famfraud.htm  Page KEY

Family FRAUD & Created Impostors * Page created 23 April 2008 *

Victims of the legal circles, the courts and the police, also readers & researchers, who have as yet to access the extract from a solicitor to client and the letter from one solicitor to another should follow the links from the footnote below after acquanting themselves with the content of this page. The hand-written endorsement on the document below, was called for after a solicitor and his agent (a barrister) failed to file the affidavit, which affidavit all victims should read and familiarise themselves with the practice of the system's operatives who use greed & morons leading to the creation of fraudsters as the scenarios in our pages cover. All serious researchers and readres of law / legal systems, IF CONCERNED about the states of affairs and why so many dignitaries for centuries / millennia spoke and wrote of the legal circles in the way they did, should also acquaint themselves with the realities covered in the affidavit, this page and the material linked to. (*F1).

• The image on the right is of the first page of the affidavit published in HTML text below, for links to and from the content. The need arose to seek permission from a Master at the Royal Court of Justice to file the affidavit because a solicitor who was handed the original, which he passed on to a Barrister he instructed & retained for the first hearing of the case instituted by the Plaintiff, in person, before instructing the solicitor, CONVENIENTLY FAILED TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT AT COURT, even though part of the pleadings upon which the foundations FOR THE CLAIM & THE ORDER SOUGHT FROM THE COURT, RESTED.
• Visitors who read Terence Frisby's work, "Outrageous Fortune", where he relates his 14 years saga & tribulations as a vicrim of the legal circles and the courts, should be in a position to conclude accordingly as to the miracle of vanishing documents and the suppression of relevant evidence, care of the legal circles, including the courts.
• JUDITH WARD, spent 18 years in prison care of Counsel for the prosecution & the police who SUPPRESSED MATERIAL FACTS & EVIDENCE, from the Court & WITHHELD SUCH FROM THE LEGAL TEAM OF THE ACCUSED PERSON, and as a reasult she did not benefit from a life of her own choice, in violation of Aricle 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as far as we are concerned. (*F3)
•  

The image below, with Mr. Yiannides' compliments to Mr. Johan M. R. Foenander, the convert to, user & maintenance engineer of the arrangements and facilities for rampant fraud on the sucker-serfs / taxpayers  through abuse of the Courts' facilities. [*Link to proof / evidence]

.

The use of Legal Aid Certificates through which to convert targeted assets to allegedly legitimate legal costs, as the two firms of solicitors indulged in the instance at hand, assisted also as they were by abusers of the courts facilities, in their quest for fraudulent conversion of the funds owing to the targeted 'serf', was and remains a typical example of HOW THE SERFS ARE DEFRAUDED OF MUCH MORE THAN ASSETS & FUNDS BY PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY serve Parliament's Law and the assured in law rights of the ill-educated and the conditioned, through fraudulent misrepresentations, taxpayers; the citizens who foot the cost for the maintenance of criminals in public office. The afore-stated realities with our  complements to Mr Colin Peters of Bradford whose assertions in respect of allegedly wasted Legal Aid funds in his case / claim against a used person (as the tenants were being used in the case covered & pointed to in the letter above) persistently ignored and overlooked the fact that Legal Aid support is paid for through recovery of funds awarded to the assisted person.... and when one of the assisted persons has no chance of any judgement in his / her favour the other party HAS TO LOOSE & ORDERED TO MEET THE COSTS as we gathered were the scenarios in Mr Colin Peters' case; we stand to be corrected on the last issue, because Mr Colin Peters very conveniently failed to support his statements and assertions to us, and he failed to release a statement proper in the public domain, after he joined the Community on Line. Over the years we have known of his complaints about the courts service, for no known to us reason, with the exception that for years he was qualifying to one and all that he was / is the Northern co-ordinator of the activities of the LIPS crowd/mob.

