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


*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
          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


englishlaw.htm         KEY Page Changes 25 Nov. 2003

English Law - Foundations * Page created July 1997*
hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes)JOIN the Community On Line.  State Facts, Publish the Evidence In Your Case and work with others for THE 'Common Cause'. Access clearly stated facts and realities that a member submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Note and use (link to) and as a guide, any similarities in your own marathon runs through the theatres they dare refer to as Justice Halls and courts of law. (*Link, to the Community On Line victim's web-pages).

The Statement of facts / Legal Argument by and for the Chairman of live beat dads uk.org. Do not fail to note the rights pleaded  (par. 5.a & 5.b) in the case of a relationship gone astray, merely because the other side felt the urge and need for a change of partner. Thereafter ONE & every decided to use the innocent children as the vehicle for use in and for the conversion of assets industries, a division of CIUKU Enterprises!

Euro Convention Rights
Article 6.1 Court Hearings
Article 6.2 Court Hearings
Article 6.3 Court Hearings
Article 8.1 Respect 4 Family
Article 8.2 Family Rights
Article 9  Free TO THINK +++
Article 10 Free to Share Info
Article 11 Free JoinAssemble Article 14 No Discrimination

KEY to Page & Site
LETTERS TO - List Page&Site LETTERS FROM -   List P&S 
News ARTICLES - Page List
LAW  Convention Rights
LAW European Union Rights PAGE - ISSUES - List
This PAGE - QUOTES - List
This  SITE - PAGES - List
OTHER SITES - Short List

Page - ARTICLES - List
LES Blair-Brown & TAX
2. The Sun - Met. Comm 2002 Site NEWS Articles - List
1. David Blunkett & Judges 
2. D. Mail Free For All 2001
3. Global Role For Britain
Blair-Brown Rift On TAX?

5. 12.3 Billion Compensation 6. Brave(!) Sir J Steven QPM
7. Ministers Police & FRAUD 
8. EU - Institutionalised Fraud 
9. Journalists GAGGED 1993

Page ITEMS Covered-List
1. No Rift Over Tax In Government
2. Last Year & Now, CRIMES
3. Global Role 4 Britain - PM.
Norman Acts Deceitfully
The National Scandal 
Office for  Supervision of Solicitors Acted - Solicitor Fined
Media IGNORE U-R Rights
Norman Records at CoA
Police Summons A VICTIM
Solicitor Admitted FRAUD
The G. H. Scriven- Fiasco

4. Law Society Guilty- Deceit

Site Letters TO - List
April 2003 Frank Field MP
Dec. 1998 Home Secretary
Dec. 1999 Prime Minister
May 2000 Hackney Council
Jun. 2001 Haringey Council
Feb. 2002 The Treasury
Feb. 2002 Home Secretary
Feb. 2002 Prime Minister
Mar. 2002 L.E Standard
Mar. 2003 Law Society++
Jul.2003 Work&Pens Minis
Jul. 2003 Hackney Council
August 2003 ECourtHR
Victim Suppressing Facts

Site Letters FROM - List
Part- SOLICITOR To Client
Prime Minister Nov. 1999
CEO Haringey Council 2001
Haringey Council Dreamer
Police Promoting Just LIES 
Norman Seeks Information
LCD Expose Police LIES
An Illiterate L.C.Dpt. Officer
ECourtHR September 2003
No D-Notices Do PUBLISH
Lord Irvine to G Brady MP

Page NEWS Articles - List
L.E.S by David Blunkett 
D. Mail Free For All 2001

Page & Site IMAGES - List
Article in London Evening Standard by the - Minister D Blunkett & Judges 
Office for Supervision of Solicitors the Flood of Complaints made public
Dreamer Suppresses his 3-page Letter addresing the issue of Money Laundering & Criminal activities through the abused courts facilities.
Fraudulent costs for Invisible Refugees
FOUR Billion FRAUD by Welfare Cheats
SIXTY Million FRAUD for Legal Aid Cheats
800 Million FRAUD Social Security free-for-all.
Cowboy Lawyers & the Lord Chancellor's Dpt.
Do It Yourself Havoc In the Courts - article.
Pensioner Sues Prime Miniaster Tony Blair 
Lord Paul On Family State
Corrupt Regime Defeated
Extra Funds For Haringey
Police Manufacture LIES
Case of Scandalising ? 16. No Stars For Haringey 
Lawyer Flees With 6 Million
Benefit Scam End In Jail
Hoffman Fiasco & 1 Million
Judges Condemn Lilley
Lawyers Appalling Services
Loophole FOR Rogue Lawyers
Letter to Prime Minister
MPs And 4 Billion FRAUD
Police Exposed As LIARS
Complains Again Solicit Rise
Public 2 Help Choose Judges

Relevant Quotes In Page
Democracy Is In Mortal Danger, so long as...

