

NEEDLESS TO SAY MR PETER HAYWARD NEVER SPOKE OF SUCH MATTERS AGAIN. HOWEVER, HE KEPT IN REGULAR CONTACT, TWO THREE TIMES A WEEK, WITH LONG TELEPHONE EXCHANGES DURING WEEKENDS.

THERE FOLLOWED MANY INVITATIONS TO GATHERINGS THAT WERE ORGANISED BY MR. PETER HAYWARD, MRS PHILOMENA CULLEN, (the former definitely the manager, organiser and controller of the LIPS crowd/mob).

EARLY ON THEY EXPOSED THEIR PLANS AND HOW THEY WERE TO CASH IN BY USING VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES AND THE COURTS, FOR THEIR OWN UNDISCLOSED PLANS, AS WAS ESTABLISHED OVER THE NEXT SEVEN (7) YEARS.

IT IS UP TO RESEARCHERS & READERS WHO APPLY THEMSELVES TO THE ABOVE SCENARIOS TO CONSIDER & PERUSE DILIGENTLY THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN EVIDENCE.

THE TWO DOCUMENTS (versions of the contract) ARE PUBLISHED IN SUPPORT OF MR YIANNIDES' SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ATTEMPT TO USE THE DOCUMENTARY PLOY FOR OTHER THAN THE AGREED & DECLARED INTENTIONS OF THE PRODUCER AS WITH THE OTHER ATTEMPT WE COVER HEREIN-ABOVE AND IN OTHER PAGES, EVINCE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ABUSERS OF THE COURTS FACILITIES GO WHEN THEY RELY / RETAIN AND OR USE SUCH PERSONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THEIR EVIL CONTROL OF THE LIVES OF 'THE SERFS' IN PSEUDO-DEMOCRACIES.

NEEDLESS TO SAY THE MEDIA ARE BUT THE CORNER STONES UPON WHICH THE ABDUCTORS & RAPISTS OF DEMOCRACY RELY TO CARRY ON BUILDING THE CORRUPTED SOCIETIES OF THEIR OWN MAKING, AS FOLLOWERS OF THE TEACHINGS BY EXAMPLES STATED IN THE MOST VILE OF WORKS EVER TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SONS OF MEN.

reconbwr.jpg (109816 bytes)

The image on the left is of the contract that was submitted to Mr. Andrew Yiannides for endorsement by him subsequent to his participation in the shooting of a documentary (video) covering his work and the material at: - http://www.uk-human-rights.org/, this web-site. The reasons given for the making of the documentary and the terms / conditions contained in the submitted contract should assist readers to recognise why Mr Yiannides did not fall prey to the attempt to silence him and bury his work.

Published below, the content, in HTML for links to and from the text.

PACT MODEL CONTRACTS 1999 Edition
Contributor’s consent letter (no fee)

PROGRAMME TITLE......................................................................
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR............................................................
ADDRESS OF CONTRIBUTOR....................................................
TEL. NO OF CONTRIBUTOR........................................................
NAME OF PRODUCTION COMPANY.........................................
ADDRESS OF PRODUCTION  COMPANY................................
DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTOR............................................
DATE OF RECORDING/CONTRIBUTION..................................
MEDIA
MR ANDREW YIANNIDES
c/o xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx LONDON xxx xxx
020 -xxxx - xxxx
RED DRAGON FILMS / UNIVERSITY PROJECT
xxxxxxx SOUTHPORT MERSEYSIDE xxxxxx
Human Rights Activist Founder of the Community on Line
25/02/05 & 26/02/05

Date:.............................

Dear

We write to confirm our agreement that in consideration of our arranging to film and record the contribution to be given by you ("the contributor’).

  1. You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and hereby grant us all consents necessary to enable us to make the fullest use of the contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered, without liability (save as specifically hereafter provided) or acknowledgement to you. You hereby grant us the right to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme in which it may be included and for such purpose to use your name and photograph and recordings and/or copies of any description of the contribution.
  2. In recognition of the needs of the film and television production, we shall be entitled to edit, copy, add take from, adapt or translate the contribution as we see fit and, in respect of the contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral rights" ( ) or any similar laws of any jurisdiction. We do not undertake to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise exploit the contribution.
  3. You warrant and undertake to us (a) that you are fully entitled to give the contribution to us, (b) that nothing in the contribution (whether by way of infection or gesture or otherwise) will infringe the copyright or any other right or any person, breach any contract or duty of confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory or be calculated to bring any broadcaster into disrepute and (c) that all facts expressed by you in the contributions are, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and insofar as the contribution contains any opinions, these opinions are your own and are genuinely and truly held by you.
  4. You undertake to us that you will not prior to ….………….. give to any person any interview or make, give or release any statement for publication by any means or medium relating to [the subject matter of the contribution].
  5. You agree to indemnify us against all and any costs, claims, expenses and liabilities (including without limitation legal fees and any sums paid on the advice of Counsel) resulting from breach by you, of any of the agreements, warrantees and/or undertakings on your part contained in this agreement.
  6. This agreement may be freely assigned or licensed by us. The agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.
Yours Sincerely......................................................