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

The image of the order on the right EVINCES THE FACT that as soon as a victim of the legal circles & bluntly abused court facilities, used his rights to PUBLISH & EXPOSE the offending Public Servants who abused the facilities of the courts for Constructive Frauds and CONVERSION OF ASSETS & PROPERTIES TO THE LEGAL CIRCLES, they acted. (*F3)

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

I ANDREW YIANNIDES of 65 Abbott’s Park Road in the Borough of Waltham Forest London, Designer / Technologist Consultant in Clothing Manufacturing MAKE OATH and say as follows: -

Page2

1.      Save where otherwise expressed I depose to the facts set out in this my affidavit from my own knowledge and from documents which I perused, were and or I have in my possession.

2.      I am the Plaintiff in this action and the eldest brother of the First Defendant. The two Defendants have not co-habited for over five years now, and are not divorced.

3.      On 15th August 1992 my younger sister delivered a letter to me from our younger brother Constantine K Joannides, the First Defendant in this action. The said letter which is dated 16th August 1992 appears on pages 1 and 2 of the Exhibit attached to this affidavit marked "A.Y.l" which is now produced before me. With the said letter the First Defendant submitted to me a letter dated 18th June 1982 from the Building Society’s solicitors; the latter exhibited signs of lengthy handling and a true copy of this appears on page 3 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.l". In his own letter the First Defendant made explicit admissions about himself as regards his abilities and frame of mind. He also refers to an outstanding loan account liability of the Defendants to me, and because at that particular time the Defendants’ matrimonial home and only asset was to be repossessed by the building Society he wished for me to safeguard my interests, as well as his.

4.      That very day, Sunday 15th August 1992, I arranged for a meeting at our youngest brother’s house in whose presence the

Page3

First Defendant related to us the circumstances under which he went to live with our mother over two years earlier. My mother informed others at the time, and repeated to me recently, that the Defendants’ son, her grandson, defiantly told her then, "You look after him, you gave birth to him, we don’t care". Apparently the Defendants’ house had been badly damaged whilst he was hospitalised for mental disorders and the damage rendered it uninhabitable, so, our mother had no option but to take the First Defendant on board. My youngest brother, privately, informed me also that the First Defendant has made our mother’s life living hell since she took him in. I was not aware of all these because on 7th July 1988 I had no option but to write to the First Defendant an explicit letter which I posted Recorded Delivery on 11th July 1988. Therein I commented on the Defendants’ matrimonial problems and how I had kept my distance; also of the Defendants’ continued failures to sort out and account for stock which was supplied by me on a Sale Or Return basis. In the said letter I also informed him that I had been made aware of the serious allegations he had been spreading about my person. True copy of the said letter appears on pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1". Our youngest brother explained to me that because of my stance through my aforesaid letter to the First Defendant, the contents of which the First Defendant repeatedly referred to other family members, no member of the family wished to contact me with any of the problems our mother had been facing, especially since I had stated I would

Page4

cease visiting our mother if the First Defendant was to take up residence with her.

5.      In the course of the aforementioned meeting at our youngest brother’s house the First Defendant produced a calling card from a firm of solicitors which was endorsed with the date 27/8/92 and the time 12.30 when the First Defendant was to see a solicitor in respect of divorce proceedings; true copy of the said calling card appears on page 9 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.l". The First Defendant assured me and our youngest brother that he definitely had made up his mind to shed his innermost Christian beliefs because of what his wife, the Second Defendant, had put him through. I enquired of the First Defendant to state what steps the Second Defendant had taken to stop repossession by the Building Society and if he had any documents relevant to a High Court hearing which was to be heard within days. He had none; eventually he declared "I am a non entity", "I do not exist for anybody, DHSS, Social Services, the Banks, the Doctors, don’t you understand, I have no rights, I am Certified". He then informed me that over a long period and in fact since 1987 when the Second Defendant walked out of the house, (the mortgage of which he alleged he was meeting throughout on his own) the Second Defendant and their children had repeatedly demanded for him to transfer his interest to either or both of the Defendants children or in a trust. He stated also that throughout he had stipulated to them on many occasions that he might consider their

Page5

suggestions of a trust provided they attended to their liabilities to me and they themselves begun to meet the mortgage repayments. He said they did not wish to know of such matters, all they were interested in was benefit not liabilities. No mortgage repayments no loan account settlements, nothing. In the evening at home I wrote a letter to the First Defendant and a letter to the building society’s solicitors; copy of the former appears on pages 10 and 11 and of the latter on pages 12, 13, and 14 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1".