Days of the Blind Deaf and Dumb Media Are Over
Most abused & Breached  piece of legislation by.....
The INTERNET is here and so is Freedom Of Information & Exchange of Ideas.

Added Letter to MP   *Link
Added Law Reports *Link
Edited Introduction & Links
Added Important Footnote 5. Importance of Publication
More Links & Bookmarks
Added Footnote to ITEM 4
Link to Abettor Legal Quote

Page Quotes
E.U  Law Above - U.K
Judicial Precedent

undercon.gif (286 bytes) Page Revised: June 20, 2012.   - Added EU provisions in respect of RIGHTS ENFORCEABLE BY INDIVIDUALS [*Link to]
Site reconstruction for better navigation, ongoing improvements & additions

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; it was such a person who had been wasting out time and securing support through many a crocodile tear.  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.  

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, at the top of the left column/margin, below the file name (*....xxxxx.htm *). 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 the page and or in other pages. For further clarification email: webmaster@

The material below is from simple guides that were published, in 1972, by HMSO. The extract below is from the introduction to the 'Origins of English Law'.

THE main sources of English law are legislation and unwritten law (1*). Legislation consists of laws made by or under the authority of Parliament and may be statutes (Acts of Parliament) or subordinate legislation that is to say, `statutory instruments', formerly known as Statutory Rules and Orders (which are Orders in Council, orders, rules and regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under the authority of a statute) or by-laws made by Local Government or other authorities exercising powers conferred upon them by Parliament. Unwritten law consists of common law and equity. There is, at present, no code of English law, although the Law Commission (see p. 36) is working on the codification of certain of its branches. The law today is contained in about 3,000 Acts of Parliament, some thousands of statutory instruments and statutory rules and orders, and over 300,000 reported cases.

Common Law

The common law of England evolved from spontaneously observed rules and practices shaped and formalised by decisions made by judges pronouncing the law in relation to the particular facts before them. It was so called to distinguish it from local laws as well as from any law that was particular or special, such as the canon laws emanating from Rome or the law merchant practised in mercantile courts.

In the Anglo-Saxon period the principles applied in local courts broadly reflected the customs of local communities as declared by the freemen of those communities, who were the judges of the courts. After the Norman conquest in 1066 the King's judges gradually welded the many and varied local customs into a single body of general principles which they applied uniformly, first during their periodic circuits through the shires and later at their meetings in London to hear cases at the royal courts(2*). In order to achieve consistency, the judges placed great reliance on previous judgements given in similar cases, a practice which gave rise to the doctrine of judicial precedent(3*) upon which all law in England, other than legislation, is based. It is likely that the necessary information was at first passed from one judge to another through personal contact, but towards the end of the thirteenth century some unknown persons began to note down and circulate the rulings of judges both on circuit and in the royal courts and also the arguments of pleaders, as barristers (see p. 25) were then called. These notes were contained in Year Books, which covered the period 1283 to 1535 and were forerunners of the published Law reports that have existed in one form or another for more than 400 years

Actions in the common law courts were initiated by writs obtained from the Chancery (the office of the Chancellor and a skilled body of clerks(4*). Originally used by the Sovereign to settle disputes brought to his notice by subjects who had been, or considered themselves to have been wronged, the writ soon developed from a royal command ordering that an alleged wrong should be righted into a direction to an official to hold and inquiry into a complaint or to a defendant either to concede or to answer plaintiff's claim. During the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries a great many writs were issued in a wide variety of forms, and presently they began to shape the main branches of common law and the procedure appropriate to those branches. As time went on a semi-official register of writs appeared, and this came to be regarded as an exhaustive catalogue of the causes of action known to law.

The circumscription of the law within the framework of the writ system (together with a temporary restriction on the office of the Chancellor to create new writs) acted as a brake on the development of the common law. After 1285 litigants were again able to obtain writs, but they ceased to be able to rely upon redress, since the courts of common law had established their right to declare that any cause or action that was not contrary to the established legal rules was unknown to law.


The special imperfections of the medieval common law are said(5*) to have been: as to the law itself, that it did not cover the whole field of obligations; and as to its administration, that it had no means of extracting the truth from litigants (since it relied on documents and refused to listen to the parties themselves), that its judgements were not capable of being adapted to special circumstances, that its process in the course of a suit was ineffective, and that even a successful suit might be an empty victory for the winner.

Some people who failed to get satisfaction in the common law courts were, however, allowed to petition the Sovereign or his council (see p. 4). These petitions were handled by the Chancellor who, as well as being `Keeper of the King's Conscience', was the head of the writ office and in this capacity presumed to be acquainted with the general working of the law. At first the Chancellor made recommendations to the council, but soon he began to take decisions on his own initiative and presently petitions(6*) came to be addressed direct to the Court of Chancery rather than to the King.

