|To page Synopsis
Relative to Realities Covered
This page is dedicated to some of the fraudsters who indulged
as stooges and wilfully abused Mr Yiannides' time and his readiness to assist ALL victims
of the Institutionally Organised Fraud & Corruption Through Abuse of the Courts
facilities. (*Link to List)
others On Line and work with others for and in the necessary
challenges and exposures for the common good. Link to Information
UPDATE. The person named in this page 'elected to leave the
United Kingdom' following a number of peculiar states and scenarios that were and remain
inexplicable. Visitors are requested to access the introduction on the
right, and to await further revelations in respect of the developments as of the
moment Mr Dave Ellison (the controller of the lbduk.org) contacted us. We have not heard
from Mr Len Miskulin whose lack of consideration and failures to follow up on the issues
he discussed with us, prior to his departure, need to be attended to. In the alternative
it shall be for the visitors to draw their own conclusions as to the true scenario being
related / stated in this page.
IMPORTANT:The visitor's attention is drawn to the words of
Jesus Christ, as attributed to Him, by the editors / creators of The Gospel according to
St. Luke. Access His words to the lawyers almost 2000 years ago. Many the dignitaries over
the two millennia who shared His views (*Link). The
exclusive material and elements we point to, arising out of an extract from the Old
Testament we reproduce in our pages is a must for ALL
VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES, THE COURTS & THE POLICE. The element we point to
IS the common factor through common connections
|Page KEY List
Page CHANGES - List
LETTERS TO - List for Site
LETTERS FROM List for Site
Newspaper ARTICLES - List
Newspaper IMAGES - List
|Quotes - issues in Page
1. Abuse of Court Facilities
|Page CHANGES List
page to select grp.
2. Links to other pages
Images of an EXPLICIT FAX
the images of the fax / letter as settled for Mr Len Miskulin for
submission to and challenges of HH Judge Charles. The content very clear and to the point. Page1
Below, in this page we reproduce the text in HTML from and to which links may be created
by us for any other victim of the criminals who are in control of the courts and the
police to link to from their pages. (*Link to the HTML text).
|To read who else jumped in and what each one promoted WHEN IN FACT THEY
HAD NO INTENTION TO CHALLENGE ALL ABUSERS OF TRUST BY USING THEIR RIGHT go to: /lawcompi.htm#F1
|Len Miskulin - Houdini Incarnate * Page Created April 2003 Released 2005*
||*Page Revised: June 20, 2012* ()
reconstruction to incorporate ongoing additions and improvements
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 or need information and our views on the
issues. 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
to Len Miskulin and developments thereafter
- An associate of Len Miskulin contacted the founder of
human-rights, Mr Andrew Yiannides and stated that he 'was impressed with the content at
the *human-rights* web-site. (GO FIND OUT how the initial contact came about and who set the
wheels in motion)
- He then introduced Mr Yiannides to a victim of the divorce
industry, Mr Len Miskulin and Mr Yiannides to Mr Miskulin's work for www.lbduk.org stating in the process that his discovery of
the uk-human-rights.org web-site will be made known to all other groups of victims, in
order that common goals and aims should be promoted collectively.(*lbd stood for Live Beat Dads in the UK naturally)
- Enters the scene a third party, Mr John Charville, an
alleged legal guru. He exchanges private emails with Mr Yiannides and he promotes / relies
on irrelevant and inapplicable legal cases and arguments; he, Mr Charville, is pointed to
the UK's commitments founded on membership of the European Union and as a signatory State
to the European Convention on Human Rights, among other pertinent realities. Mr
Yiannides does so because Mr J Charville persistently promotes and refers to divorce cases
and judgements by judicial chair occupants in the United States of America.
- Mr Charville subsequently initiates group postings directed
to Mr Yiannides, who welcomed the open dialogue while expecting of the 'guru' to keep in
mind the legal position and the realities he had been pointed to, earlier. (*Reprogramming a robot would be easier - it was clear he came
along with a specific agenda and it sure was not a case of collaboration but one of 'kill
the goose' that provides the true legal position).
- Enter the scene a fourth 'activist',
the chairman of the UKMM (United Kingdom Men's Movement) Mr George McCauley. He 'welcomes
the initial dialogue' (the email exchanges between John
Charville and Mr Andrew Yiannides) and writes of the
anticipated co-operation that everybody is expecting. (*Facts
about the UKMM sucker-serfs should acquaint themselves with, in due course)
- Like all others, however, he enters into ostrich acts, when
subsequently Mr. Charville (the 'legal guru') sets about assaulting the work of Mr
Yiannides and the material at this web-site.
- Mr Charville's blunt attempts to discredit and offend Mr
Yiannides WHILE one and all contemptuously ignored the submissions and the LEGAL ARGUMENTS
that were settled, by Mr Yiannides, for Mr Miskulin, who lodged the pleadings and
submissions at court, conveniently to be buried / ignored by all three challengers (Mr.
Dave Ellison, Mr. George Macauley and Mr Len Miskulin). The CONTEMPT OF THE LODGED
PLEADINGS by allegedly concerned leaders of the victims of the divorce industry, WAS MORE
THAN ENOUGH TO INDICATE WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE THEY HAD BUILT THEIR NESTS & WERE
GRAZING TO THEIR HEARTS' DELIGHT.
- The submissions and legal arguments (and challenges of the abusers of the courts facilities) were and remain
VERY CLEAR. It was a case of 'Heads I Win' & 'Tails You Lose' for the legal circles
and their army of associates in the rape of families through abuse of the courts
facilities. The issue of fraud on the men-suckers by the allegedly weaker sex AS USED
BY the abductors and rapists of Justice and humanity, could not have been clearer,
when one considered the denial of rights to 'the victim', for far too long.
- Not one of the leaders of the fathers' / men's groups (who
were pointed to the challenges from the founder of human-rights, as published at www.lbduk.org by Mr Miskulin) ever contacted us, with the
exception of Mr Anthony Pace (*Link to email exchanges).
However, even he announced, some time later, that he had joined the UKMM, the sham of an
alleged group that allegedly 'fights for the rights of the men-victims'.