6.      On I~^1~nday the 17th August 1992 I telephoned the Building Society’s solicitors to enquire if that morning’s fax transmission was received. They confirmed. I had faxed my letter of 16th to them, also copies of my letter of 16th August 1992 to the First Defendant and copy of the First Defendant’s letter dated 15th August 1992 wherein he requested of me and authorised me to take over because he did not wish for his wife, as the next of kin of a Certified person to act for him in any way particularly, since she had played her part in bringing about the repossession and sale of the house. On the same day I posted the same documents using the Recorded Delivery and A/D postal services. Proof of delivery reached me on 20th August 1992. (True copies of the said documents appear on pages 12 – 13 - 14, 10 - 11 and 1 - 2 respectively of the exhibit "A.Y.1")

7.      On Monday the 17th August 1992, from our youngest brother’s

Page6

office, I telephoned also the solicitors Derek Altridge & Co who confirmed the appointment of 27th August 1992. They stated then that they had received a lengthy letter from the First Defendant and they were inclined not to take his case on. However, after explaining to them that I would go along with him and that the matter would be contained simply to the matrimonial issues, they kept the appointment open. I then asked the First Defendant to furnish me with any documents he could find regarding proceedings which his wife had started at Bow County Court soon after she walked out in 1987. He had none. I suggested he visited Bow County Court for copies of any documents and the First Defendant accompanied by my younger sister attended Bow County Court the following day in fruitless efforts to secure copies of any documents from the public records. They were unable to do so because he had no record of the case number anywhere owing to the break-ins at his house. My concern at the time was to find out if there had been any Court Orders in respect of the house and or any consent agreements between the two Defendants filed at Bow County Court. In fact the First Defendant proclaimed to me recently that the action at Bow County Court was instigated by the Second Defendant simply so that she could secure accommodation from the local authority and that there had been no further activity whatsoever at Bow County Court.

8.      The Building Society’s solicitors failed to respond to my letter of 15th August 1992. My letter of 17th August 1992 to the

Page7

Second Defendant (pages 15 – 16 of the exhibit "A.Y.1") posted Recorded delivery was ignored, even though the First included the First Defendant’s letter to me of 15th August.

9.      My youngest brother’s solicitors on instructions from us wrote to the firms of solicitors acting for the Building Society and the Second Defendant. The solicitors acting for the building Society responded and stated their clients had entered into peaceful possession under their power of sale 11 days before the scheduled High Court Hearing. My youngest brother’s solicitors told us that more than likely it was authorised by the other borrower. It appeared that the Second Defendant, the next of kin of a Certified person was taking liberties as in the past. Copies of the correspondence exchanged between my younger brother’s solicitors and the building society’s solicitors appear on pages 17 through to 21 of the exhibit "A.Y.l".

10.      I wrote again to the Second Defendant on 25th August 1992. Again she defaulted to respond to a recorded delivery communication. Copy of that letter appears on pages 22 - 23 of the exhibit "A.Y.l".

