Contempt of the Law
Enfield Council - C.Court
Hackney Council - C.Court
Haringey Council - C.Court
Haringey Police - H/B Fraud
Len Miskulin - Divorce
V. B. Fodden - Mortgage
False Instruments
G. Ebert promoting such
Len Miskulin - Divorce
V.B.Foden - False Orders
P. Constantinou - Divorce
Forgery Used
V. B. Fodden - Financial
Haringey Council-H/ B Fraud
PERJURY - Used
V.B. Fodden-Solicitor Case
Obstruct - Examination
P. Constantinou - Divorce
Obstructing Justice
Crown Prosecution Service
Court of Appeal - R.B.Del C
part 3     
Strike Out
Helen Patey - Assertions
Divorce Frauds Challenged
V. B. Fodden - Plymouth

In 1997, December 18th and the Daily Mail in its letters pages published letters from its readers, following an article by Fay Weldon.

Among the authors of the published letters, Ms Erin Pizzey who found the first women's refuge in Chiswick, London in the early 1960's. [*Link to the letter's - text].

In 1999, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor when responding to Baroness Fookes of Plymouth specifically wrote of the areas the courts are expected to cover when dealing with the financial aspects in divorce cases.

[*Link to the text of the second paragraph]

In 2005 - Dr Silvia Pezzini's research prompts the Daily Mail to look into the findings. Amanda Platell's article is published in HTML for links to and from, in the main window (*Link).

Part 4(d) FORM E17 relates to conduct and behaviour.

The petitioner / applicant in the instance at hand did not wish for such issues to be taken into consideration. Food for thought and consideration by the victims of 'arranged false records' by alleged servants of the public and in particular abusers of the courts' facilities' for the usual impositions on 'the sons of men'.     

Part 5(a) relates to the Order sought by the applicant. In the instance at hand the petitioner's application was clear and within a prevailing agreement that rested and was founded on many factors that applied in the particular circumstances and the background to the marriage.

	Page Revised: June 20, 2012 ADDED: Links to and from page after editorial improvements / changes to material.
	Site under reconstruction; ongoing additions & changes corresponding to developments and exposures in other pages / sites-

Below TWO elements attached to petitions for divorce

...

The right to reply and to justify behaviour and activities we cover in our pages, is assured to all we name and point to. We will publish excuses & whatever is submitted to us by such persons IF they can come up with any sound and justifiable excuses for their vile conduct. Legal argument that shall arise out of any of their submissions will be used as we apply ourselves to relevant issues in the cases they referred to us & we will cover their acts and all of their recklessly wilful defaults and omissions to use their rights.

• This page is dedicated to all abusers of our time and in particular to two evil-mongering fraudsters, Mrs. Veronica Beryl Foden and Mrs. Helen Patey. Both were and are acting as promoters of the usual waffle about the Free Masons without any evidence in support of their personal assertions. [*Link from here to evidence and THE CONNECTION between EVIL & the Freemasons, followers of the vile teachings by examples stated in the grossly misrepresented work of the fraudsters who introduced their vile creation to mankind in the third century BC, part of their plans to become Lords & Masters of all ane everything on earth]
• Both simply peddling their contributions to the subliminal indoctrination scripts while AFTER THE CASH UNDER THE TABLE, as arranged by the criminals who are in control in ALL PSEUDO-DEMOCRACIES. Visitors, readers and researchers are urged to access the exclusive page where we EXPOSE IT ALL through EVIDENCE relative to provisions that BREACH ALL LAW and violate the fundamental principle that Justice must be seen to be done. The arrangements establish the simple fact that STOOGES & MORONS of the make-up of such idiots were & are acting as blackmailed fraudsters who are peddling their own brand of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentations with intent, as used converts to the use of the courts facilities for fraud on the ill informed and kept in the dark taxpayers, 'serfs'.   
• Both contacted us as 'victims' who were faced with very serious problems. Both proved to have been promoters of the usual aspersions about the part of the Freemasons in the problems they were faced with and NEITHER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE upon which they founded 'their opinions'.
• However, their maligned and reckless defaults, omissions and promotions of all manner of waffle proved beyond any doubt the parts they undertook as lousy actresses for the subliminal indoctrination, of 'the serfs', many like-minded fraudsters engaged and engage in, as tutored and guided by agents of the creators of it all.
• Both were simply acting 'as educated and guided stooges who were pointed to and promised the rewards under the table, which we expose in the exclusive page, which page neither or any of their chums, affiliates and associates ever bothered to concern themselves with. And all the while both (and their affiliates / associates) were claiming to be alleged objectors of the abused facilities of the courts, by the criminals who have been in control and organisers of man's inhumanity to man, for millennia, as followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works ever to have been presented to the sons of men, by the creators of the alleged creator of all and everything'.
• NEITHER had any intentions to challenge or expose the abusers of the courts facilities, through which the imposition of constructive frauds on the taxpayers, leading to the rewards BOTH were after, through their parts in reckless suppression of the facts and the realities they had been subjected to in the course of fraudulent court proceedings.
• All they were after and gearing up for were the extended fraudulent court proceedings on the taxpayers, WHICH WE COVER IN THE PAGES WHERE WE EXPOSE THE PARTS of Mr. Johan Michael Richard Foenander and Mr Lou Foley after the former engaged in plenty of misrepresentations attached to activities of solicitors, that visitors, readers and researchers can access from here.
• In another page visitors, readers and researchers can access from here, we point to the parts of the aspiring fraudsters-club-recruit Veronica Beryl Foden; the URL (link) takes one directly to the arrogant declaration of an abuser of judicial chair occupation when delivering a judgement and re-instating to the court's list a claim against solicitors that had been struck out by an abuser of judicial chair occupation, without any concerns for the evidence against the solicitors and the others they had been / were co-operating with, while securing pecuniary advantage and rewards by way of cost orders against the targeted victim who was converted to the system of operations before she was sent along to abuse Mr. Andrew Yiannides' time, goodwill and trust.    
• The former complained that she had already been subjected to the most horrendous of obstructions to her rights and the most contemptuous of fraudulent activities in the courts were noted upon inspection of her files. She needed assistance to challenge it all, all the way to the ECoHR (Strasbourg) and she declared her intentions to expose it all with our assistance, as a member of the human-rights.org Community in Line. However, it was not long before her actions and defaults, established that she was part of a scam and that she had been and was a participating fraudster in all that she was complaining of and about. She actually engaged in criminally motivated activities that were intended to cause damages to Mr Andrew Yiannides, the person she was sent along to mess about with.
• The latter, Mrs. Helen Patey, was sent along by persons who operate as 'lovers and users of the system as is, circles', all of whom excel in the subliminal indoctrination, of 'victims they target and contact', through their relentless complaints and references to their allegations about the Free Masons.