- Most notable was the fact that although Mr Charville's
offensive postings were posted through the lbduk.yahoo.groups, which Mr Dave Ellison and
Mr Len Miskulin were in control of as the registered co-ordinators, neither bothered to
post (through THEIR group) Mr Yiannides' responses and submissions to Mr Charville's
intentional diversionary tactics and offensive rubbish. Neither recognised that by NOT
REGISTERING as a member of *t*h*e*i*r* yahoo group* Mr Yiannides very simply cast his
nets. Their failures to even post Mr Yiannides' responses to the rubbish from Mr.
Charville made it VERY CLEAR WHERE THEY STOOD in the field of war against the abductors
and rapists of Justice. Their failures also evinced that THEY WERE RAPING DEMOCRACY by
ensuring the victims who were in contact with them and part of the sham they were managing
were not made aware of the responses and challenges to Mr Charville.
- Mr Charville's wilful defaults to address or even mention
(among others failings and maligned defaults) in his postings the first legal challenges
he received from Mr Yiannides (in the course of the private exchanges Mr Charville
instigated) were indicative of the aims of Mr Charville and the possible plans / schemes
in the background by the silent one's, Mr Dave Ellison & Mr Len Miskulin, the victim
- Although both Mr Dave Ellison & Mr Len Miskulin
acknowledged the logic of the legal arguments (that rest and are found on the facts of the
case AND EXISTING LAW) neither joined in or contributed any thoughts of theirs in the
OPEN, through *t*h*e*i*r* lbduk.yahoo.groups list.
- The NOTED INDIFFERENCE to the intentional diversionary
tactics was intriguing. There was only one oral comment to Mr Yiannides' observations,
when Mr Len Miskulin told Mr Yiannides that Mr Dave Ellison had expressed the view that Mr
Yiannides had the right to reply (AND WASTE HIS TIME) while the instigator of the assaults
was benefiting FROM THE SILENCE OF THE OSTRICHES, the bystanders : Mr. Dave Ellison and
Mr. Len Miskulin.
- YET ANOTHER SCENARIO was in the pipeline.
Apparently Mr Dave Ellison had been in regular contact and there had been ongoing
exchanges, negotiations and dialogues with Dr. Kartar Badsha of the ELC (Environmental Law
Centre) in Southport, Merseyside.
- Three-way meetings followed in London. The discussions
(between Dr Badsha of the ELC, Mr Miskulin of the lbduk and Mr Yiannides of human-rights
NGO) were focussed on the need to deal with ALL public relations and Press Releases
through a common centre for ALL pro-active groups and individual challengers.
- Arrangements were made for a meeting at Mr Len Miskulin's
residence in Debden. It was attended by a number of group leaders, movement
representatives and individuals. Dr Badsha and an associate of his from Southport, left
early because of the long drive back home. In the meantime the gathered group carried on
discussing 'the constitution and aims of the INTENDED common centre' for promotion of the
activities warranted to CHALLENGE & EXPOSE all abuse of Public Office by the citizens'
- Among the early arrivals was Mr Shaun O' Connor who
exchanged, with Mr Yiannides, views on the problems in and with the courts, with the legal
circles, with the judiciary, with the police and with other Public(!) Servants(?). He
expressed interest in the issues that were covered in letters and exchanges between the
Prime Minister's private office and Mr Yiannides, copies of which he read with interest.
He, Mr O'Connor was definitely to go on line and he would be contacting Mr Yiannides in
order to secure and benefit from assistance. What followed was another scenario, however.
Whether he was party to such activities, as pre-planned moves, or to the activities that
followed was just *a sucked in stooge* is and stands as an arguable issue.
- Enter the gathering, one W.D who arrived late. He did not
even bother to enquire as to any agreed issues or agenda and did not ask to read the
minutes that Mr. Shaun O'Connor(!) was keeping(?). W.D. just proceeded to deliver a talk
to the gathered 'victims of the legal system' as to HOW to apply and address the courts /
judges. All the while he was tapping on a book that he was referring to, as he went along.
- Mr Yiannides tried a couple of times to intercept 'THE
LECTURE that WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA for the meeting he was attending. Mr Miskulin rather
forcefully blocked Mr Yiannides from raising issue and inquiring as to the reasons for the
'unscheduled (as far as he was concerned) development and THE LECTURE to the gathered /
invited group of attendees.
- Mr Miskulin's obstruction led to a private meeting in the
kitchen at the behest of Mr Yiannides, when Mr Yiannides clarified that he was not happy
with the intrusion / arrangements he had NOT been informed of, hinting at the possibility
that he had been invited to Mr Miskulin's residence under false pretences.
- With all others gone Mr Miskulin and Mr Yiannides worked
late and among the issues of concern was the name by which the centre of operations was to
be known as.
- As the initial idea was for 'a united front' for the groups
and the individuals who embraced the original proposition, Mr Miskulin suggested Fathers
United ...... and Mr Yiannides suggested Families United pointing out to the fact that
Live Beat Dads, among its members and supporters, valued a mother / woman, and her very
- Both slept on the idea and in the morning it was agreed to
settle for Families United To Unconditionally Restore Equality : *FUTURE*. Mr Yiannides
informed Mr Dave Ellison by email as to the name and intellectual property; the latter
issue was warranted because of past experiences with planted mischief makers and
'diversionary tactics manipulators' of which more than enough had already been noted and
recognised as manifestations by and from the organisers and controllers of ALL FRAUD &
CORRUPTION THROUGH THE COURTS.
- TWO DAYS LATER, the telephone lines go hot.... and NO EMAIL
EXCHANGES (most important the omission). Evidently Mr Shaun O'Connor and Mr John Charville
had been running around and contacting persons who attended the meeting at Mr Miskulin's
residence, with a view to 'taking over *FUTURE*, before it was even launched...!!!! The
most intriguing bit of news, however, was the fact that Mr Shaun O'Connor did NOT forward
copy of the minutes he volunteered to keep. There followed the allegation that the two
were put up to the attempts to take over *FUTURE* by Dr. Kartar Badsha of the ELC.