11.      On Sunday 24th January 1992 my youngest brother, Savvas Joannides, telephoned me and asked to meet me at our mother’s house because he received copies of communications from his solicitors intended for the First Defendant. These appear on

Page8

pages 24 and 25 of the exhibit "A. Y. l". Page 25, the letter from the firm of solicitors acting for the Second Defendant states that the Second Defendant desires to receive 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the house. I asked the First Defendant, in the presence of our youngest brother and mother, to write to the solicitors and instruct them and demand of the Second Defendant to arrange for a meeting with me so that we could discuss their long outstanding liability, the loan account, and to request that I receive a copy of such a letter. I also told him that it appeared to me the Second Defendant’s solicitors were overlooking the fact the property was sold at a reduced price because she had defaulted to accept the offer made to the Second Defendant in the letters of 17th August 1992; and in the absence of any agreement between the two Defendants that only the First Defendant would meet the mortgage repayments, she should receive a lesser amount from the funds held by the building society’s solicitors. I also told him that it would be in his interests to invite the Second Defendant to attend to their joint liabilities to me because I would have no alternative but to institute Legal Proceedings. I told him that I would wait only for one week before writing myself to his wife and her solicitors, and if he had not done as I asked, I would institute proceedings not only in respect of the loan account but also in respect of the damages he caused me through the loss of a position, which he said he had done deliberately at the time because, his wife had caused him the loss of his position through a secret bank account. He said he

Page9

wanted me to see what it was like.

12.      The First Defendant failed to act within the time limit I specified. On 2nd February 1993 I wrote a letter to the Second Defendant and the following day I visited the First Defendant at my mother’s where I read to him the letter I wrote to the Second Defendant; (pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the exhibit "A.Y.1"). The First Defendant stated that he had written many letters and all were ignored. I asked him for any copies relevant to the issue at hand, he produced none. I then told him that he left me with no option but to institute Legal Proceedings for the moneys the two Defendants owe me and to seek redress through the Courts for the damages he had caused me deliberately with the lies he had been brandishing about my person before he was Certified and after he had lost his position at Banking Automated Clearing Services, where he had held a position of trust (processing bank accounts as computer operator).

13.      Throughout August and September 1992 I tried my best to help the First Defendant to prepare a Statement of facts relative to his life with the Second Defendant. Throughout he was argumentative, rude, vulgar and impossible to work with. I myself was aware and had first hand knowledge of some of the problems he had to face, the most crucial being the matter of the Second Defendant’s secret bank account which gave reason to the manager at work to brand the First Defendant dishonest and a crook after

Page10

the Inland Revenue had informed his employers that the First Defendant failed to declare in his Tax Returns interest earned on moneys in a hank deposit account. When the First Defendant was eventually informed that the hank account was not in his but in his wife’s name, the First Defendant confronted her with that disclosure and she categorically denied knowledge of such an account. The First Defendant even accepted assertions by the Second Defendant that the alleged account probability belonged to the youngest brother whose initial S is the same as the Second Defendant’s. Thereafter the First Defendant accepted her word and went on accusing our youngest brother as the holder of that account because both banked at the same bank and branch. It was not until and after his letter to me, dated 15th August 1992, that the First Defendant, declared and admitted for the first time to any member of our immediate family that his wife was behind the said bank account. He also stated that she even met Tax Demands without ever disclosing them to him. He has also been blaming every person in the Family as the mentor of the Second Defendant; also one and all have been accused of aiding and abetting her, including myself, their victim, who for over 15 years has been watching him deteriorate and even though I have had to go through very difficult times I never once until now contemplated legal action for the money they owe me.

14.      Throughout the last 9 years I have done my best through letters to the medical Council. and the hospital where he was

Page11

hospitalised in 1990, the Social Services who failed him and all to no avail. The First Defendant is my brother and I feel for him. I cannot stand by and watch the second Defendant demand her share of the proceeds from the sale of the house and let her ignore their liabilities to me. Worse still I cannot allow the state of mind of the First Defendant to deteriorate because of the Second Defendant’s manipulations of the system and the situation. Even worse I can no longer tolerate the malicious lies the First Defendant asserts about everybody in the family let alone my person.