We cover in this page the issue of misguided and abused women. We hasten to emphasise that we refer to women who ARE USED & ABUSED by the legal circles, for their own ends (F1). The very circles benefit, also, from arranged additional 'services' from alleged public(!) servants(?) and publicly funded voluntary organisations and groups, from Family Service Units to Legal Assistance set-ups that simply serve the system and USE the arrangements, in place for more of the same FRAUD ION THE TAXPAYERS, and CORRUPTION OF MORONS who fail to recognise that by taking part in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page we point to from here they simply act as ACCESSORIES & ABETTORS to the ORGANISE$D CRIMES AGAINST THE TAXPAYERS & HUMANITY AT LARGE, families in general as imposed on 'non-thinkers, in other pseudo-democracies too.

Published in our pages admissions by an insider, a solicitor, who spoke of the practices to the Mail on Sunday (*Link) in July 1999.

However, no diligent reader / researcher or victim of abuse of Public Office can overlook the arrangements in place. Such 'elements' as the one attached to the undisclosed 'provisions by judicial chair occupants' happen to be in contempt of all law. Thereby the criminals who ARE in control establish the fallacy of the promotions about alleged Democratic governance and alleged rule of law & order, as sold to the otherwise indoctrinated and misled citizens by the Hypocrites and Sycophants who ARE in control in all pseudo-democracies.

Listed below some typical examples attached to and arising out of blunt activities that are intended, by the reckless Organisers and Managers of 'Crimes Incorporated U.K Unlimited - Enterprises', to defraud and cause damages to the citizens:

• Hearings behind closed doors in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention and the most fundamental of principles clearly stipulating that JUSTICE SHOULD BE SEEN TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURTS.

• Issuing court Orders and delivering judgements in contempt of the evidence presented to and argued before abusers of public office who purport to be acting as judicious persons while in occupation of judicial chairs.

• Judicial chair occupants acting in contempt of the law applicable to the evidence and the issues / matters / events presented to and argued before them.

• Judicial chair occupants, acting in breach of their Judicial Oaths through contempt of the law applicable to the evidence presented to them.

• Judicial chair occupants entertaining all manner of unsupported assertions and allegations. More often that not they obstruct the other side, in the matters litigated before them. The citizens who ARE thus targeted, for any number of reasons, ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ASSERTIONS / LIES / FALSE EVIDENCE, and such 'abuse of judicial chair occupancy' happens to be in contempt of the right to fair hearings and another fundamental principle, that of 'due process'.

• Judicial chair occupants Striking Out actions and cases, properly and legitimately instigated, WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE OR REASONING in support of such abuse of office.

• Judicial chair occupants, entering wrong judgements by denying due process to applicants, thereby setting the wheels in motion for 'need to appeal' their reckless attitude to the citizens who thereat have imposed on them the necessity to appeal while in search of 'abducted justice'.

• Court office staff deliberately delaying the issue and or posting of court orders, even posting such to wrong addresses WITH INTENT, thereby introducing the most common of frauds, by the legal circles, on 'the serfs' who are thus put on the road to the most common of 'obstructions and perversion of justice', the 'need for leave to appeal out of time'.

• Delaying with intent - Obstructing execution and delivery of Transcripts especially of misconducted court hearings(!), proceedings before judicial chair occupants who act in breach of judicial oaths, and in contempt of the evidence and the law.

• Officers of the Court (solicitors are), clerical staff and 'process servers', employed/retained by the courts, making false statements as to their parts in the processing and execution of the business of the courts.

You read, in our pages, of the 'arrangements in place for the constructive frauds on the 'serfs', through the provisions of Article 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Consider, therefore, why there exist among those who

• visit the newsgroups,
• blow their trumpets about 'the system',
• proclaim their disaffection and
• 'disgust at the practices' in the courts,
• assert personal knowledge and experiences,
• YET FAILED AND OR FAIL TO PUBLISH ANY EVIDENCE
• in ANY WEB-SITE, through which to
• inform and prove to
• Mr and Mrs Average of that which they profess knowledge of!!!
• WHO BUT THE REAL SHYSTERS, are party to the above fraud on YOU, Mr and Mrs Average?

Go To: http://www.uk-human-rights.org/comonlin.htm  and consider stating the facts of your own experiences in a personal web-pages / web-site. Join with others and work together in exposing and challenging all offending Public(!) Servants(?) who misconduct in public office.

JOIN the COMMUNITY ON LINE if you have been cheated out of your rights, by the legal circles and or were denied protection, under the law, by the police.

If you have the evidence against the offenders, you can publish it in your personal web-site as your rights in law provide. Be not fooled by planted mischief-makers and read of the directives from THE authority (Link)

Every citizen is duty bound to report crime and if the police ignored or ignore you, USE YOUR RIGHTS, EXPOSE THE OFFENDERS who ignore the law.

