Cl 1 ex debito justiciae third party intervention by Andy Goodall

IN THE UNITED NATIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 1984 IN THE MATTER OF THE GLOBAL COMPACT 10TH PRINCIPLE AGAINST CORRUPTION AND THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION (UNCAC) IN THE MATTER OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS ADOPTED BY THE EIGHTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS, HAVANA, CUBA 27TH AUGUST – 7 SEPTEMBER 1990 THE IMPEACHMENT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS QUEEN ELIZABETH II AND TO THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH THE RT. HON THE LORD PHILLPS OF MATRAVERS WORTH, THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (3RD OCTOBER 2005-30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 (1) THE RT. HON. THE LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS, JUSTICE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT (2006 – SEPTEMBER 2013), LORD JUSTICE OF APPEAL AND MEMBER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL (2) AND THE HON. MR JUSTICE HENDERSON, JUSTICE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT (2007 TO DATE) (3) INTER ALIA, FOR THE THEFT OF THE TITLE TO 37-47 STOKE NEWINGTON ROAD LONDON N16 8BJ ,THE THEFT OF THE SHEIKH CHARGE AND FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (‘THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD’) IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS QUEEN ELIZABETH II MADE UNDER THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ACT 1833 s 4 TO REFER MATTERS TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN PARLIAMENT A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY UNDER THE INQUIRIES ACT 2005 JUDICIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY CORRUPTION IN THE UK

INTO

EX DEBITIO JUSTICIAE THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION. A CLASS ACTION

CL 1 PART

INDEX

PAGE

LORD PHILLIPS AND LORD BRIGGS COMMIT THEFT FROM THE BENCH

3-5

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE UK

5-9

THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD

9-11

THE SRA’S BANK SCAM, COMPENSATION FUND FRAUD ETC

12-32

A SIMPLE WAY TO SEE THAT JUDGES STEAL HOMES, LAND AND 32-42 PROPERTY AND DRIVE PEOPLE TO POVERTY, DESPAIR AND TO SUICIDE

DOCUMENTS

GRAPHICS, DIAGRAMS, FLOWCHARTS AND KEY EVIDENCE

42-46

Annex 1 - The complete absence of separation of powers in the 47-48 UK Annex 2 - How rights in rem are stolen by converting them to 49-54 service complaints and how non existing rights are created Annex 3 - The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud

55-78

Annex 4 - Internal emails showing the Chancellor, Sir Andrew 79-83 Morrit CVO (the third most senior judge in the UK) conspiring with Mr Justice Henderson and Mr Justice Norris (two senior judges in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice) to commit a property and mortgage fraud against two members of the public Annex 5 – Diagrams showing Baroness Ruth Deech’s involvement in serious organized fraud and her connections with Lord Beloff, Lord Lester, Lord Woolf and with Blackstone Chambers

84-86

LORD PHILLIPS AND LORD BRIGGS COMMIT THEFT FROM THE BENCH

The Rt. Hon. the Lord Justice Briggs , Justice of the Chancery Division of the High Court (2006 – 2013), Lord Justice of Appeal and Member of the Privy Council and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (2005-2008) and also Member of the Privy Council, have been asked to appear before Parliament to account for their involvement in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, described below. Successive Lord Chief Justices have suppressed the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud from the public, from the Government, from Parliament, from the law enforcement agencies, from other judges, and from the media. An application is made to Parliament and to Her Majesty the Queen to impeach 1 Lord Briggs and Lord Phillips. An application is made to Her Majesty the Queen under the Judicial Committee Act 1833 s 4 to refer the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. (as defined) to the Privy Council. There is an online petition to the Minister of Justice requesting a public inquiry to investigate the use of fraudulent instruments in the courts. The petition can be accessed via the following link http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-fraud-on-the-court-in-the-uk The issues before the Members of the House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council arising from these matters include the following: 1.

Should every court or tribunal proceedings over which Lord Justice Briggs has presided be set aside and declared ab initio void?

Should all civil and criminal court or tribunal proceedings in England and Wales since 30th September 2005 (the date Lord Phillips took up office as Lord Chief Justice ) be set aside and declared ab initio void ?