- Mr Yiannides simply contacted Mr Dave Ellison and reminded
him of the issue of intellectual property and that he (Mr Dave Ellison) should inform Dr.
Badsha accordingly, if he was involved or had any influence on the two 'would be
abductors'. Mr Ellison was also informed that a URL (domain name was already in place, and
the site would be put in operation as and when the right conditions and developments were
manifestly APPROPRIATE & RIGHT FOR IMPLEMENTATION. (*Link
to an explicit email below)
An explicit letter to abusers of the courts facilities
|The text of the letter, below is in HTML, for links to and
130 Hanson Drive
The court manager
Principal Registry of the family Court
High Holborn London
Case number ED00P01206
For reference to and the attention of District Judge Green
Copies to whom it may concern
I beg to refer you to my facsimile of 14th of October 2002
to and for which I have as yet to receive acknowledgement let alone the necessary
I acknowledge receipt of a document from your court purporting to be a legitimate court
I point to the following:
- Under M & F, Pr. ACT 1974
Assignment of Circuit Judge to matrimonial proceedings
The jurisdiction conferred by the preceding provisions of this part of this Act
on divorce, County courts, so far as it is exercisable by judges of such courts, shall
be exercised by such CIRCUIT JUDGES as the Lord Chancellor may direct.
- When the direction is given pursuant to part III of the family
law Act 1969 for the use of blood tests in proceedings in the Family Division and divorce
County courts the arrangements for the taking and testing of blood samples will be
made by the solicitors for the party on whose application the direction was given.
The above make it abundantly clear that the document
is a false instrument even if the case was legitimately and properly within the
jurisdiction of "your court". In the premises the alleged order is null and
I must therefore insist that on the basis of the above you withdraw the false
instrument and apologise for the attempt to abuse the courts processes and facilities with
I submit three documents downloaded from the Internet that qualify my rights as
established by law, Statutory and Common:
3. 18/9 clarifying the right to plead
any elements during proceedings at any time.
Below the text of page 2
(refer to image in left panel, above)
- 18/12/11 establishing the rights to plead intent when the occasion demands it and
evidence to support the pleading exists.
- 18/8/4 pleading fraud when there is clear and sufficient evidence to support it.
On the basis of the above and in particular 1 and
2, the rights under 3, 4 and 5 are crystal clear. In the circumstances I am confused as to
how legally trained persons appear to be indulging in contempt of 1 and 2 above, unless
self assured perpetuation of established practices has made them feel invincible when in
contempt of the law.
As pointed in my previous communication, my Application was
placed before the court and had been on record as of August 2001. Also on record is the
application of the respondent's solicitors (to my Application) seeking and securing the
transfer of the case to the Chancery Division, RCJ, Strand.
Defaults to deal with my Application, irrelevant if arrangements
between the Respondent's solicitors and the court, were and remained in contempt of the
rules of procedure for well over a year. The aforesaid facts and the realities were and
are in contempt of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
There was no application and certainly no consent would have or could
have been secured from me for the transfer of the case back to an inferior court and, most
certainly, NO right would have been granted to any abuser of public office to
indulge in the creation of the false instruments such as the document posted to me by your
court. Further to the aforesaid, there subsists the element of HH Justice Charles (RCJ)
granting rights to the solicitors acting for the Respondent to be in command of MY
rights whereby they had free hand to issue directions as they determined. The need to
appeal the abuse of the courts processes and to grant freedom of action (to my opponent's
solicitors) in respect of MY rights further enhances my claim of 'intent to
defraud'. NO PERSON IN HIS/HER RIGHT MIND WOULD HAND OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF HIS ARMY
(RIGHTS IN LAW) TO THE GENERALS OF THE ENEMY AND THIS MAKES LAUGHING STOCK OF JUDGES WHO
ARE MEANT TO BE NEUTRAL, IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER INFLUENCES.
In view of the above, copy of these submissions are to be delivered to:
- The Lord Chancellor who is responsible for the courts and those running, managing and
acting as officers of the courts.
- My member of parliament.
- Home secretary in view of the announcement last May (Re: white collar fraud).
- The press/media and
- Published on the Internet, the only true open court.
I conclude by qualifying that I expect and demand of your court to
return the case to HH Justice Charles of whom I expect proper attention either to my
rights or the forwarding of the demanded, by me, an order directing that transcripts of
both hearings before him be made available and the right to appeal on the basis of the
objections (served on him) to the railroading and hijacking of the case by the
Respondent's representatives in law.
Encl. As text
users of the gestation vessel transferred the case from the Royal Courts of Justice, to
the Family Registry.
Howeve, after the above letter was received, the case was shoved back
to the Royal Courts of Justice.
Genuine victims, readers and researchers will do well to point all
alleged leaders of family court victims groups, such as the FnF, the UKMM, etc. to the
above challenges and to THE STATED REALITIES pleaded, served on the gestation vessel's
legal team and lodged at the R.C.J as the submissions we reproduce below.
All should enquire of such persons to express their opinions and views
as to WHY WAS THE CASE, a hot potato?
Why was it shoved back to the Royal Courts of Justice?
Above all, WHY did one and all, allegedly concerned leaders of the
victims of the legal circles and the abused courts facilities, shove the above realities -challenges to the abusers of the courts
the dark corners of the caves where they congregate in order to plan how to further abuse
the trust they secure from the sucker-serfs they 'suck' into the false fronts they use as
alleged movements headed by alleged legal gurus who, allegedly, are challenging the very
abuse of the courts facilities such as the abuses (plural intended) as covered and pointed to in the letter each and every one
conveniently buried in the sand next to their heads devoid of grey matter?
||Link from here -below- to explicit pleadings and
challenges to the abusers of the courts facilities as settled for Mr Len Miskulin by
Andrew Yiannides; the latter qualified and clarified to Mr Miskulin that the
foundations for the challenges, founded on facts and law, were to be used, in due course,
by Mr Yiannides himself for and in respect of the impositions he, Mr Yiannides had been
subjected to by abusers of the courts facilities, 'through use of the gestation vessel' he
had married in accordance with the assured rights qualifying 'respect for the persons'
rights under Articles of the European Convention for Human Rights
||Link from here to a page where part of
the provisions of Article 14, also of Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European
Convention, are partly reproduced; there we relate facts and publish evidence relative
to a father's conscerns born of and attached to the use of created, encouraged and used
'feminasties' as of 'their education years', such as Mr Yiannides first got to know of
and recognised when his best friend's family was destroyed in the early & mid 1970s care
of the New World Order policies and
regimes which the Politically Correct were implementing in the London Borough of Islignton,
as in other parts of the asllegedly civilised PSEUDOdemocarcy, as the United Kingdom has
been and is being promoted as if, true and factual the assertions / proclamations.
||Link from here to the page where reference is made to the fact that 'a
gestation vessel who was used years later', had been made aware of the ways used in
and FOR the destruction of the family of the friend of 'the one she was to marry as agreed
at the time, because of and in respect of the issues that were too obvious and warranted
the essential challenges and public exposure.