In certain matters the Court of Chancery was able to enforce rights not recognised at common law (as in trusts and married women's property). In other matters, such as contract, fraud, accounts and partnerships, it was able either to give an alternative and more efficient remedy or to provide a remedy to replace a common law remedy that had been lost. In matters outside its direct jurisdiction, it could use its special procedure (a) to help to determine the rights of parties in other courts by compelling the disclosure of facts and documents(7*), (b) to secure to the plaintiff, if successful, the fruits of litigation, and (c) to protect a third person from injury through the conflicting rights of others. The Court of Chancery exercised an overriding jurisdiction and could prevent proceedings in the common law courts from being made the instrument of oppression either by restraining their commencement or prosecution, or by forbidding the enforcement of a judgement made under them, as the case might require.

In these ways the Court of Chancery afforded an improved means of attaining justice, but this was the extent of the difference between equity and common law. No Chancellor ever attempted to dispute the right of common law judges to pronounce the law, and gradually-as the vigour of the early Chancellors gave way to the more conservative outlook of successors -the Court of Chancery adopted the common law court practice of relying on the process of legal analogy, holding wherever possible to the maxim that `equity follows the law'. The result was that, by the end of the eighteenth century, equity had hardened into a body of legal doctrine as settled as the common law, and the systems had grown so much alike-save that equity dealt with different claims and provided different remedies-that there was little to choose between them, particularly as regards simplicity or speed. By the nineteenth century equity rules had become so involved and technical that long delays were frequent and a dispute involving both common law and equity sometimes took years to resolve.

Reforms were made in 1873 and 1875 by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, which reorganised the courts and provided that, in their new form, all should use and apply both common law and equity. In order to overcome the difficulty that might arise where a judge was faced with two, possibly conflicting, sets of rules, the Act of 1873 laid it down that where rules of common law conflicted with those of equity the latter were to prevail.


The earliest examples of enacted laws in England were the ordinances of the Curia Regis (the King and his council), which, in the early Norman period, was the governing body of the realm. Law-making by Parliament did not begin until the thirteenth century; it was not until the sixteenth century that legislative Acts took the form in which they are cast today(8*) and until the late nineteenth century the amount of legislation was comparatively small. The position began to change after the passing of the Reform Act in I 832(9*) and since the beginning of the twentieth century there has been a very great increase both in the volume of legislation and in its scope. Nowadays there is scarcely any aspect of life that is not, in some measure, affected by it.

Since Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament are absolutely binding on all courts, taking precedence over all other sources of law; they cannot be ultra vires (outside the competence of-in this case Parliament) for, although the principles of natural justice (broadly speaking, rules which an ordinary, reasonable person would consider fair) have always occupied an important position in the British constitution, they have never been defined or codified in the form of guaranteed rights. Thus rights, such as the right of personal freedom, the right of freedom of discussion, and the rights of association and public meeting, which are commonly considered more or less inviolate, are not protected against change by Act of Parliament, and the courts could not uphold them if Parliament decreed otherwise. Acts of Parliament are, in fact, formal announcements of rules of conduct to be observed in the future, which remain in force until they are repealed. The courts are not entitled to question or even discuss their validity-being required only to interpret them according to the wording used or, if Parliament has failed to make its intentions clear, according to certain canons of interpretation(10*).

This principle has no application to subordinate legislation (see p. 2), and it is open to any court before which such legislation may come to decide whether it is intra vires or ultra vires.

Below extracts from the work of Stephen Weatherill 'Cases on EC Law'
  • The heading simply relates to & covers the realities POINTED to one John Charville, the guru who was sent along, by alleged leaders of victims of the rampant fraud & corruption ongoing through the family courts. He came along to sell to Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights (and creator of this website) his extensive knowledge and coverage of waffle and precedent case-law, from the moon. [*Link from here to the FOOTNOTE of another page where we cover HOW & UNDER what circumstances Mr John Charville sprung into action and what followed thereafter].
  • Nothing but irrelevant rubbish peddled by the guru for & on behalf of alleged leaders of managed groups of victims of the divorce industry. Victims simply used for more of the same, by the wily and craft-y as covered in one of the many scenarios we know of, such as the case stated in the left margin window where this LINK takes the reader / researcher, victim.
  • Reference to the work: "By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves".  (*F - Important footnote)
eulaco1r.jpg (225683 bytes)
  • "It follows .... that national courts must protect rights conferred by provisions of the Community legal order and that it is not necessary for such courts to request or await the actual setting aside by national authorities empowered so to act of any national measures which might impede the direct and immediate application of Community rules (law implied).
  • "It follows from the foregoing considerations that, according to the spirit, the general scheme and the wording of the Treaty, Article 12 must be interpreted as producing direct effects and creating individual rights which national courts must protect".
  • "The Court (Community) was asked to say whether Council Directive No. 64/221 of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is directly applicable so as to confer on individuals rights enforceable by them in the courts of a Member State"..........
  • Accordingly, in reply to the question, Article 3(1) of Council Directive No 64/221 of 25 February 1964 confers on individuals rights which are enforceable by them in the courts of a Member State and which the national courts must protect".      