Alternatively, if the allegations of judicial corruption against Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs are groundless, then the precedents they established by the instruments they created must be good law [PAGE 34 – PAGE 39] Should all relevant findings and judgments in the UK (which are probably all findings and judgments ever made ) be set aside and declared ab initio void on the ground that they were wrong in law

For the law see House of Commons Standard Note SN/PC/02666 by Oonagh Gay and Nerys Davies 1

Should all pending civil and criminal court or tribunal proceedings in England and Wales be stayed while these issues are being determined

Members of the House are also asked to estimate the cost to the public purse of sham or legally non existent proceedings and of the use of court premises to commit fraud. The Victim of fraud, undertaken by the judiciary through the courts, is not only the land or property owner, but the taxpayer who has to foot the cost of sham proceedings (eg. the cost of light, heat, rates, salaries of court officers, administration and the like in the use of court premises) . The cost of the application for registration the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud would have been about £25.00 (twenty five pounds) in a solicitor’s office. I have estimated the cost to the taxpayer of the 9 ‘hearings’ which took place in September and October 2007 in the Red River fraud was £100,000.00. The entire cost of all 200 ‘hearings’ is to the taxpayer is about £10m The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud is only one fraud committed in the civil justice system. Extrapolating from the above statistics, the cost of all of the sham proceedings taken over a 10 year period is £100,108.45 billion.. That money could be used for schools, hospitals, legal aid and for other social welfare. This ex debito justiciae Third Party Intervention is made 1)

by Miss Anal Sheikh, as a party to the purported case of Ismail Dogan and Red River UK Ltd v Anal Sheikh and Rabia Sheikh

by Mrs Rabia Sheikh, as a party to the purported case of Ismail Dogan and Red River UK Ltd v Anal Sheikh and Rabia Sheikh

by Miss Anal Sheikh, as a party to of Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2005] EWHC 1409 (Ch) Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2006] EWCA CIV 1577 Anal Sheikh v UK Government [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010) 51144/07 and Ref 28863/11

by Miss Anal Sheikh, in a representative capacity for all 150,000 solicitors the UK

by Miss Anal Sheikh, having conduct of the case for Tariq Rehman v The Bar Council and others which is the Class Action for Barristers

by Miss Anal Sheikh, in a representative capacity for victims of judicial corruption

by Miss Anal Sheikh, in a representative capacity for

every person in the UK who has entered into a contract or is likely to enter into a contract (Lord Justice Briggs made up 19 different contracts and found they existed)

every company in the UK or every person who is likely to be concerned with, or deal with, a company in the UK ( Lord Justice Briggs, masquerading as a High Court Judge , struck out a winding up petition for an admitted debt within an hour of service and purported to injunct the creditor from ever serving another winding up petition)

every taxpayer

every person who might have an interest in land in the UK

This Third Party Notice is sent in the first instance 1)

to every member of the UK’s judiciary

to every Member of Parliament

to every party in every published case since 30th September 2005 in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, and to every representative of every party

Over the course of time, it will be circulated to UK Government departments, nongovernmental organisations, universities, colleges and other academics institutions, academics, foreign Law Societies and Bar Councils, media outlets and others in the UK and abroad. B

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE UK

Before the 2016 Anti-Corruption summit, David Cameron was caught on camera in discussion with the Queen, describing Nigeria and Afghanistan as “fantastically corrupt countries” and as “two of the most corrupt countries in the world. Speaking recently at the Hay Literary Festival , investigative journalist Roberto Saviano, said : “If I asked what is the most corrupt place on Earth, you might say it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the south of Italy. I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital. Ninety per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore. Jersey and the Caymans are the access gates to criminal capital in Europe and the UK is the country that allows it