Visit the Stephen Lawrence page (Link) and note how Parliament provided for your rights. Yet, our Law Enforcement Agencies simply ignore such provisions, and act as contemptuous of your rights as a member of the *human-rights.org * Community On Line * has pleaded and lodged at the European Court on Human Rights. Through defaults and omissions, the police / authorities fail (Link) to protect you and in fact they actually torment and torture you, the victims.

READ OF SUCH PROVISIONS and exercise your rights!  Challenge and EXPOSE THE VILE OFFENDERS, who endorse and promote crime through defaults and omissions in the purported exercise of their public duties, AS YOUR SERVANTS.

Remember:

"Do for, by and with yourself that which satisfies you so long as that which you do does not infringe upon and or violates the rights of any other". © AY 1972

BE GUIDED BY AUTHORITIES WHO DEFINED YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS DERIVED FROM AND DEFINED AS : "THE CONVENTION IN LEGAL TERMS".

The development of and FOR THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, in modern times begun with the Magna Carta, in Europe. Below, in as simple as can be defined, the principles of rights and freedoms, clarified by Mark Janis, (fellow) Richard Kay (professor) and Anthony Bradley (professor).

• 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness.
• 2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man; these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
• 3. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefrom.
• 4. Liberty consists of the power to do whatever is not injurious to others; thus the enjoyment of the natural rights of every man has for its limits only those that assure other members of society the enjoyment of those same rights; such limits may be determined only by law.
• 5. The law has the right to forbid only actions which are injurious to society. Whatever is not forbidden by law, may not be prevented, and no one may be constrained to do what it does not prescribe.
• 6. Law is the expression of the general will; all citizens have the right to concur personally, or through their representatives, in its formation; it must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal before it, are equally admissible to all public offices, positions, and employment, according to their capacity, and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents.
• 7. No man may be accused, arrested, or detained except in the cases determined by law, and according to the forms prescribed thereby. Whoever solicits, expedites, or executes arbitrary orders, or has them executed, must be punished; but every citizen summoned or apprehended in pursuance of the law must obey immediately; he renders himself culpable by resistance.
• 8. The law is to establish only penalties that are absolutely and obviously necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offence and legally applied.
• 9. Since every man is presumed innocent until declared guilty, if arrest be deemed indispensable, all unnecessary severity for securing the person of the accused must be severely repressed by law.
• 10. No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
• 11. Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Consequently, every citizen may speak, write, and print freely, subject to responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the eases determined by law.
• 12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen necessitates a public force; such a force, therefore, is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
• 13. For the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration a common tax is indispensable; it must be assessed equally on all citizens in proportion to their means.
• 14. Citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or through their representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to supervise its use, and to determine its quota, assessment, payment, and duration.
• 15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an accounting of his administration.
• 16. Every society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation of powers not determined has no constitution at all.
• 17. Since property is a sacred and inviolable right, no one may be deprived thereof unless a legally established public necessity obviously requires it, and upon condition of a just and previous indemnity.

Consider the above in the context of our founder's proclamation on true Democracy and do not fail to note the obvious : Society, CITIZENS  HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE OF EVERY PUBLIC AGENT AN ACCOUNTING OF HIS / HER ADMINISTRATION.

We add:

• When the representatives of the citizens
• fail in their public duties and
• assume the right to dictate to, instead of serving, the citizens,
• then
• the citizens can and should "take the law in their own hands" and
• the citizens can "use it in accordance with the provisions the representatives put in place".
• There is no need for
• violence,
• abuse of body and
• misuse of mind.
• There is no need for revolution and bloodshed.

THE CITIZENS HAVE THE MEANS TO EXPOSE AND CALL TO BOOK ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE STILL DREAMING OF SERFDOM DAYS.

• It is time for public servants to cease behaving as Lords and Masters.
• It is time for them to 'humbly serve their employers, the citizens' AS THE LAW PROVIDES.

THE CITIZENS HAVE THE WORLD JURY TO RELY UPON FOR DELIVERY OF JUSTICE OUT OF THE BONDS HER ABDUCTORS AND RAPISTS HAVE BEEN HOLDING HER ALONG WITH DEMOCRACY.

• It would appear that
• the media barons and their stooges
• know not the true meaning of either.
• Through defaults and omissions to publish and
• deal with the facts,
• the realities and
• the truth
• THEY helped develop that which they expect of us to deliver to our children.
• THEY WERE AND WILL REMAIN DREAMERS
• SO LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THEIR SILENCE AND
• CARRY ON IGNORING THE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN MAKING.

Andrew Yiannides
Founder *human-rights* (NGO)
London - United Kingdom
August 2002

Below xxxxxxxxxx

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

14.

1. I came to the UK in November 1977. I had no knowledge of the English language or the Law. I was born in Peru, and grew up under a completely different legal and social system.

2. I met Mr Marcus Parker-Rhodes, a British Citizen, and we were married on 5th July 1980, while I was studying English in the UK and working as an Au pair.

3. One child was born of the marriage on 1st October 1982.

4. By 1987 I was made aware that my husband was involved in an extramarital relationship and in June 1988 my husband and I agreed that there was no possibility of change in the situation and that we should proceed to a divorce. Both of us retained solicitors to that effect

5. The solicitors referred our case to the Family Law Bar Association for settlement of and property adjustment and for financial arrangements in respect of our child. We were invited to sign a consent document to the effect that we would abide by the decision of the FLBA. However, as stated below, and not until I collected the file of documents from my solicitors, in June 1998, the said document was nullified by the fact that both my husband and I did not accept the FLBA decision. The aforesaid nullification of the document was confirmed in letters the solicitors exchanged but was never referred to me, by my solicitors.