15.      In the interest of Justice both to myself and to my brother (the First Defendant) I request of this Honourable Court an Order Ordering the Solicitors for the Building Society not to release any moneys to either Defendant until such time as the First Defendant has received medical treatment and is declared sane and capable of dealing with his affairs properly. A hearing proper, of my claim against the two Defendants could be conducted as and when the First Defendant’s mental condition improves. Furthermore solicitors could then accept him as their client and he might then be able to give clear instructions in respect of the matrimonial issues between the two Defendants and all the family can have some peace, if and when Justice prevails in respect of the issues that drove him to the condition he is in.

16.      In support of my claim against the Defendants I produce true

Page12

copy of a cheque book stub, page 31 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.l". This is endorsed with the trading name of the Defendant’s boutique and the fact that the outgoing funds from my account were to he added to the loan account, C. Joannides. In my letter of 2nd February 1993, to the Second Defendant, I raised the issue of the said purchases and invoices because the First Defendant asserted to me last August that he signed cheques for his wife to meet "The Greek Connection Ltd" invoices. I submit also true copy of a delivery slip signed by the Second Defendant which relates but to one of a number of deliveries and exhibits for how long the Plaintiff has been sitting in the sidelines helpless because of family ties and torn at seeing the First Defendant being destroyed and or destroying himself whilst my religious beliefs and principles would not permit me to interfere until now because I did not wish to be the cause of the marriage break up.

17.      I issued the Writ out of the Central office in the High Court in the afternoon of 8th February 1893. I endorsed the Writ with a demand that both Defendants give undertakings, through their solicitors, not to apply for the release of the funds held by the solicitors of the Building Society. The Second Defendant was served with a copy of the Writ in the evening of 8th February 1993 at her place of residence in the presence of her daughter Nicola. On 8th February I faxed a letter and the writ to the solicitors acting for the Second Defendant. They did not respond.

Page13

I also faxed a letter and the writ to the building Society’s solicitors; they also failed to respond. I had to act quickly in order to prove to the Second Defendant that I was serious in demanding satisfaction. Even though I had myself failed to indoors the writ with the fact that it was issued out of Central office, and the clerk had not sealed all the pages and any of the amendments and alterations I proceeded to serve the Writ on the Second Defendant for the reasons stated above. Serving the Writ on the First Defendant would be a useless exercise because of his mental state and would only lead him to cause hell to my mother.

18.      As a matter of urgency I seek an Order ordering Whittingdales, solicitors for the Chelsea Building Society, not to release any moneys to either of the Defendants until such time as the Hearing of this action because they are very much aware of the mental condition of the First Defendant. I will in the meantime prepare a typewritten Writ and seek leave from a Master to re-issue on amendment because I also failed to include claim for interest on the moneys due and the necessary wording "damages to be assessed" arising out of the fact that I was dismissed from work because of the First Defendant’s lies at a time when, to my knowledge, the First Defendant was not Certified and the Second Defendant failed to come forward and refute the allegations which she full well knew to be untrue. I will then re-serve the amended Writ on both the Defendants. I will in the meantime apply to the Hospital where the First Defendant had been hospitalised and seek

Page14

a Certificate from them in respect of his mental state and as to his ability, or not, to deal with his own affairs; if the latter proves to be the case and the Second Defendant is still hell bent on abusing the system and fails to come forward to agree settlement of the Defendants joint liabilities to me, then I will contact the Public Trustees and refer his case to them. My youngest brother’s solicitors, put themselves initially on record in order to repeat the offer made to and ignored by the Second Defendant and her solicitors. The First Defendant is in no position to give proper instructions to any solicitor and he is in need of Medical Treatment for his Mental Condition. I respectfully request that the Order sought be granted.