The right to reply & justify behaviour and
or activities covered in our pages, is assured to any one we name in our exposures
relative to the FRAUD THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Unlike James Todd, the puke
production machine, of VOMIT repute we do not suppress the right to reply - JUSTIFY.
This page is dedicated to all abusers of the
time of Andrew Yiannides and the trust they were benefiting from, while their activities
and defaults were under investigation. The page is more particularly dedicated to all
evil-mongering fraudsters, charlatans and stooges who are listed in the page /corruptcourts.htm; to persons such as Johan Michael Foenander
and his soul mates from within the LIPS crowd-mob; also to all other charlatans who
allegedly care or are concerned about 'the serfs', they draw in their nets FOR MORE OF THE
SAME, as the Hussein fellow who introduced Johan M R Foenander to the circuit and to other
'fraudsters club recruits'* [*Link to definition] did.
Also to the agents of the UKMM who, in 1998, wrote to Andrew, the founder of human-rights
(NGO) while of opinion that they were addressing an idiot or as others inspired or caused
them to believe. Their unsolicited invitation caused Andrew to contact them and asked of
them to furnish specific information, which, needless to say they failed to provide.
They received letters to that effect later but typically, they failed to comply, like
all other charlatans and ostriches when confronted with legitimate demands or pointed to
the realities which they conveniently shove in the dark corners of their corrupted egos.
explicit email that was called for when the true colours of alleged
victim-challengers shone through
Dave & Len
the copy paste below more indications AND PROOF of what
*human-rights* 'IS' all about.
No copy-cat monkey business; no parrot renditions
INTENDED TO IMPRESS the 'uninformed and gullible' AND NO OSTRICH ACTS.
Grappling with 'the wild horse' and galloping on, by mounting it,
is a matter for those who wish to reach another destination than the one OTHERS ARE
LEADING THEM TO.
I trust that you recognise the fact that *human-rights* will be
moving on whether FUTURE or yesterday are alive and kicking. I never liked being in limbo
just because others relish in such situations and or love stagnant waters.
As of April and May the government made moves. All I have been
faced with was a planted mischief maker [*F6] and many a silent onlookers, while the parrot would mess around
with INEXCUSABLE & UNJUSTIFIABLE, even worse, all sorts of IRRELEVANT issues: I
explain, 'No one has uttered a word about the STATED FACTS & THE PLEADED VIOLATIONS
already REGISTERED at the European Court of Human Rights. It is as if no one suffered from
The last words above RAISE A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION:
"If there be no common causes, WHY THE NEED for any grouping let
alone the proposed and adopted FUTURE, now on ICE?
My best to you and yours. Time to get on with what has to be done
OFFICIALLY at government level, as in the courts.
12 August 2002
(routed to another server)
Read the succinct introduction that covers maligned interference
by the instructed. READ THE VERY ISSUES (police defaults and court fraud) that you have
wasted too much time over, REPETITIOUSLY. NOTE THE CONTENT OF THE LETTERS that others,
including Ebert, who acted like all others who set themselves up as sole saviours of
abducted Justice WHILE PRESENTING THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS WITH OTHERS BEFORE THE ABDUCTORS
& HIJACKERS, to impress victims who as suckers got raped in the process by actors of
the worst denominator in the presence of the directors of the shows - the rapists of
READ OF THE co-operation that existed between Norman Scarth and
*human-rights* before he sold his soul to the devil FOR THE GLORY AND POWER he sought, as
'our hero', the sole and soul of the 'resurrected legal aid scheme under another name and
with the new partners, as *human-rights* covers in the exclusive page:
(routed to another server)
To the page I MOVED (from previously un-linked material only
available to pro-active embers in the CoL) and PUBLISHED IT FOR ALL TO ACCESS.
READ of: "The Convention in Legal Terms". Copy of the part of the page you
received yesterday and IF YOU USE IT AS I ASK, it is simply a matter for you and you
You will receive tonight copy of exchanges with other groups and you will no doubt NOTE my
present attitude about persons who fail to act as the occasion , FACILITIES &
DEVELOPMENTS COMMAND & INDICATE VERY CLEARLY.
webmaster [*Link to the FOOTNOTE of the page
/lawcompi.htm where more details & developments as of contact are laid bare]
An e-mail intended to put on notice persons who were serving other
agendas, than they had been asserting orally.
Whether the other agendas were on the cards as of first contact, or 'evolved' subsequently
through the involvement of others (a known user of the system in place, for personal
advantage and pecuniary gains) was irrelevant. However, the failures to move on, promote
the challenges lodged at court, when added to the convenient silence & failures to get
on board and to address the rubbish from the mischief making John Charville, were MOST
Filed at the Family
Registry covering the rights under the law, for BOTH SEXES, when all relevant law is taken
into consideration, with EQUALITY being of the essence. The submissions were settled by Mr
Andrew Yiannides, for Mr Len Miskulin who lodged them, as his challenges to the High
Court, meant to be published at http://www.lbduk.org
- On the right three images of the final
draft (with minor corrections) as settled for Mr Len Miskulin who submitted / lodged the
pleadings at the High Court Court.
- The pleadings / submissions were to be
used later by Mr Andrew Yiannides, who had prepared for such challenges years earlier but
for later use with additional submissions founded / resting on fact & law.