6. Marcus had been living with his girlfriend from 1989 to 1992 (well over 2 years) and he is still living with her now. She was single and there were no other children in the new relationship. My husband volunteered and was paying towards our child's needs and towards the cost of maintaining the house and myself, while I was at home raising our child, and trying to do some part-time work as a shiatsu practitioner.

7. Marcus was a well-known and established animator who had won several prizes. He participated in the production of Monty-Python with Terry Gilliam and worked, also, with Bob Godfrey, twice winner of an Oscar for animation. Marcus had declared earnings in the sum of £ 24,900 in 1993 at the time of 'the divorce settlement agreement', allegedly by consent, as referred to, and stated herein below.

8. At the time of the divorce I was earning £ 2500 a year from occasional work while I was a full time mother and home-keeper.

9. Marcus had a private pension fund. He was paying £160 per month towards it.

10. The matrimonial home was an end of terrace Victorian 4 bedroom property with a garden backing onto Highgate Woods; there was no mortgage or a mortgage charge on the property. The property was subdivided in two, the ground floor was a 2 bedroom self-contained flat in a good state, and the first floor arranged as a studio.

11. My ex-husband's brother was the owner of a separate self-contained 4 bedroom flat in the same building. There were separate leases for the two households.

12. I carried out also extensive renovations to the property (our matrimonial home) over several years and Marcus did not get involved in the work, as he declared on affidavit in the course of the divorce negotiations / proceedings.

13. In the course of the divorce proceedings and settlement negotiations, Marcus declared, also on affidavit, that he had inherited more than £100,000 from his family.

14. We had agreed on the valuation of the furniture at £ 12,000 on a probate basis.

15. Throughout I did have, I was to have, the responsibility of looking after the child of the marriage, as had been agreed that I was more suitable for that effect, and there were no restrictions on access rights, by the father, except the ones imposed by his girlfriend/partner. Marcus's girlfriend Gwenda Foord had no children.

16. The settlement agreed, by the legal teams, was that I should receive a lump sum of £45,000 and support with an additional £ 30,000 towards a mortgage for acquisition, of a property for the child and I to move to. It had also been agreed by the legal teams, that £45 per week, for the child's maintenance should be paid by the father. The terms implied that the child and I should leave the matrimonial home where the child was born and had grown up in with her two cousins with whom we shared the garden and all common facilities at the house. This seemed too harsh for the children, at the time, and my ex-husband's brother and his family concurred with that view.

17. I considered the proposals as unacceptable and improper on the grounds that the child and I would be separated from the immediate family circle and that any move by the child and I would, was to, entail additional costs and disruption problems in respect of the child's education and environment.

18. I also considered the financial arrangements, as proposed, to have been inadequate. As part of the ongoing attempts to reach a satisfactory and fair settlement we secured a valuation of the matrimonial home, the leasehold registered in Marcus' name, from estate agents. We had agreed the valuation. As a consequence there had been an offer, from a cash buyer, who was ready to buy the leasehold at £115,000.

19. My solicitors persisted that the arrangements they negotiated were the best they could secure under the circumstances. As a result I had no option but to seek second opinions from other solicitors. A number indicated that they were in agreement with my concerns that:

19.1. the proposed financial settlement was inadequate

19.2. any move from the property, the child and I were already in possession of and living in, would be:

19.2.1 unsettling for the child

19.2.2 and entail additional costly outgoings in terms of commissions and legal fees.

20. I had spoken at length to a number of solicitors. One of the solicitors, who invited me along after indicating that she shared my concerns, was the solicitor that I subsequently instructed. In the course of the meeting(s) that led to the change over and the transfer of my papers/case I was asked to sign papers. I was not surprised at the suggestion that my new solicitors' team should first renegotiate what the FLBA had put forward as a settlement agreement.

21. My new solicitor knew, as of the first instance when I contacted them and thereafter, that I had not agreed with the terms of the negotiated settlement that had been promoted and presented to me by the previous firm who were representing me. I refused to succumb to their pressures for several months. Ms. Coubrough, the solicitor handling my case, told me in the course of our meeting on 22 September 1993 that, by law, I had to follow the FLBA opinion, as Mr. Van Endem, my ex-husband's solicitor, also stipulated.

22. The settlement provided also that in the event that I entered into any relationship, my husband would withdraw funding in the event of my child leaving the new home or if I went to live with another man or in the event of my child reaching the age of 18.

23. I was told, in no uncertain terms by my Solicitors, that they would abandon me and that she would block the Legal Aid facility, if I did not accept what they presented to me as an acceptable financial arrangement.

24. Furthermore my solicitors were threatening me, orally and in letters too, with 'justifiable rights in law' that my husband had, as they asserted, which he could use in order to evict me from the matrimonial home. In the circumstances I began to search for alternative accommodation. I found a dilapidated flat that was all I could afford, under the agreement being imposed on me and I informed my solicitors accordingly. By seeking and aiming to impose such settlement conditions on me, my Solicitor (Ms Coubrough) put me in a state of severe undue hardship. It was an utterly unnecessary thing to do, which I now recognise as calculated and intentional, leading to my having to capitulate to 'wrongs as imposed on me, that no one would be prepared to address within the United Kingdom'.

25. The agreement that I was caused to sign, under the conditions and circumstances stated above, was presented to the court for endorsement and issue by the court. I was neither present nor was I made aware of how and when the court was invited to endorse what my solicitors and their counterparts created, as 'the best settlement under the circumstances'.

26. I moved with our child to the new property, which I bought for £ 65,000 with the £45,000 and the 'additional' loan/charge facility of £20,000 that Marcus secured on the property, subject to the terms and conditions that were imposed on me by my Solicitors. Marcus secured the funds through a mortgage facility and charge on the matrimonial property.