The fact is that the UK is engaged in the unlawful and systematice appropriation of land and property from ordinary people; and the most vulnerable of them at that. Behind the thefts are some of the most powerful figures in the country. The State’s theft from its own people, and the infringement of their rights, and freedoms has been going on for decades, destroying the lives of ordinary men and women and stripping the country’s economy. The theft of land and the displacement of people is a global phenomenon. In the UK, which has net land value of £4.7 trillion, properties targeted for theft range from urban development sites and valuable agricultural land to ordinary residential homes. The thefts take place through a network of corrupt judges and other public officials, bodies such as the Law Society, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, the Bar Council the Bar Standards Board, the Legal Ombudsman’s Service, barristers, solicitors, banks, insurance companies and Government Agencies, such as HM Land Registry and HM Land Adjudicator. Secret hearings take place at which a man can be stripped of his money, his land, his property, his profession , his livelihood and can be condemned to spend his life in abject poverty. He is kept out of court for years on end, prevented from obtaining reparation or compensation. He faces imprisonment for contempt of court if he attempts to recover what has been stolen from him by making legitimate applications and claims in court. The State uses its judicial organ for a financial and political agenda. Litigation is a commodity. The ownership of court proceedings is transacted (that is, cases are being brought and sold) even while the proceedings are being heard in the courtroom Where property is identified for theft , the Victim is lured into the forum of the purported court where it can be stolen. This can be done in many ways. Barristers may flag up property of interest targeted for theft at a future date which may come to their notice through their instructions. The Minister of Justice and Lord Chief Justice assess the value of the Victim’s assets , agree upon their share and then plan the fraud . The conduct of the purported hearing is orchestrated by the judge together with barristers for both sides. Submissions and skeleton arguments are artfully crafted and the examination of witnesses undertaken to create the illusion that the litigant is being represented, that a fair and impartial hearing is being conducted and that justice is being done, when in fact , all that is happening is that the Victim’s property is being stolen by means of an elaborate charade. The (purported) judgment is then crafted by the barristers or the judge’s clerk. For example, in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, in summer vacation when the Royal Courts of Justice are closed, Lord Justice Briggs impersonated a judge and staged enactments of trials. He put on his judicial robes and wig, used empty courtrooms and bribed court staff to stand around to create the false 6

appearance that a judicial process of some sort was being conducted. That was the only way in which what should have been impossible to do in any country which has a land registration system, was done. The fact is that in the 21st century in the UK: 1)

There is no civil justice system for many: the court picks and chooses which applications it will hear and which it will not hear

The purported courts purport to hear cases for which no application or claim has been made

Hearings, if they are hearings at all, take place in secret

Court doors are locked to prevent the public from entering

Court doors are locked to prevent access to a judge

Those presiding hear parts of the case, and do not hear other parts

The Victim has no right to speak

The Victim has no right to view documents

Barristers collude with each other

10) Barristers collude with the judge 11) The judge makes up his own arguments 12) The judge brings his own case law along to court 13) People impersonate judges 14) Judges claim they have gone blind mid hearing, say they cannot see documents and are rushed to hospital but nevertheless produce a purported judgment 15) Judges take telephone calls during hearings 16) An uncle will purport to preside in a case in one court on one day (Lord Justice Briggs) His nephew will purport to preside in the same case in the same court on another day and support his uncleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purported findings (Nicholas Briggs) 17) One judge will start a purported hearing, another judge will finish it

18) A subsequent hearing will take place when an earlier one has not finished 19) Court order are fabricated 20) Judgments in default are withheld; the quantum of the judgment split between judges, barristers, solicitors and insurance companies. 21) The same person is the judge , jury and executioner. A trial which should be a jury trial is determined by a judge. Judges are not adjudicators in Britain: they are the prosecutors and defenders. 22) False judgments are published and so on. The problem goes beyond the absence of judicial independence. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and County Courts are full of proceedings which do not actually exist in fact, or in law There is State intimidation in the form of arbitrary arrests and imprisonment. The justice system depends on and favours the secret police and prosecutors, such as the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board. There are unlawful imprisonments. Governmental and Pro Bono Organisations collude with the State to conceal human rights abuses in exchange for funding 2. The UK’s human rights violations are among the worst of any democratic country in the world. There is a culture of fear Simply , if a County Court Judge, a High Court Judge, a Court of Appeal Judge, a Supreme Court Justice or the Lord Chief Justice wants any land or property owned 2

AIRE is funded by the Law Society , the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom ( the Agent for the Government in the proceedings in the ECHR ) and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. JUSTICE is funded and supported by Withers LLP who were involved in the Bar Mutual Fraud [DOC 140] and I believe are instructed by the State to conceal judicial corruption . JUSTICE is also supported by the General Council of the Bar. Both JUSTICE and the AIRE Institute are funded by the European Commission but do not assist Victims of blatant violations of Community Law. Bar Pro Bono is supported by Blackstone Chamber and 3-4 South Square Chambers Barristers in both chambers (Hugo Page QC, Jonathan Harvie , Tom Smith , Lexa Hilliard ) were involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and/ or the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. The President of Bar Pro Bono is Mr Robin Knowles QC. He is also the Head of Chambers of 3-4 South Square. 8

by a party appearing, or brought, before him, he can steal it. stop him.