- The submissions were / are intended for
use by victims of the arrogant abuse of the family courts for assaults on the institution
of 'family commitment' with the attached 'plundering of family assets'. [*Link to LAW]
- The assaults, always through encouragement
and or use of naive / greedy women, as happens to be the case always.
- Practices & arrangements resting and
founded on the creation of false records & pre-scripted scenarios as in the case of
pre-trial meetings between judicial chair occupants in the Foenander -v- Foenander divorce
to such facts which the corrupted moron did not wish to expose]
- No prizes, for those who read his
solicitor's letter to another solicitor, as to why the convert to / lover to the system of
operations HAD NO INTENTION TO MAKE PUBLIC, like the rest of the LIPS crowd/mob, the
arrogant abuse of the courts' facilities for fraud aplenty.
- One and all relying on the promotion of
incompetent and inexcusable assertions about the defaulting media lap-dogs and corrupted /
corrupt police officers.
- Each and every one ACTING IN CONTEMPT OF
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE REST OF SOCIETY, to the 'serfs who are called upon to pay taxes
for the maintenance of arrogant criminals in public office'.
|Above the three images of the final draft that were
re-typed, then signed and lodged at the RCJ (Royal Courts of Justice) by Len Miskulin - Houdini incarnate. (NOTE: in early April 2007 searches for the name
pointed researchers, readers / victims of the divorce industry to the pages at this
web-site. All victims, concerned with the arrogant abuse of the courts facilities MUST access, read and draw their own conclusions as to why Mr. Len
Miskulin simply ignored all and everything lodged at court, and why the invitation for an
undisclosed venue, at his residence!)
|Below the submissions in HTML format
for links to and from other pages and web-sites. Read of rights assured in law, of
precedent cases and of challenges to the abusers of the courts facilities. Read of
foundations relative to the equality assured to all under the law. Victims of the Divorce
Industry should relate to the element of equality between the sexes, for it is far removed
from the issues allegedly addressed by the courts in our allegedly civilised democracy, as
happens to be the case in other 'pseudo-democracies'.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
||HELEN SARAH FAYERS
WITNESS STATEMENT AND ARGUMENT OF AND BY
MISKULIN of 130 Hanson Drive, Loughton, Essex, the respondent in this action say as
read what purports to be a factual and accurate stamen of events by Helen S. Fayers, the
applicant, as submitted by the applicant's legal representatives, who instigated the
proceedings in what are obvious attempts to bypass proceedings set in motion by me in
respect of paternity of the two children residing with the applicant. (pages 7,8, band
nine of the exhibit "LM1")
||I beg to
submit to the court the following:-
14 of the European Convention on Human Rights covering equality of the sexes as enacted by
parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998. (refer to page 1 of the exhibit "LM1"
submitted in support)
29 of the combined treaties of the European Union covering fraud and corruption (page 2 of exhibit "LM1")
acts of 1968 and 1978 covering false instruments, dishonesty, concealment and deception.
(page 3 of exhibit "LM1")
||The duties of solicitors as covered by the Myers -v- Elman (1940) A.C. 282
HL that was enshrined in section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (as substituted by
section 4 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) and Order 62, Rule 11 of the Rules of
the Supreme Court Act. The practice now included in Part 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules
1998. (pages 4, 5, and 6 of exhibit "LM1")
acts of parliament covering partnerships, that should cover the circumstances applicable
to the relationship between the applicant and the respondent.
regard to the issues covered above in law, statutory and precedent cases stated, it is
patently clear that the persons who settled and submitted the statement of the applicant, purporting to be factual (pages
11 and 12 of exhibit "LM1"), contemptuously ignored the above provisions.
I beg to draw attention to
a balance and to protect the abuse of the process, the courts and subsequently parliament,
developed the wasted costs jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is used to penalise those whose
conduct of litigation had been "improper, unreasonable or negligent" as a result
of which loss has been caused to a party to the litigation. In effect, statutory duty has been imposed on legal
representatives to conduct litigation properly, reasonably
and with due skill and care. The duty is
owed to the court and to all the parties to a case. If the duty is breached, and any
party, whether the client or the third party, can seek to recover any costs wasted by the
breach from the lawyer". (page 4 of exhibit "LM1")
circumstances the persons who settled and submitted the challenged statement ought not to
submit unsubstantiated statements that are based on false instruments, lacking accountability, are in contempt of statutory
payment slips are submitted as alleged payments by the applicant 14 years after the
events. And by the applicant's own admission she had not received any funds from the sale
of the matrimonial home at the time these payments were allegedly made by her alone, as if
there were no contributions from me. (page 3 section 17,1.b of the exhibit
transfer of Whole (Rule 98 Land Registration Rules) document is submitted purporting to be
evidence in support of assertions and
allegations in respect of beneficial tenants "holding" in common upon which
there is no evidence to corroborate knowledge of by me of such matters. This is the first time the alleged
percentage holding in the first property has ever been referred to me. The fact that the
allegation is raised with the intent to seek pecuniary advantage without proof that such
was the case, as alleged establishes intent (if true and can be proven refer to page 3
section 17,1 of exhibit "LM1")
of the aforementioned and in particular the fact that in the instance at hand the
relationship between the applicant and myself was not a marriage but a partnership, it is
covered by law on partnership and equality of the sexes, national and international. At no
time did I contract with the applicant to be the alternative Social Security financial
provider for a family consisting of "a woman and her children". (page 1, see article 14 of exhibit "LM1")
such time as the applicant and her advisers have complied with my application for
paternity tests, with further procrastination and the courts co-operate in the matter
precedent to the application by the applicant in the matter of the property which the
applicant and her advisers have set their sights on, I maintain and I will establish the
the event that the children born of the applicant during the relationship are proven to
be, both or either, my natural offspring I shall be establishing a claim against the
applicant for emotional distress and I will seek damages for and in respect of feelings
and emotions, both for myself and for the children in view of the fact that the applicant
and her legal advisers are using the children for their own ends jointly and severally,
irrespective of damages caused to others.
the event that the children, either or both, are proven not to be my natural offspring I
shall be establishing and claiming damages against the applicant and all who support and
promote the creation of scenarios arising out of the freedoms and benefits assumed,
presumed and bestowed upon persons of the caliber and mentality of the applicant. The
claims will be based on deception, dishonesty, securing benefit (financial and emotional)
through concealment of the truth and the wrong doing by the applicant over a number of
years, whose financial contributions towards the family she created, while in 'a
partnership relationship with me", are called to strict proof for the entire period
of the relationship (page 10 of the exhibit "LM1")
and in addition to the above admittance by a lawyer I submit statements by Lord Irvine,
Lord Chancellor in his responses to the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 1999.