27. Thereafter, whenever I talked to barristers and solicitors, I was always told, 'that although I appeared to be right in my argument that it could not be logical I was offered less than half of the worth of the matrimonial assets', nonetheless I was stuck with a Consent Order. On each and every occasion I was told there was nothing that could be done.

28. To meet our living costs and essential outgoings I secured part-time work. I also applied for assistance from the state because, in my circumstances I qualified. As a result the Child Support Agency, that was set up by the government to look into and assist in circumstances, contacted me. The Child Support Agency were given full particulars and all necessary information regarding my situation and what I knew regarding the child's father. They advised that as the father was already paying £45 per week, towards the child's needs, and as that was not part of 'the court settlement' my child and I had to survive on whatever my income and assistance came to.

29. In 1996 my contract of part-time work came to an end I contacted the authorities about the change of my circumstances. Other state officials accordingly notified the Child Support Agency and their officers contacted me. All they did for us was to cause and bring about changes, such as my husband stopping his £45 weekly payments.

30. Throughout 1996 to 1998 the child and I had to survive under very difficult circumstances, on state benefit. The Child Support Agency never considered the father should be made liable for any regular payments for our child. He was in receipt of rental income from the property that the child and I were caused to move out of, and he was also benefiting from a substantial income through his work. During that period I would speak, of our circumstances, to friends and acquaintances and to any contacts they would recommend. Eventually I decided to act on the suggestion of a friend.

31. I wrote to the solicitors and I asked for the file of papers pertaining to the divorce case they handled and settled for me. They arranged for me to collect it.

32. As I went through the papers contained in the file I kept coming across documents covering issues that were never referred to me, by my solicitors. I spoke of the issues to the friend who advised me to ask for the file and I explained the situation attached to papers and documents pertaining to the divorce matters the solicitors handled and dealt with that the solicitor never referred to me. His suggestion was that I should seek legal advice, in the circumstances.

33. A can of worms had opened up and none of the solicitors I contacted, in order to discuss the issues, was willing to act for me or to represent me and take my case to court.

34. I contacted solicitors to whom I gave full particulars as my friend had explained. Solicitors applied for Legal Aid assistance because of my circumstances and apart from a 'limited to barrister's opinion certificate' I was denied proper representation on the issues the documented evidence covered.

35. One of the solicitors, whose services I managed to retain, Mr. Patel, delayed an essential meeting with a barrister for more than a year. When eventually that meeting took place I was told by the barrister, in 1998, that it was too late to take any action, to remedy the situation, because of provisions under Limitation Acts. Through such defaults and omissions I was being used, a pawn at the mercy of the legal experts. This led me to start visiting in earnest libraries in order to look up serious issues. I needed to know about 'statute barred' and anything that I could come across that could cover the activities and the documented events such as my solicitor engaged in, without reference to me, while in control of my affairs.

36. I was being denied proper representation on the issues the documented evidence covered and I needed answers and legal justifications to the problems I was lumbered and faced with.

37. In conversation with Mr Patel, I was told (in what was a slip as opposed to a direct statement) that it appeared to have been a case of misconduct by the solicitors. I sought explanations but the solicitor changed the subject. At that point I recognised that his slip could explain why no one was prepared to act for me. In the circumstances I spoke to friends who suggested that I should do some serious research on the issues in my local library or one that had a good legal section.

38. Because I had been told that the issues could amount to 'misconduct' by the solicitors, I needed to be better informed in order to contact the governing body of solicitors, the Law Society. In the circumstances I begun in earnest to visit regularly libraries in order to research the issues and I followed up every discovery, from precedent case law to case law such as were covered in chapters attached to relevant sections of the Limitations Acts.

39. When I contacted the Law Society, I was put in touch with the Office for Supervision of Solicitors. Later I discovered that the Law Society, itself, maintains the O.S.S. I had been naive and I recognised that issue. In the matter of reliance on legal representation for and in my interest, by solicitors and barristers, I was fast becoming aware of the simple realities. I soon recognised that I was even more naïve to expect and or to rely on a body maintained by the Law Society (the union protecting the interests of its members) to maintain the OSS in the interest of the public.

40. I soon discovered that the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors would not be considering, favourably, my rights in law. Protecting their members through contempt of the evidence would also lead to nothing but court action against their members, and that would create work for their members and their circles.

41. I was left with no option but to give notice to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and with my little knowledge and understanding of the legal technicalities I decided to act. I issued a writ against the solicitor who took advantage of my luck of knowledge and understanding of the matters they clearly misrepresented to me, and more than likely as I saw matters at the time, also to the court.

42. Following service of the writ the solicitor entered an appearance and filed a defence pleading that the case should be struck out because the Claim was statute barred. An application to that effect was issued and served with supporting Statement of Facts. The documents were served on me and I responded by submitting my own Statement of Facts challenging the solicitor's deposition. In the course of a preliminary hearing, which the solicitor failed to attend, the Master heard my arguments that were based on Law and the evidence that I had uncovered while going through the file. Simply put, the solicitor had concealed and failed to disclose to me a number of very relevant issues and even actions the solicitor took without disclosing such matters to me. Those elements qualified and clarified the fact that the position could not possibly ever be presented as the solicitor addressed and submitted to the court. The Master issued directions and stipulated that the solicitor should attend court in person in order for the court to deal with the matters before it.

43. As my understanding and knowledge of law gradually increased and I begun to understand more and more of the complexities on the conduct of my affairs by the Solicitors I also begun to recognise that I should amend my pleadings and Statement of Claim. I went to the Royal Courts of Justice and I attended the Practice Master for assistance and directions. I did as I was advised and I served notice of my intentions on the Solicitors representing the Solicitors. They wrote back to state they objected, so, I prepared and delivered an Application, as I had been told by the Practice Master and I proceeded to the Royal Courts of Justice, the Masters' office, for the issue of the Application by the staff.