There is nothing to

There are probably hundreds of thousands of Victims of judicial corruption, perhaps, millions. Middle aged, middle class men and women are unlawfully and sometimes violently ejected from their home and land and are displaced, because a judge has stolen their property for himself and his family. Some are left walking the streets. The property stolen from the Victim often represents a lifetime of his labour, suffering and sacrifice. It may be the sum total of the assets accumulated by the Victim’s family over generations. Deprived of the fruits of his working life, the Victim and his family will have worked as slaves. The Victim has not only lost his past: he has lost his future. He will spend the rest of his life on the litigation treadmill or complaining to the State in a futile attempt to recover what he has lost. His fortunes are reversed in a single moment of time in a way in which he will never comprehend. A man who is solvent, affluent, respected , with a job or profession , with family , with children , with security , and social standing, will face a future of homelessness , unemployment and poverty . A millionaire, stripped of his property and money, will be benefit dependent for the rest of his life. Marriages and relationships break down. Parents lose their children. Friends and social connections disappear. The fact is that in the UK, a man’s life can be arbitrarily terminated in a single moment in time, on the back of a single sheet of paper, made in secret, at a sham hearing. The Victim’s life is completely and utterly destroyed by such an instant reversal of fortune. He is destined to live out the rest of his life broken and desperate . All he can do is wait to die or he can commit suicide. Many have commit suicide. C

THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD

The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud is the most preposterous fraud in history of conveyancing, which dates back over 400 years. ; On 2nd October 2007 , Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs entered into a conspiracy with Hugo Page QC of Blackstone Chambers, Nigel Meares of 11 Stone Buildings and others, to commit a conveyancing and mortgage fraud to steal the title to 37-47 Stoke Newington Road N16 (‘ the Stoke Newington Site’); pursuant to the conspiracy and masquerading as a member of the judiciary, Lord Justice Briggs

fraudulently altered the title to the Stoke Newington Site while the register was effectively frozen under the Land Registration Act 2002 s 72 (Priority Protection) which it is impossible to do

stole a legal mortgage document from a conveyancing solicitor and the conveyancing solicitor’s client (‘the Sheikh Charge’)

stole the title to the Stoke Newington Site

defrauded the conveyancing solicitor and the conveyancing client

The Stoke Newington Site, now developed, has yielded an estimated gross development profit of about £64m from its 100 residential units and 6 commercial units. The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud shows that any judge in the UK can steal any property in the UK at any time, and make £64m in ten minutes on the back of four sheets of paper (the Fraudulent Instrument of 2nd October 2007, which was the vehicle of the theft and is void for over 100 different reasons DOC 72) . The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud is conveyed by a series of illustrations at PAGE 55-PAGE 83 The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud concerns a routine conveyancing transaction, one of the hundreds of millions undertaken every year by solicitors and licensed conveyancers up and down the country. The particular stage of the conveyancing process at which the fraud took place is within a single moment in time after legal completion while registration of the disposition, protected by a priority period search, is taking place, when in effect the register of title is frozen pending completion the registration of the protected application In practical terms, this is at the stage at which the solicitor has written to the client confirming that he has completed the transaction and has applied to register the completed disposition, he has delivered a bill and thanked the client for instructing him. It is the stage at which the client and his family are loading their removal van , travelling to their new home, ready to move in or even unloading at the other end. As the majority of completions take place before noon on a Friday, the solicitor will have probably left his office for the day, leaving his secretary in charge. At the material time I was a conveyancing solicitor. Acting for a lender, I had completed and had applied to register a legal charge securing £1.2m against the title to the Stoke Newington Site during the currency of a priority period search certificate. It should be impossible for fraud to take place at this time (save at gunpoint). Unbeknown to the conveyancing client, who almost years later still does not know what he did, Briggs 10

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16)

17)

18)