His Lordship referred to, and acknowledged the milking of the system, and the he was only
referring to the Legal Aid funds in criminal cases and not to the Legal Aid facility as
used by lawyers as evinced in pages and 12 of exhibit "LM1":
true printout of his Lordship's submission to question No. 11 where highlighted are the
above points. (page 13 of exhibit "LM1")
provide also evidence of his Lordship's submissions to question No, 8. Therein highlighted
references to family and other avenues that are available and ought not to be side-stepped
by solicitors who use membership of the Law Society's Law Panel (page 14 of exhibit
further provide evidence of the Lord Chancellor's submissions in respect of family and
"marriage". In the circumstances I challenge any assertions and assumptions
based on any other issues, than those pleaded herein.
I must therefore demand the right of establishing first and foremost the paternity
commitments and obligations as presumed and assumed by the applicant and her legal
advisers and that my rights as pleaded under 5. a) and 5. b) above.
of the aforementioned relative to family, marriage and partnership to which law applies as
herein above covered I submit also and draw attention to page 16 of the exhibit
"LM1" pertaining to origins of English law. Highlighted is the requirement of
the judges to interpret statutory law and the relevance of European Union law to which
reference is made above under paragraph 2. b) and page 2 of the exhibit 'LM1",
Finally, under the third highlight until such time as the law is changed or superseding
law is introduced, decisions of higher authorities are binding on the lower courts (*F7). In
respect of the aforesaid I also submit, and draw attention to pages 17 to 22 of the
exhibit "LM1" wherein the duty of the judge to apply the law (page 17),
references to the Myers -v- Elman House of Lords ruling in respect of abuses of the legal
system (page 18, Limitations Act 1980), references to discovery of causation (page 18,
Stephen -v- Riverside), references to concerns by the judiciary about hardship on
blameless parties and moral grounds (page 19, Cave -v- Robinson Jarvis & Rolf),
reference s to UBAF Ltd -v- European American Banking Corporation covering agents for
their clients and employees and I respectfully submit to the court that solicitors act as
agents for their clients and not as principal (page 20). I conclude by pointing to the
Grundy -v- Naqvi case wherein the erratic denial of rights to access to justice and the
imposed cost to the parties because of the necessity to appeal erratic rulings and
judgements (pages 21 and 22).
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement
FAX to Len Miskulin,
evincing clearly stated issues of relevance
|The draft of the letter as
settled and submitted to HH Justice Charles, in HTML
||Len Miskulin -
||[Click here and type
||Andrew Yiannides -
London - UK
||Printed 01/04/05 Created:
9 Jan 03
Railroading Tactics & Obstructions to Justice
||TWO– with cover sheet
||CoL - Folder
||¨ For Review
||¨ Please Reply
||¨ Please Recycle
The letter to the court / HH Justice Charles should be as follows:
Re: Miskulin -v- Fayers now ………. (whatever)
I beg to refer you to my letter of …(..date…)…. The letter and my objections to the
attempts to railroad and hijack the proceedings, as 'determined' by counsel representing
the other party, were delivered within time, bearing in mind the late
delivery of the Order, to me.
I beg, also, to draw your attention to the Application for Leave to appeal the
abrogation of your public duties and the relinquishing of the matters before the court,
for transfer of the case to another.
I attach, hereto, self-explanatory communications, copy of my letter and submissions to
the ……….. court dated ………… . I request that you do consider my rights in the
circumstances stated in my said communications and the facts covered in pleadings and applications lodged at and filed with the court.
I further refer you to my request for transcripts of the hearings
before your honour. To that effect I submit copies of a facsimile that another citizen was
caused to submit to another court with material accessed on the
Internet. The documents clearly qualify and attest my own sentiments, in view of the
manner in which my applications to the court have been treated so far.
Kindly ensure that:
the transcripts requested and now demanded are put in
hand forthwith and that your office forwards a written account stating any justified
explanations and reasons for the obstructions to my rights and justice,
your Honour stands down, in view of the fact that fundamental wrongs were attempted so far
within your knowledge and because of the obstructions to my rights. When coupled to the
obvious late posting of the 'directions' drafted and settled by my opponent's legal
representatives. In consideration of the fact that the late delivery, to me, was ignored
by your honour when obstructing me and denying, to me, my rights, irrespective of the fact
that I was not late in responding to and challenging the unacceptable 'railroading and
hijacking of the proceedings, there arises the issue of failures to adhere to the
principles of 'due process'.
In the circumstances I will appreciate acknowledgement of this communication. I will
also appreciate recognition of my inalienable right to fair audience and to the right to
appeal your endorsement of the attempts by the legal team of my opponent. (*F5)
and the issues raised, above, as clear as can be. The targeted victim's rights ignored and
alleged servants & officers of the law (solicitors, barristers and judges are
officers of the Supreme Court) acting in contempt of it with impunity and
arrogance. Millions of victims in allegedly civilised, states, in pseudo-democracies that
are promoted as the genuine article, and the victim in the instance at hand, caused(?) to
scram(!) to other lands; allegedly because he could not take any more...... as if the
scenario and the defaults following the gathering of the invited lambs to his residence,
and the attempts thereafter by two 'tutored & used stooges' were not enough to point
to the reckless indifference, of all, to the suffering of the millions of suckers
world-wide. The victim who suffered many an indignity, after the gestation vessel desired
a change of dildo, himself exhibited his contempt to the rights of others and in
particular the rights of the person who assisted him to challenge, in legal terms as
covered in the settled and lodged submissions to the courts, evince. Visitors, readers and
researchers should access the page [*Link from here to the page] where we expose a person who was
noted to have been acting as one of the many sold to the system as is, charlatan; an
egocentric and arrogant user of others for more of the constructive frauds on the
taxpayers such as he, himself, had been subjected to and later a conscious player in, as a
fraudsters club recruit; one who HAD BEEN a victim of the practices & the activities
he subsequently fell in love with. In short a convert to that which he and his associates
/ affiliates set off to complain about, in the first instance.
|A second FAX to Mr Miskulin, 4 days later and documents
transmitted for use in the course of the hearing as listed in the Witness Statement &
Legal Arguments / Submissions, in support of the rights and facts pleaded / lodged at
court soon after he was introduced to Mr. Andrew Yiannides. Access the heads I win &
tails you lose challenge to the abusers of the courts facilities, above.