For and on behalf of ………………………………….....

[Production Company]

Agreed and Accepted by Contributor

….…………………….. .....................

CONTRIBUTOR (no fee) 

Below the two images of the contract as amended and submitted to the Production Company

Page1
redame1r.jpg (152215 bytes)
Page2
redame2r.jpg (159477 bytes)

The reasons stated and the co-operation secured for the production of the documentary as INTENDED FOR THE PRODUCER'S Media Studies project, (Master's Degree) suffice. The terms and conditions attached to the amended contract, as submitted to the student / producer (of the documentary) in no way could affect the student's needs. These had been discussed with Mr Andrew Yiannides when he was contacted. It is for the researcher & reader to determine what other forces were at work in the first instance.

CONTRACT : Contributor’s consent letter (no fee)

PROGRAMME TITLE............................................ MEDIA
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR................................... MR ANDREW YIANNIDES
ADDRESS OF CONTRIBUTOR............................ c/o xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx LONDON
TEL. NO OF CONTRIBUTOR............................... 020 - xxxx-xxxx
NAME OF PRODUCTION COMPANY................ RED DRAGON FILMS / UNIVERSITY PROJECT
ADDRESS OF PRODUCTION COMPANY......... xxxx xxx  SOUTHPORT MERSEYSIDE
DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTOR.................. INTERVIEW - Human Rights Activist
DATE OF RECORDING/CONTRIBUTION........ 25/02/05 & 26/02/05

Date:............................

 

Dear Mr Yiannides

We write to confirm our agreement that in consideration of our arranging to film and record the contribution to be given by you ("the contributor’).

  1. You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and hereby grant us all consents necessary to make the fullest use of the contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered without liability (save as specifically and below provided in connection of, with and for the purposes for which your contribution) or acknowledgement by you save for any deviation from or other use of the contribution. You hereby grant us the right to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme in which it may be included and for such purpose to use your name and photograph and recordings and/or copies of any description of the contribution.
  2. In recognition of the needs of the film and television production (for which the contribution), we shall be entitled to edit, copy, add take from, adapt or translate the contribution as we see fit and, in respect of the contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral rights" ( ) or any similar law of any jurisdiction so long as use of the contribution shall be within the original intent and for the purposes for which the contribution. We do not undertake to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise exploit the contribution.
  3. You warrant and undertake to us (a) that you are fully entitled to give the contribution to us, (b) that nothing in the contribution (whether by way of infection or gesture or otherwise) will infringe the copyright or any other right or any person, breach any contract or duty of confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory or be calculated to bring any broadcaster into disrepute and (c) that all facts expressed by you in the contributions are, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and, insofar as the contribution contains any opinions, these are your own and are genuinely and truly held by you.
  4. You undertake to us that you will not prior to ….…./2005 give to any person any interview or make, give any statement for publication by any means or medium relating to the subject matter of the contribution, at all material times the undertaking contained and applicable to the purpose for which the contribution by you and reserving your rights to carry on with your long established work in respect of the issues covered in and by your contribution towards and for specific use and purposes of the production company’s /person’s explicit needs, at the time of the recording.
  5. You agree to indemnify us against all and any costs, claims, expenses and liabilities (including without limitation legal fees and any sums paid on the advice of Counsel) resulting from breach by you, if any, of the agreements, warrantees and/or undertakings on your part contained in this agreement, subject always that both parties to this agreement shall first adhere to all terms and conditions of this agreement.
  6. In the event that the production company/person shall/may be intending to use the contribution for other purposes than the original purpose for which the contribution, any version of the contribution that shall be the intended for use as provided for under paragraph 1 above, the version that shall first be submitted to you (for viewing and for your records) shall be approved by you (thus not hindering and or obstructing the rights of the company/person from using the contribution in such version within its/his/her rights to freedom of expression and trade) and in the event that the version may not meet with your approval, the production company/person hereby commits and undertakes to release to you all material recorded for the contribution, for use by you as you shall determine in connection with your work and the purposes of your work to inform and educate the public at large.
  7. This agreement may be freely assigned or licensed by us and at all material times all terms and conditions, stipulated and agreed between the signatory parties shall remain in force. The agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law, so long as any part or use of the contribution shall not be in breach of this agreement and/or violate the rights of the contributor’s intellectual property if for other use of it than as covered by the causes and reasons for the contribution, which the contributor shall use for his own work and purposes as covered under 5 above.
Yours Sincerely...............................................................