..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

CENTRAL OFFICE No.1993 – Y - 188

BETWEEN

MR. ANDREW YIANNIDES

AND

MR. CONSTANTINE K JOANNIDES

FIRST DEFENDANT

SECOND DEFENDANT

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

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

...…………………………… 1993

FOOTNOTE:-
Footnote eXtra: In October 2010, the coalition's Attorney General, in an interview published by 'COUNSEL' specifically spoke of the police distancing themselves from cases of (small-fry) fraud and asserted that he was making that element his department's priority. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, WHAT the coalition of the Con-LibDems, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY, WILL IN FACT ATTEND TO THE RAMPANT FRAUD. IF IT WILL DEAL APPROPRIATELY with the criminals who abuse public office, especially when faced with appropriate submissions and claims that will be delivered in due course. Visitors/readers are urged to read the article published in the London Evening Standard, as settled by the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Home Secretary in 2003 [*Link from here to the article we reproduce in another webpage and consider "Why tolerate the arrogance of the legal circles who had and have the audacity to assert to the lawmakers that the lawmakers have nothing to do with the law"]. While there, above it, the explicit letter to ex-Minister, the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, delivered a few days earlier. ALL alleged victim-challengers who contacted Andrew Yiannides, by the time the letter was sent to the Minister, received copy of the letter just as they received copies of other letters submitted to government maintained Ministers and other official appointees to public office. Accessing the material pointed to from the letter (URLs) is of utmost importance. It should assist 'recognition of the citizen's rights at work', when called upon properly in truly democratic states. The above in 2003; there were other 'submissions' and among such civilised and, within the law, approaches by citizens that led to the right actions by governments, the explicit challenges when we set about exposing one of the most evil of alleged victims of the legal circles to have ever contacted us [*Link to our explicit submissions to (a)  the Prime Minister, (b) the Chancellor / Treasury, (c) the Home Secretary. WE acted so after we had secured more than enough evidence about the parts of an alleged victim whose only interests were (i) the rewards under the table FOR KEEPING QUIET about the ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES and (ii) her parts in blunt attempts that were intended to discredit the person she was sent along to mess about with, Mr Andrew Yiannides]. Access please the letter to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, in December 1998 [*Link* [*L] from here to the letter] and note the results evinced in the newspaper article (Hornsey Journal) also within days of the letter reaching its destination. Many the charlatans and stooges -lovers and 'promoters of the system as is'- on the job for decades; one and all acting as sold souls always do [*Link [*L] from here to the evidence we point to relative to the parts of one of a number of sold to the system fraudsters who were sent along / introduced to Andrew Yiannides by the managers / organisers of the LIPS crowd / mob].
    1.   *Link from here to the page where we publish - released in the public domain - an extract from a letter a solicitor wrote to a client, addressing at the time issues born of the practices the legal circles indulge in, with judicial chair occupants party to the fraudulent in intent, criminal activities. Needless to say the criminal activities are endorsed, acquiesced, often instigated by police officers with the blessings of one and all from within the Home Office - the Government department in command of the police; in respect of the issue of police contribution we urge all readers / visitors to access from here a short and explicit letter when the activities of law enforcement agents were addressed appropriately and as the the law covers & provides; the letter was called for when officers of the Crown Prosecution Service arrogantly were acting in conemrtpt of the rights of citizens who had been victims of wrongdoing by police officers. All were n oted to be acting in contempt of the law and in breasch of their duties to the public, the tax payers, who meet the salaries of one and all through taxes. *Link also from here to an extract from the letter one solicitor wrote to another solicitor; the latter wrote to the former offering to make good the damages the latter had caused to a client who was repersented at the time by the former. One and all should take on board the loud enough message we convey through our observations and comments born of the activities behind the letter, which we cover in an exclusive page. Read there of the parts alleged servants of the public and the law, arrogantly, engaged and engage in, One and all simply acted and act in contempt of the law and in line with the plans of the criminals who have been and are in control of the lives of 'the serfs' / 'the sons of men on planet earth', as planned for and created by the followers of the teachings by examples stated in the most vile of works ever to have been presented to mankind. *Link also from here to the page where we publish an extract from the Old Testament and consider the alternative lesson by examples stated in the works of Aesop, whose passing preceded, by a few centuries, the introduction of the Old Testament by the creators of the alleged creator of all and everything. *Link also from here to the page where we released a House of Lords ruling relevant to the parts and duties of solicitors, as Officers of the Supreme Court. At the time their Lordships deliberated on issues we relate and point to in the last line of the paragraph below, in bold type.