44. The bundle of papers that I subsequently prepared for the court was re-organised by the Solicitors representing the Defendant Solicitor. The documents in the bundle that I collected, from the court subsequent to the hearing before HH Justice Rimer, evince my actions and my need for the court to address all issues, in accordance with the evidence at hand. However the Amended Statement was not included as submitted by me, indicating the fact that the bundle of documents had been tampered with.

45. Although the Master directed that the Solicitor who had been in charge of my affairs, should attend court for the adjourned hearing of the Solicitors application and my challenges as to the facts and merits of my case, the Solicitor again failed to attend. The Master pointed to the fact that if arrangements were made quickly, he would be able to sit on the case before the summer vacation. It was essential he stated that the court dealt with the issues and to determine if there was a case to be answered, as my submissions and the precedent cases I referred to that were covered in law books I researched, on the issue of statutory limitations.

46. I attended court with a friend in order to secure a new date for the adjourned hearing as requested and directed by the Master. My application was for the matter to be set down before the Master (who had familiarised himself with the case) as he indicated. Somehow the Defendant's Solicitors were informed by the court staff, and between them they organised and secured an emergency hearing, during the vacation period, to be heard by a Judge on the grounds that the Defendant Solicitor was leaving the country.

47. I attended court for the purposes of the preliminary hearing with my daughter and the friend who acted as my litigation friend for the occasion. He had assisted me, also, to put the papers in the solicitor's file, in chronological order, and to prepare a list of the documents. Mr Yiannides, from the human-rights non-governmental organisation, whom I contacted on the Internet, attended the hearing also. He was passing notes, to me, covering observations on the proceedings and guidance on the developments at court.

48. Barrister appearing for the Defending Solicitors was anticipating of the Judge/court to deal with the issues, by way of arguments as submitted to court in writing, and without oral examination of the statements submitted. After extensive representations on both parties, HH Justice Rimer adjourned for lunch and announced that for the purposes of the hearing, oral examination was important. He further clarified that he had decided that I did have the right to cross-examine the solicitor who was in control of my affairs.

49. Extensive reference to the bundle of documents, filed at court and served to the Defendant Solicitors, was made throughout the hearings. The solicitor did not denounce or challenge the authenticity of the documents in the bundle including the letters sent to me and the notes that were in the file handed to me in June 1998.

50. When the court reconvened for the oral examination of the Solicitor I handed to the defending Barrister and to the court a true photocopy of one of the precedent cases that I came across while researching points of law. It covered the issue of limitations, and in particular 'as of when time begins to run'. The case made it very clear that in so far as higher authorities were concerned "time begun to run as of when 'an authority on the subject confirmed the wrong suffered by or done to the plaintiff".

51. At the conclusion of the hearing HH Justice Rimer announced that he was to refer to the precedent cases both parties relied upon and to the notes he made, also to the bundle of documents lodged at court before delivering Judgement. I was given to understand that it was implied that judgement would be delivered later in writing. The person from human-rights clarified that judgement had to be delivered in open court. HH Justice Rimer, in fact, proceeded to stipulate that the parties would have to appear before him early in the morning on the Friday, the last day he was sitting at the Royal Court of Justice for the vacation period.

52. I attended Court, early Friday morning, with my litigation friend. I was shocked to hear that his HH was dismissing my claim and endorsing the solicitor's application. The judgement I looked upon as in contempt of the facts and the evidence in the bundle of documents perused during the hearing and cross-examination. His honour also elected to ignore the intimidation, the coercion and even the threats bordering on black mail that had been established in so far as witnesses attending the hearing could recognise and ascertain. The submitted documented evidence established and support my claims.

53. I telephoned Mr Yiannides of the human-rights non-governmental organisation, who attended 3 of the hearings, including the preliminary hearing. Like me, he was shocked. He recommended that I should apply immediately for a transcript of the judgement deliberations and to serve notice of appeal. He emphasised that the transcript was crucial and that I should make it clear that it was essential for the purpose of the appeal and to instruct solicitors who would be retained for that purpose.

54. As an assisted person I qualified for the issue of the transcript at public expense. I was faced with obstructions and delays before the transcript was made available to me. When the transcript was ready for me to collect, from the transcribers, Mr Yiannides attended me and I was able with his assistance to lodge the essential appeal, as settled by human- rights, within time. More obstructions and delays followed and extensive communications were necessary in order to challenge attempts to dismiss my appeal on technicalities 'created with intent by others'.

55. Because of a very clear conflict in the judgement deliberations it was crucial that I should secure a transcript of the hearing for the purposes of my appeal. This was essential even though HH Justice Rimer determined that the agreement presented to the Judge, for approval by court, as settled by the legal teams, was imposed on me without input from the court. Nonetheless, in the actual judgement delivered by HH the words used were "no undue influence" which to me, and to those present at the hearing, indicated "just reasons to justify the judgement entered", albeit without reference to any of the facts supported by the extensive documented evidence.

56. Leave to Appeal the judgement was refused and HH Justice Rimer gave as reasons the opinion that "an appeal was not likely to succeed". In the light of the aforesaid reasons it became most important that I should secure a transcript of the whole hearing before HH Justice Rimer.