For and on behalf of ……………………………..........

[Production Company]

Agreed and Accepted by Contributor

….…………………….. .......................

CONTRIBUTOR (no fee) 

This page is dedicated to all abusers of our time and in particular to two women / female evil-mongering fraudsters, Mrs. Veronica Beryl Foden and Mrs. Helen Patey. Both contacted us as 'victims' who were faced with very serious problems. The former complained that she had already been subjected to the most horrendous of obstructions to her rights. The most contemptuous of violations and breaches of public duty, attached to fraudulent activities in the courts were noted upon inspection of her files. She needed assistance to challenge it all, all the way to the ECoHR (Strasbourg) and she declared her intentions to expose it all with our assistance, as a member of the human-rights.org Community in Line. However, it was not long before her actions and defaults; established that she was part of a scam and that she had been and was a participating fraudster in all that she was complaining of and about. She actually engaged in criminally motivated activities that were intended to cause damages to Mr Andrew Yiannides, the person she was sent along to mess about with. The latter, Mrs. H Patey, was also sent along by persons who operate as 'lovers of the system as is, and as maintenance engineers who object to the exposures the public accesses in our pages. Such persons indulge and excel in the subliminal indoctrination, of 'victims they are pointed to and contact'. Their relentless complaints and their perpetual references to and allegations about the Free Masons most notable and arrogant. None ever produced any evidence in support of their assertions.

The right to reply and to justify behaviour and type of activities we cover in our pages, is assured to any person we named. We will publish any excuses & whatever is submitted to us by such persons. Legal argument that shall arise out of their submissions will be used as we apply ourselves to relevant issues in the cases they referred to us & we will cover their acts and all their defaults .

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 mothly 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

& note the results evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do

*Link 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..

PAGE FOOTNOTES:-

    1.    Readers & researchers who are not familiar with the words of John Swainton, can access the quote from here and we urge the interested and concerned to acquaint themselves with the material in the page, especially the two articles we reproduce in the page (images too) one from 'The Daily Express' and one from 'The Daily Mail'. In the same page an important CHALLENGE to the editor of the London 'Evening Standard'. In the latter historical facts and realities the media barons and the editors the6y retain WILFULLY SUPPRESS FROM THE ILL EDUCATED SERFS who pay taxes for the maintenance of Public(?) Servants(!) who serve the plans of their invisible controllers and masters.
    2.    Prior to Mr Yiannides' journey to Stockport for the shooting of the documentary, the producer had spoken to Mr Yiannides and to Mr Yiannides' sister extensively about problems he had been faced with because of his and his parents involvement with Dr. K Badsha of the Environmental Law Centre. Apparently the family had been and was / is involved in litigation over some property sales and transfers. Because of the aforesaid statements, by the producer, Mr Yiannides had informed the producer that before travelling to Stockport (for the shooting of the documentary) Mr Yiannides RELEASED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (the pages at this web-site) relevant events, facts and realities going back to the time when the producer's father travelled to Loughton, Essex, with Dr. K Badsha, for the gathering that took place at Mr Len Miskulin's residence (*Link). The said gathering was FOR THE PROPOSED CREATION OF A PRESS RELEASE CENTRE that would be supported and used by ANY ORGANISATIONS, MOVEMENTS & INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOSE / WOULD CHOOSE TO AFFILIATE AS MEMBERS; affiliates naturally would be accepted only persons and organised groups  who were challenging the wrongs imposed on the citizens by abusers of public office and more specifically the courts' facilities. Researchers and readers should link to the page where we cover what was lurking in the background when the stated 'gathering at Mr Miskulin's residence materialised. WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, who arrived late, and what the late arrival proceeded to do, was most interesting. However, what transpired afterwards was most intriguing. 
    3.    xxx  
    4.    xxx   
    5.    xxx 
    6.    xxx

...

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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