    2.    *Link from here to the page where we publish evidence in respect of the arrangements and facilities in place, for arrogantly organised constructive fraud on the citizens through abuse of the courts facilities in pseudo-democracies. *Link also, from here to an extract from 'The Brotherhood', resting on extensive research by the late Stephen Knight. The extract covers also the parts of Local Authority officers, staff and workers, also mainstream services, such as telephone and banks, when 'the serfs', are targeted by abusers of judicial chair occupation issue FALSE INSTRUMENTS that lack accountability by the very authors who simply act in contempt of the law. *Link also from here to Legal Arguments and Legal Brief, founded and resting on Acts of Parliament, explicit provisions in law in respect of and applicable to the use and issue of any instrument (such as a Court Order) that lacks accountability by the author who was made / SHOULD BE AWARE of any law that applies to activities intended to defraud any citizen in the United Kingdom, as Parliament enacted. *Link also from here to a House of Lords ruling when their Lordships were called upon to apply themselves to ACTS & FAILINGS by solicitors and in their deliberations they clarified the law in respect of (a) conspiracy, (b) dishonesty, (c) lies, (d) deception, (e) failure to act leading to the imposition of any wrong on third parties, (f) suppression xxx
    3.    *Link from here to the page where we reproduce the headlines from the Daily Mirror after the release of the wronged Judith Ward, made the headlines. It is indeed remarkable that all of the newspapers and television editors we have been contacting for years in respect of THE CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS that are ORGANISED BY THE LEGAL CIRCLES WITH ARROGANT PARTICIPATION BY JUDICIAL CHAIR OCCUPANTS, intended to lead to the corruption of the wronged victimsd, care of 'the arragements & conditions we cover & point to in the exclusive page, which LOVERS OF THE RAMPANT FRAUD THROUGH THE ABUSED COURTS' FACILITIES, as converts to the New World Order Code of Ethics, failed to address, irrespective of the evidence and the applicable law. *Link aslo from here to the page where we publish a letter from one victim of the abused courts' facilities to another victim; the author handed a copy to Mr Andrew Yiannides and in the process exposed himself and others, all of whom subsequently proved to have been engaging in arrogant abuse of the courts processes & facilities, in contempt of the law. As one of many *converts to and lovers of the rampant constructive fraud through the courts*, the author of the letter, subsequently engaged in blunt misrepresentations and engaged in plenty of theatrical productions. The author, Mr Johan Michael Richard Foenander and his affiliates, also their associates operating out of ORGANISED GROUPS OF FRAUDSTERS CLUB RECRUITS - who use new victims of the legal circles - FOR MORE OF THE SAME, established beyond any doubt the reasons for their failures to address the issues he wrote of - as part of the smoke screen he and his affiliates created around their parts in the organised fraud through the courts. One and all went about their chosen ways and never addressed the issues covered in the exclusive page where their parts and contributions to the New World Order Code of Ethics are covered and pointed to by Mr. Andrew Yiannides, the creator of this website. *Link also from here to the page where we relate and point to the parts of the very same person as a conscious party to abuse of the courts' facilities, AFTER A CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS WAS STRUCK OUT. The arrogant abuser of trust (while under investigation by the person he was messing about with) simply engaged in an inexcusable application to the High Court without appealing & reversing the strike out,first, thereby seeking to dance with a corpse. The otherwise useless application, naturally, was intended to create benefits for the legal circles through ADDITIONAL COSTS AWARDS TO THE LEGAL CIRCLES, while the arrogant fraudster and his affiliate(s) were of opinion that they had pulled the wool over the eyes of the person who had (for years) been looking into, and researching the abuse of the courts facilities, by persons who engage in fraud aplenty in collaboration with the abusers of the public office and judicial chair occupants.
    4.    xxx
    5.    xxx