57. I was being denied the right to the full transcript of the hearing before HH Justice Rimer, this time by the court staff. HH Justice Rimer elected to block my right to appeal through his refusal and reasons for refusal. Up to the moment of dismissal of my Claim and the subsequent obstructions by the court I had been under the impression that the right to appeal was an automatic right for persons who not only believed but also had evidence to prove they had been wronged. I therefore considered the obstructions to my need to refer my grievances to a higher court as deliberate obstructions in order to deny me access "to unhindered access to court and to unadulterated Justice". The denial and obstructions to a full transcript of the hearing, and the obstructions by many in the matter of securing a hearing date for the purposes of my needs and "Leave to Appeal" I regarded also as intentional and deliberate. In the circumstances I was advised to apply to the Court of Appeal for an Order in order to secure the transcript that would support my appeal and establish also that the documented evidence had been referred to, on the relevant day. The issue covered in the deliberations of HH Justice Rimer relative to "imposed" agreement was well founded and his HH Justice Rimer did not fail to recognise it.

58. Extensive communications exchanged with the Civil Appeal Office resulted with an invitation to the court. The letter informing me of the time and place was clearly endorsed with the fact that I was to attend court for the purpose of my application for a transcript of the whole of the hearing before HH Justice Rimer.

59. I prepared an affidavit and exhibits, which I delivered to the court, as my statement of facts and argument, on the day. I attended court with Mr Yiannides who had been assisting me ever since the preliminary hearing. On arrival, we found out that the case had been transferred to another court and was to be heard by another Judge than the judge it had been assigned to, as listed and published for the day. We were expecting my daughter to attend the hearing and a litigation friend. Mr Yiannides went to request of the information service, at the entrance to the court, to inform visitors, who seek assistance of and about the change of venue and to direct anyone enquiring about my case to the new venue.

60. Another case was in progress when we entered the court and we waited for my case to be called. When Mr Yiannides, my Litigation Friend, and I proceeded to our places at the applicant's area, the court usher came over to us and we informed the court that I was being assisted by a Litigation Friend, for the purposes of my application. I repeated my statement and I requested of LJ Aldous to acknowledge my statement and rights to assistance. I was flatly told that HL had read my affidavit and perused the exhibits attached. He then informed me that I was to deal with my case alone, and that my Litigation Friend was not to take part in the proceedings. At that juncture the court usher, who was standing by, physically removed my Litigation Friend from the bench where he had been standing, next to me. The usher told Mr Yiannides that her instructions from His Lordships were clear "you either sit in the back, as a visitor, or you are ejected from the court altogether". As I did not know of any way to address or challenge the developments and as my Litigation Friend was not given any leave to address the court, my Litigation Friend proceeded to seat at the back, I was then left alone to deal with my application.

61. His Lordship having informed me that he had read the affidavit and the attached exhibits, had given the impression that the court was to deal with my application for the transcript. The letter inviting me to the hearing clearly covered that issue only. It was not to be the case, however. His Lordship simply ignored my application and the letter inviting me to the court for the day and proceeded simply to dismiss the Leave to Appeal and pronounced an order to that effect. I gave notice of my intention to Appeal to a full panel of the court. I needed for a full panel of the court of Appeal to hear my Appeal and to endorse, if their Lordships so determine the activities and wrongdoing that I had been subjected to. I asked of the associate to ensure that the court's order should be forward as soon as possible, without delays as it would be needed for my purposes.

62. There followed extensive communications for and in respect of my right to an appeal proper before full panel of the Court of Appeal and the need for issue of the transcript, of the preliminary hearing, prior to the hearing of my Appeal. The evidence establishing the conclusive and clear "imposed" settlement agreement that I was caused to sign as stated herein and in the course of all court appearances. Whereas the Court of Appeal, staff, were hastening to post and cause to be delivered an order that was not in conformity with the purposes of the invitation to the court on 20th December 2001, they were denying me my rights to unhindered access to Justice.

63. Further exchanges with the Civil Appeals Office and a request for the right to petition the Judicial Section of the House of Lords resulted with an Order dated 16th January 2002 stipulating and qualifying that the application to Petition the House of Lords was dismissed.

page - 4 - of the application

III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS.

15.

Article 6.

(a) Lack of impartiality at and in the conduct of the courts' business.

(b) No fair hearing and contempt of and for the documented evidence lodged at court and perused at the hearing before HH Justice Rimer.

(c) Contempt for the right to assistance by a person of the Petitioner's choice for the purposes of a Court hearing, and in particular when attending the invitation for one specific application only to be railroaded and hijacked for other aims.

Article 2.

Contempt for the right to life within the law as the Petitioner planned and is entitled to. Impositions by third parties, the legal professions, as the courts acquiesce and endorse. Impositions whereby, the Petitioner (citizen) spent her time / life researching law and chasing Justice that was denied to the Petitioner, through the practices and the facts stated, with the consequential abduction of her life, arising out of and attached to the need for the Petition. Abduction of life - wasted as herein below covered under Article 4.

Article 3.

Inhuman and Degrading impositions through the courts that systematically deny and obstruct rights, in national and international law assured, such as the fraudulent invitation to the court for a specific application as stated and covered in letters exchanged with the court. Thereat to obstruct the right of the Petitioner to assistance by and from a person of the Petitioner's choice, and then proceeding with the issue of an order that bore no semblance to the purpose for the attendance at the court.

Article 4.

Impositions leading to forced labour due to and arising out of the practices within the legal circles and the courts that were/are acquiesced and endorsed through the facts stated and arising out of the need to lodge this Petition. The Courts consciously acquiescing and endorsing forced labour through and because of the need for the Petitioner to labour over volumes of legal books and records, such as precedent case archives and statutes, in order to challenge the wrongs imposed by the legal circles on the Petitioner, which facts no diligent person could ignore and or overlook.

Article 8.

Violations to proper family relationships through impositions and manipulation of the legal and courts processes / system and services. Locking the Petitioner in never ending court presentations because of and through defaults and omissions, by the courts, to address the issues raised, presented and brought to the attention of the courts' attention, and proven at court as in the instance at hand when HH Justice Rimer acted in contempt of his own observation and finding and proceeded to sanction an Order presented to the court by the offending legal circles and practitioners.