Not one of the allegedly concerned 'leaders of organised men's groups bothered to refer to
or address the issues founded in law & resting on court practice rules.
- Note what was involved and
how Len Miskulin was assisted.
- Consider what other forces
and elements were at work while millions of 'serfs' out there were and are subjected to
the same treatment as Mr Len Miskulin had been.
- Many were sent along or
introduced as 'challengers, ready to WORK WITH & FOR OTHERS.
- Access the web-site Mr
Miskulin set up; click on the Holocaust link in the left pane / window. Look up the state
he ended in after two months of HUNGER STRIKE, because he was denied access to the two
boys taken away.
- Ask, 'WHY did Mr Miskulin
'run away'? Above all, who has been MAINTAINING THE WEB-SITE for over three years since he
left the U.K? And WHY did he negate on his promises to co-operate with us for and in
respect of THE RIGHTS OF THE TARGETED VICTIMS OF THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY?
- Access and read the events
covered in the FOOTNOTE at the page http://www.uk-human-rights.org/lawcompi.htm
- Stated there enough;
consider the ever-present 'offers which many a ruined victim, cannot refuse when all they
care about / are after is some financial gain & NEVER MIND if their children will
inherit & benefit from the very same practices. And SUCH PERSONS run around
proclaiming themselves to be 'loving, caring fathers, yet somehow all appear never to have
heard of the word 'CONSIDERATE' of the future for the very children!
||Working with and for a victim who run away and negated on his agreement with us.
|The issues we point to above must be considered by genuine victims who
wish to USE their legal rights WITHOUT ignoring their OBLIGATIONS to the rest of society,
present & future. Visitors, readers and researchers will be reading of and about
*FUTURE* in the footnote pointed to above. *FUTURE* being an acronym for amilies
United o Unconditionally estore
Covered below the facts
and activities that led to the challenges in the letter we publish above in respect of the
issues that Mr Len Miskulin related to the founder of *human-rights*. The legal arguments
were called for, after his associate Mr Dave Ellison contacted Andrew Yiannides and
introduce him to the www.lbduk.org website and to the
creator of the site, Mr Miskulin. It was a case of just another irrelevant male / father.
Mr Miskulin was targeted [*Link to another victim-case] by the abductors and rapists of Justice. An
application for DNA tests and other relevant challenges had been lodged with the court and
it was noted that among other issues, not one of known & notified leaders of
male / fathers / divorce industry groups had taken any interest in the legal RIGHTS OF THE
TARGETED SERF. Most intriguing was the arrival on the scene of an alleged legal boffin
who subsequently engaged in more than the usual waffle from planted mischief makers
here to plans for the use of such creations] and maintenance engineers of the system as is. At the very least
it was a case of another 'peacock showing off his plume' [*Link to how and when such a person
moved in only to move on after failing to impose the ways the person was promoting as an
alleged legal guru].
With links to and from
page images, also to other material
- We request of and urge visitors, readers of this page to
access the web-site created by Mr Len Miskulin http://www.lbduk.org.
It was maintained by him until he decided to disappear and contact only selected
'associates and mates' of his, with whom he shared more than the elements he raised
with us and for which we worked in order to challenge all offenders within the context of
the law. (*Link to the explicit page where a professional, a
barrister, exposed his part for and in the usual activities attached to deceitful and
fraudulent misrepresentations. Read of invitations intended for the naive and gullible who
fall to such idiotic schemes & scenarios. Many the lovers of the system as is, who
engage and partake in such vile activities while asserting and alleging to be 'challenging
victims' WHEREAS SUCH PERSONS ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS OFFERED ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE
by suppressing the most important elements).
- It is imperative and of paramount importance that the reader
/ visitor should be acquainted with the forces and the influences at work, when
considering THE FACTS & THE REALITIES we are to cover and expose in this page. (*Link to the parts and activities of another 'victim' of the
courts and legal circles and HOW that fraudster abused our time and readiness to work
with and to assist 'victims').
- It is also most important that visitors / readers should
access the following pages:
Con of a Victim (/convict.htm) - Primed For Deceit
(/4deceit.htm) & Actors & Fraudsters at work (/actors.htm).
The realities and realisations covered in the aforesaid pages should assist the reader to
draw the right conclusions as to the inferences drawn out of the behaviour of
victims-come-challengers (as they misrepresent themselves) YET CONVERT-LOVERS and
maintenance engineers - users of the system as is for more fraud on the tax-payers, hence
their assaults and evil activities in the background in propping up the ORGANISE FRAUD ON
- We expose, in our pages, the root to it all, the foundations
and the corner stone upon which societies have been and ARE being built for such 'victims'
by abusers of public office. (*Link).
- All is achieved care of 'the
teachings by examples noted, observed and mimicked by automatons, non-thinkers, STOOGES
who succumb to personal greed and simply ignore all others. Such persons either 'submit to
blackmail by or with help and or coercion from agents and or lovers of the system as is'.
Thus they act as 'maintenance engineers of the arrangements in place' through reckless
defaults and omissions. Their contemptuous mentalities to others, including their their
'false or abandoned promises', if not vile misrepresentations as to the elements that
caused them to contact human-rights are but the elements that extend the hold on 'the
serfs' as organised by the controllers of CIUKU (*Link to definition) Enterprises .