19)

removed the conduct of the conveyancing processes from the conveyancing solicitor and undertook the conveyancing processes himself colluded with barristers (Lexa Hilliard and Tom Smith) who had appropriated the title and interest of the seller or borrower colluded with barristers (Hugo Page QC and Nigel Meares) who had appropriated the title and interest of the buyer or Bank removed the application to register a completed disposition ‘undid’ the conveyancing transaction created at least 19 contracts which do not exist (including undertakings) disregarded contracts which did exist ordered the conveyancing client to be bound to the contracts he had created ordered the conveyancing solicitor to be to be bound to the contracts he had created ordered other parties (in their absence and without their knowledge) to be to be bound to the contracts he had created found that the conveyancing client whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, was bound by them found that the conveyancing solicitor whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, was bound by them found that the other parties whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up were bound by them found that the conveyancing client whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, and found was bound by them, was in breach of the contracts he had made up found that the conveyancing solicitor whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, and found was bound by them was in breach of the contracts he had made up found that the conveyancing client whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, found was bound by them and was in breach of the contracts he had made up, had to pay substantial damages for the breach found that the conveyancing solicitor whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, found was bound by them and was in breach of the contracts he had made up, had to pay substantial damages for the breach found that the conveyancing client whom he had ordered to be bound to the contracts he had made up, found was bound by them , was in breach of the contracts he had made up, and had to pay substantial damages for the breach no longer had any interest in the property because the damages exceeded any interest the client did have transferred title without a written memorandum pursuant to contracts he had created and which did not exist

All that the conveyancing client knows is that she paid £300.00 for the completion and registration of her legal charge securing £1.2m (of which the borrower had acknowledged receipt) against the title to the Stoke Newington Site , and that the 11

solicitor she had instructed had applied for registration of the completed executed legal mortgage within the priority period. D

THE SRA’S BANK SCAM , COMPENSATION FUND FRAUD ETC

In the case of Anal Sheikh v Law Society HC 2005 Ch I became the first solicitor in legal history to have succeeded in an application against the Law Society to set aside an intervention into a solicitor’s practice under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974 (or what everyone mistakenly believed was an intervention under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974) but which I have since realised is, in fact nothing more than a bank scam (‘the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc.’), It is impossible to conceive of a simpler scam: a Bank Fraudster writes to the Bank asking the Bank to freezes the Customer’s Bank Accounts and transfer the Customer’s funds to the Bank Fraudster. The Bank does so. The Bank and the Bank Fraudster then split the Customer’s money between them. In this case 1)

the Bank Fraudster is the Law Society of England and Wales

the Customers are the 10000 solicitors’ practices who have been victims of the scam

the Bank Accounts are bank accounts of the solicitors 10 million or so clients

the Bank , on statistical probabilities, is every bank in the UK

The problem is that the bank scam is so crude it has to be disguised in order to succeed. The scam is disguised as something which is lawful. The SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument is the vehicle of the theft . It appears as PAGE 13 It is obvious that the document is not a court order: it is only a printed sheet with some words typed on it. The Law Society sends the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument with a letter PAGE 14 to the solicitor’s bank asking the bank to freeze the solicitor’s bank accounts holding the solicitor’s and clients’ money and to transfer the funds to the Law Society’s own account or by their direction. The bank and the Law Society both conspire to treat the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument as a court order entitling or obliging the bank to do so. The solicitor’s money and the clients’ money is then split between officials at the Law Society , the SRA, bank officials, members of the judiciary and others. 12

In Anal Sheikh v United Kingdom 51144/07 [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010 ) the UK Government agreed with me that all of these so called interventions are void and unlawful; they have to be set aside and declared ab initio void The Law Society has undertaken a minimum of 10000 unlawful interventions to date in , or as a consequence of, which 

About 30,000 lives have been destroyed.



About 1 million clients have had their cases disrupted and have had to retain a solicitor who was not their first choice.



The Law Society has committed banking fraud by deceiving banks into treating the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument as a freezing order



There has been substantial defalcation of the Compensation Fund, a public trust fund, which is being used as no more than a ‘gravy train ‘ for Law Society and SRA officials and the solicitors and barristers representing them. The residual balances should be a matter of immense concern. In the majority of cases , clients will be unaware that they are entitled to the money, many will have died or moved abroad. With no checks and balances in the administration of the Compensation Fund, what is to stop dishonest officials from creating fictitious accounts and channelling the money to them?