Article 14.

Discrimination on racial and sexual grounds, as evinced by the manner in which the petitioner was treated throughout and in particular through the endorsement, by the court in February 1994, of the 'settlement agreement' the legal circles imposed on the Petitioner. The court and Judge consciously sanctioning an unnatural lifestyle on the Petitioner in contrast to the rights the husband of the Petitioner, an Englishman was already 'entitled to' and was to carry on benefiting from while the Petitioner was relegated to a presumed housekeeper with no human rights. The Petitioner treated as a servant to raise the child of the marriage on her own with no financial support or input from the father as the reckless attitude of all, and in particular the agents and staff of the Child Support Agency established over the years 1994 to 2002, through and because of reliance on alleged legitimate 'judicious rulings and orders'. Also on grounds of property ownership targeted by the legal circles for conversion through the practices appealed.

Article 1. Protocol 1.

Theft and transfer of assets and properties through abuse of the courts' processes in contempt of the provisions for impartiality and the standards set for the judicial processes in both national and international law, in the course of court proceedings.

Article 13.

Contempt of the provision of and for a national body and authority to investigate and address, issues arising out of wrong doing and misconduct by persons acting in an official capacity. Contempt for the law and the evidence, as established in the court of first instance where the hearing of the arguments and the documented evidence was also adduced and perused. Contempt for the law because of reliance on the lack of the provision in matters pertaining to 'judicial' duties, albeit conducted as in the stated facts attached to this Petition.

page - 5 - of the application

STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ARTICLE 35 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

16. Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

High Court Preliminary Hearing on issues resting on documented evidence.

The ORDER eventually issued by the court, on 12th November 2001, as prepared and endorsed by the solicitors representing the defending solicitors, for HH Mr Justice Rimer to approve, evincing belated date and elements approved ad nauseum by HH Mr Justice Rimer. Attached to the Order are the reasons that HH Mr Justice Rimer gave for denying Leave to Appeal his Order dismissing my claim against the Defending solicitors.

(Hearing 7th September 2002 - ORDER 12 November 2001.

17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them).

(b) The ORDER of Lord Justice Aldous, dated 20th December 2001, issued consequential to the invitation to the court for an explicit application for the transcript of the hearing before HH Mr Justice Rimer, only to be railroaded into another venue and thereat to be denied assistance by a person of my choice and to be forwarded this ORDER dismissing my appeal.

(Court of Appeal, 20th December 2001)

18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.

ORDER of Lord Justice Aldous dated 11th January 2002 thereby confirming end of the road in the United Kingdom and establishing that the lower courts can obstruct the right to Appeal their decisions without question and or supervision. Attached to the ORDER is copy of the envelope exhibiting date of posting, second class, on 16th January 2002.

(Ruling resting on New Rules . ORDER dated 11 January 2002 by Court of Appeal).

page - 6 - of application

V. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION AND PROVISIONAL CLAIMS FOR JUST SATISFACTION.

19.

The Courts in the United Kingdom consciously endorsed unconscionable bargains imposed on me by my solicitors. No other solicitor offered to address the wrongs, through the courts in order to redress the situation. The fact is that another Statutory Authority, the Child Support Agency, were party to downright denial of rights. Its officers and agents ignored me and my rights from the onset just as HH Justice Rimer did by denying me the right to an impartial ruling on the issues presented and proven to the court,. The aforesaid facts establish intent, from the onset and institutionalised wrongdoing. The defaults and blunt denials, lead to a full claim for all damages, imposed buy the solicitors, endorsed and acquiesced by the courts through failures to consider and address the documented evidence. Claims also arise in respect of all consequential losses, in addition to damages because of lack of amenities that would have been available to my child and I, had the wrongdoers attended to my rights at and in law properly. Damages also arising out of the theft of my rights to a life as I planned and should have been able to enjoy had the wrongs imposed on me not been permitted to evolve and propagate through the courts.

19.a.

HH Justice Rimer expressed presumed and or personal beliefs when delivering judgement. The Applicant / Petitioner would appreciate evidence upon which reliance was placed in order to surmise the Petitioner was/is a person qualified / well versed in the English language and specifically in law.

19.b.

The Applicant / Petitioner would also appreciate copies of any evidence before the court that established any member of the legal professions / practitioner, solicitor or barrister, ever offered to petition any court in the United Kingdom, for the purposes of a review by a competent judge, not the person who consciously acquiesced an imposed unnatural life style for the Petitioner, by endorsing the 'settlement agreement' that was hatched up by the solicitors / legal professionals & for endorsement by the court in 1994.

...

FOOTNOTES
   Footnote eXtra: Visitors/readers are urged to read first 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 page where we reproduce the article and the letter that caused the Home Secretary to act as he did at the time]. ALL doubting Thomas's are invited to access copy of a letter that had been sent to the Home Secretary, earlier, 'in order to prepare the ground / hone the knife intended for the legal circles. The Home Secretary obliged care of the publicity that had been ongoing for some time about the judiciary 'failing the citizens' when sentencing hard core criminals]. While at the first link-to page, read the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. above the Evening Standard article. Accessing the material pointed to from the letter to the MP, (the URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the citizen's rights at work', when the rights ARE USED (used clearly founded and resting on the EXPOSURES and the4 publicity created through the exposures )called upon properly in a democratic state. 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. Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998 [*Link from here to the page where we publish the letter and note the government's immediate action] and note the results as 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 that Andrew knows of; all acting as sold souls always do [*Link ].
    1.    xxx  

Link to:   Lord Chancellor's Dpt.    Judges Schooled on racial issues