Late delivery of the Order to the party. Had the Order been pronounced in
open court and the party was present (or his/her agents : solicitors and their agents :
Barrister) in court, at the time of the pronouncement, THEN the time for appealing would
start as of the pronouncement. In the instance at hand, it was a case of EVEN MORE
IMPROPRIETIES & FOUL ACTIVITIES as the settled letter pointed out. "Letting the
generals of the enemy's army to direct one's soldiers / army was but an insult to the
intelligence of the targeted victim.
2.Applications lodged at and filed
with the court. Simply pointing out to the Court the fact that there existed on file
the Application for DNA tests, in order to establish Article 8 VIOLATIONS (because
of denial to normal contact with the two boys) and or FRAUD BY THE GESTATION VESSEL should
she have deceived the targeted 'serf' into believing he was the father of both boys when /
if such was not the true state.
3. Another citizen was caused
to submit to another court. The text as settled for submission (by the targeted serf)
to the court WAS ALSO INTENDED as part of the education the targeted serf was receiving IN
RESPECT OF HIS RIGHTS. And, more so, in respect of the anticipated and expected FROM
GENUINE VICTIM CHALLENGERS who were to benefit from the creation of the Citizen's
Alternative Precedents (CAP data) such as the cases we point to in our pages and the
obstructions to 'due process' as covered in the letter/FAX. In the instance at hand Mr
Miskulin received copy of the FAX COMMUNICATION (exchanges) WITH THE FRAUDSTER Veronica
Beryl Fodden and he was fully aware of her idiotic excuses for suppressing the realities
from the public (her failures to act as had been agreed from the onset to publish it all
in the public domain). The FAX can be accessed from here.
Visitors, readers and researchers should READ ALSO THE EXPLICIT CHALLENGES relative to ARROGANT PERJURY BY A SOLICITOR, for which matters Mr Len
Miskulin had no time or opinions. All the while he was complaining about the solicitor
who took his money and did nothing in return, as the explicit
letter settled by Andrew Yiannides, in another page, covers.
renditions relates to the usual promotions of anything else, JUST EVADE ISSUES OF
ESSENCE & RELEVANCE. These happen to be the most pronounced elements used by the
idiots & the morons who are accosted by the agents of the system's organisers /
controllers. Of such capabilities the programmed robots and the conditioned non-thinkers
who are drawn into the scheme of things. They simply act as 'diversionary tactics'
operatives while working in tandem with the promoters of the 'subliminal indoctrination of
the targeted serfs' repetitious scenarios about the powers that be..... "Look at
what they did to me.... to him,.... to her.... there is no way.... AND such persons ignore
the law that cuts down to size abusers of public office, ANYONE WHO ACTS IN CONTEMPT OF
5. Recognition of
my rights to fair audience. No need to emphasise that the offending abuser of judicial
chair occupation FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE the rights, and the court managers arranged for
another, known Divorce Industry judicial chair occupant to take over the case for
furtherance of whatever had been planned by the evil who assault families relentlessly.
The case was simply put on the list of Justice Singer who engaged in the pre-scripted
arrangements with both legal teams in the Foenander -v- Foenander fraudulent court
proceedings AS ORGANISED PRE-SCRIPTED SCENARIOS, we cover in another page. (*Link to the relevant page /. stated facts).
Charville was the chap and you can find more about the person especially as to when and
how he made contact. Find out what he benefited from when he came in with all manner of
waffle as an alleged genius in matters legal, and what he engaged in with another in the
matter of an agreed agenda for the creation of an AFFILIATED INFORMATION CENTRE. The
centre to act for ALL affiliates in the area of promotion and distribution of developments
and activities by organised group or individual who wished to co-operate for and in the
common cause, a Press Release centre. *Link from here
directly to the FOOTNOTE of the page /lawcompi.htm#F1 and recognise the elements about
which a solicitor wrote to a client in March 2003.
from here to a page where we publish evidence to the effect that the Court of Appeal
allowed Mr Norman Scarth to record the hearing of an application before THREE LORD
JUSTICES, Master of the Rolls, LJ Woolfe presiding. The venue, naturally, was
organised for the occasion by the planners of all and everything that is imposed on 'the
serfs in a pseudodemocracy' THROUGH THE COURTS. Notwirthstanding that SUCH A PRECEDENT
CASE HAS BEEN ON RECORD FOR YEARS (published at this website as soon as the submitted
transcript was received by by Mr Andrew Yiannides) our hero, Mr Scarth, who had gone down
the road of *the fraudsters club recruits*, elected to SHOVE THE PRECEDENT CASE in the
dark corners of his corrupted mind. He accepted an invitation to act as the Honoary
Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society AND as he had, apparently, determined. In so
far as he was concerned, the USE OF VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CIRCLES & PUBLIC SERVANTS,
FOR THEFT OF TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NATIONA BUDGET WERE LEGITIMATE (as he
personally understood the legal implications). HE EVIDENTLY DETERMINED THAT THE USE OF
VICTIMS (created by the legal circles, through abuse of the courts' facilties) FOR
PERSONAL GAINS & PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE VIA THEFT OF TAX INPUT TO THE NATIONAL BUDGET
WERE WITHIN HIS GRASP OF THE LAW. *Link from
here to the evidence as to HOW & WHICH FACILITIES IN PLACE (as organised by
alleged servants of the public - of the serfs who pay taxes for the maintenance of
criminals in public office) ARE USED FOR THE PLUNDERING / THEFT OF TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTIONS
by public servanst (judges in controol of it all) and the managers / controllers /
organisers of victims who are pointed to and sucked into the fold of the LIPS crowd / mob
and their affiliates / associates, other similar setups. XXXX
|Link to: Lord Chancellor's Dpt.
||Link to: Judges Schooled
on racial issues
||Link to: Judges independent of, FREE to ignore The LAW
|Link to: Judges ALLOWED(?)
||Link to: Frank Cunningham-case
||Link to: Typical Response
from Lord Chancellor
|Link to: h-r Home Page
||Link to: The CAMILA Project
||Link to: The LAW