The Law Society uses its powers of intervention to unlawfully expropriate a solicitor’s practice accounts which invariably hold costs for unbilled work to which the solicitor would be entitled. If, in each of the 10000 interventions since 1985, £250,000.00 was held by each solicitor in his client account by way of unbilled costs, £1.125 bn has been appropriated from solicitors .That is a conservative estimate. In the case of most firms they will have unbilled work representing one and a half years annual turnover, which could be £500,000.00 or more. Exceptionally, in large sole practice, a solicitor could have as much as £4m- £5m .



Another purpose of intervening into solicitors’ practices (or rather raiding and burgling them) is to enable the Law Society to obtain control over the solicitor’s residual balances to supplement the Compensation Fund.



It is also to show the Government that the Law Society is capable of regulating solicitors, which it is manifestly not capable of doing. The ultimate and long term objective is probably the elimination of all small practices from the market, and the establishment of ’supermarket’ type law firms , controlled by the Law Society ,in which bribes, ‘backhanders’ and other inducements by the Law Society and those connected with it will be commonplace.



Firms are not intervened into where there is clear evidence of dishonesty if there is likely to be a claim on the Compensation Fund. The burden of payment in those circumstances is passed to the firm’s professional 15

indemnity insurers. Firms are intervened into only where there are substantial residual balances and no likely claim on the Compensation Fund. 

The targets of interventions are sole practitioners and small and niche practices some of whom are white, but the firms who bear the real brunt are black and ethnic minority solicitors.



The Law Society relies on false and perjured evidence , fabricated evidence and withholds of evidence to secure a win against solicitors.



The Law Society procures contributions from the 147000 solicitors in England and Wales to the Compensation Fund by deceit . Each practising solicitor in England and Wales is obliged to pay about £400.00 - £500.00 annually by way of a contribution to the Compensation Fund. The SRA’s defalcation of the Compensation Fund stands at some £100m over a period of 5 years.



The Law Society takes clients wills, deeds and documents That is a very valuable and dangerous database.



The Law Society has also stolen £55m by way of untraceable residual balances of which £11m is bona vacantia, In other words the SRA in collusion with the Treasury is stealing from the Crown. In the Matter of the interventions into the solicitors’ practices known as Ahmed & Co, Biebuyck, Dixon & Co and the practices of Mr Zoi and In the Matter of Sections 35 and 36 and Schedules 1 and 2 of The Solicitors Act 1974 and In the Matter of the Law Society Compensation Fund Rules 1995

The Law Society’s unlawful interventions have generated proceeds of crime amounting to about £100m over a 5 year time span and have stripped the UK economy of in excess of £1.65 bn in the last 10 years. While the Law Society’s lawyers, such as Mr Timothy Dutton QC, and former President of the Bar Council, of Fountain Court , Ms Patricia Robertson QC, Vice President of the Bar Standards Board also of Fountain Court my former barrister, Mr Gregory Treverton Jones QC, formerly also Fountain Court , now of 39 Essex Street, and solicitors like John Deech to name a few, earn several millions of pounds a year in fees derived from the SRA’s criminal activities, the arbitrary and unlawful exercise of the Law Society’s powers had has an enormous cost in human terms for their victims: A solicitor will lose his lifetime’s work and, as bankruptcy is inevitable, usually brought about by the pursuit of the intervened upon solicitor by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for their agent’s costs. Once tarnished , a solicitor’s reputation cannot be rebuilt. The intervened upon solicitor will generally be unable to find work as a solicitor after an intervention . When a solicitor tries to find work in another field, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority provide negative references. Permanent unemployment and a life on benefits is therefore also inevitable. The solicitor becomes a pariah. Psychological stress results in physical illness.

On the day of the ‘intervention’ a solicitor’s fortunes will be reversed in moments. An ‘intervention’ is the end of a life. The multiplicity of human rights abuses to which the solicitor is subjected by the Law Society in the purported exercise of its disciplinary functions are such that they are tantamount to torture within the definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 

In 2007 , Mrs Ranee Bassi a 48 year old married woman and mother of 3 children was found dead in her solicitor’s office after a four year probe, at the conclusion of which she was found honest. She had hung herself by the neck from the ceiling beams



Mr Lawrence Mann, charged with dishonesty of a sum of about £5000.00, later found to be technical breach, shot himself and died . Records show that on the day before his suicide , a caseworker had telephoned Mr Mann and accused him of dishonesty.