eulaco2r.jpg (183552 bytes)
Click to enlarge images  & read of developments, legal argument, implied supremacy, the concept

& "Accordingly any provision of a national legal system and any legislative, administrative or JUDICIAL PRACTICE which might impair the effectiveness of Community law by withholding from the national law having jurisdiction to apply such law the power to do everything necessary at the moment of its application to set aside national legislative provisions which might prevent Community rules from having FULL FORCE and effect, are incompatible with those requirements which are the very essence of Community Law". [*Link to protection from FRAUD & CORRUPTION, & breaches by member State TREATED AS TORTS]

1*. In the event of Britain entering into the European communities in January 1973, there will be a further source of law - namely the directly applied law of the European treaties and of the delegated legislation made under them by the community institutions. This law will be of a separate legal order, standing alongside both statute and common law and, in the event of conflict, will take precedence over them. [*Link to an explicit pleading, on affidavit, POINTING TO EUROPEAN LAW PROVISIONS, when challenging abuse of the Courts' facilities as relied upon by a Local Authority the staff& officers of which engaged in creative accountancy in the handling of Housing Benefit funds].

2*. The courts of Common Pleas, King's Bench, and Exchequer.

3*. Judicial precedent (that is to say, the application of the law to the ascertained facts) binds judges of the lower courts; it also normally binds judges in courts of equal rank, though the House of Lords (see p. 11) declared in 1966 that it would in future be prepared to depart from its own previous decisions where it seemed just to do so.

4*. `The chief clerks were called Masters. The foremost among them was known as the Master of the Rolls and frequently deputised for the Chancellor in his judicial work.

5*. `Halsbury's Laws of England. Vol. X.

6*. `During the fifteenth century these petitions became more frequent, and although initially such relief was spasmodic and dependent on the facts of the case, by the sixteenth century there were, in addition, certain areas of the law where it was usual for the Chancellor to provide relief. However, in contrast to the common law, remedies in equity were discretionary; this is still true today.

7*. `The reliance of the common law courts on written documents for the greater part of their evidence rendered them powerless if a necessary document was in the hands of the opposing party, or contained a mistake, or was lost.

8*. 'Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-'

9*. The first of several Acts of Parliament which reformed the electoral system and extended the franchise.

10*. If, by either of these means, the courts reach a decision contrary to the intentions of Parliament, Parliament must either accept the decision or pass an amending Act. Meanwhile, the decision stands. (Note: We draw our visitors' attention to a very simple case. It covered fraudulent costs imposed on clients by the legal circles. The House of lords ruled on the practices in 1938-39  [*Link to case stated). YET successive governments DID NOTHING for over 40 years, WHILE the judicial chair occupants in the lower courts as blind, deaf and dumb as ever. Law & Order? DEMOCRATIC governance?

11*. Most notable the failure to relate the fact that the institution, was created by fraudsters without any reference to the sucker-serfs who were / are burdened with taxes, levied by abusers of public office and the trust of the electorate; abusers of public office who indulge in all manner of intended impositions on the nationals who are for ever faced with the problems created by fraudsters. The creation of the monster going by the title European Union was NEVER PUT TO THE ELECTORATE, the nationals of the states! The monster was created out of the European Economic Community and the policies of 'the monster' were never put to the electorate, to the citizens, to the 'nationals' of the constituent states, the nationals / citizens who are faced with the imposed costs for the creation of all manner of unacceptable impositions; imposed 'policies' by persons who assumed the right to operate and act as absolute masters of the tax-burdened sucker-serfs. The imposition of new cultures and in particular the preferential treatment for groups of aliens to the cultures and the main religion of the Continent of Europe is but the imposition of long existing plans by fraudsters who set out to become Lords & Masters of all and everything on earth. The new monster and the preferential treatment / arrangements through the monster's power-house nothing but the creation of such states as recorded in the most vile of works ever to have been misrepresented to mankind, by the criminals who created the work and their successors / followers have carried on ever since.

Footnote eXtra: In October 2010, the coalition's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves from cases of (small-fry) fraud and asserted that he was making that element his department's priority. 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. IF IT WILL DEAL APPROPRIATELY 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 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 to our explicit submissions to (a)  the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) the Home Secretary. WE acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged victim whose only interests were (i) the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides]. Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998 [*Link* [*L] from here to the letter] and note the results evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do [*Link [*L] 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].

Back to HomePage


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)

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!
Ú╝»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