Solicitor Y committed suicide again after being accused of dishonesty.



In 2011 Phillipa Knox, a solicitor, committed suicide.

Assuming each intervened upon firm has an average of 3 solicitors , about 30,000 professional lives have been destroyed. I was a general High Street practitioner. I was stripped of about £1.5m. Assuming each solicitor has been stripped of the same amount. The SRA will have to find £45bn to repay all the solicitors. From where is it going to find that sum? I would estimate that my loss of future income and general damages will be about £5m . Assuming that that is the average sum payable to all 30000 solicitors. How is the SRA going to find £100bn to repay us? Assuming 

In each of the 10000 interventions , each firm held an average of 20 bank accounts (As a sole practitioner I held about 6 or 7 accounts with three banks) in say 10 different banks. 200,000 accounts have been unlawfully frozen in 100,000 banks.



Each firm had an average of say 20,000 current and old clients. (Old client might have current residual balances ) whose money the firm held in the bank accounts



The average sum held by the firm was £3m.

The following can be extrapolated from these statistics:

Every single bank in the UK without exception has probably at one time or another unlawfully frozen a solicitor’s bank accounts

All of those solicitors are entitled to the refund of the money in their client account , say 10000 x £3m (£30000 m or30 bn)

20m clients (10000 x 20000) may have a claim for the return of their money. The SRA is supposed to account to the beneficial owner of money held by the solicitor. Even assuming that the intervention is undertaken lawfully, how do we know that those entitled have received their money. In my case £254,000 was mine beneficially . Eight years after the event , I still have not received it from either the SRA or from Lloyds .

Solicitors are like banks. They hold deposits such as : 1)

Client deposits for a variety of payments such sale proceeds , the purchase price, settlement sums in litigation, payments on account.

Client funds for untraceable clients

Estate monies

Bona vacantia

The solicitor’s own money

The solicitor’s costs

It is, or should be, impossible to steal a depositor’s funds from a bank , but what if a depositor’s funds are lodged with a solicitor at a bank, which is the same thing, could be stolen ? The Law Society uses the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument to do precisely that but more efficiently : instead of having to send a fraudulent instrument to 10000 different customers, the SRA can send one fraudulent instrument to one solicitor who is holding money in one bank for 10000 different clients . I was a sole practitioner. At the date of the SRA’s Bank Scam , Compensation Fund Frand Etc and their burglary of my office I held funds of about £500,000 . A medium sized firm might hold £10m - £20m . The largest firms in Britain probably hold in excess of £1bn. My clients were local residents and businesses. The largest firms in Britain boast that that they represent the richest people in the world and that their turnover exceeds billions of pounds per year . Their tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of clients might include National and International Corporations, Foreign Nationals, Nation States, the UK Government and Overseas Monarchs. There are probably many billions of financial transactions being undertaken in solicitors offices every minute of every hour of every day from buying and selling a 18

house for an ordinary person to the completion of complex disposals of oil reserves, diamond mines and intellectual property by the largest and most valuable conglomerates on earth. The solicitor invariably holds the monetary consideration for these transactions in his client account and his client must have complete control over his money at all times. If the Law Society’s closure of solicitors firms on the back of the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Order is lawful then it is possible that the conduct of each and every one of these transactions which depend on decisions being able to be made in milleseconds might fall into the hands of SRA, giving the SRA, many of whose employees have absolutely no legal training whatsoever unfettered control (whether for a minute , an hour , a day , weeks, months or years) over some of the valuable and important financial transactions in the world. The problem doesn’t end there. Bank transfers are made from solicitors’ accounts every single minute of every single day during banking hours. Payments out are made to clients or by their direction to other individuals, corporations, institutions , government agencies , or to discharge the solicitor’s own liabilities. What if payments are made out of a solicitor’s account after the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Order is sent to the bank. Obviously if it is a freezing order no payments out should be made because the solicitor’s account is frozen. In my case, unaware that the SRA had sent the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Order to Lloyds TSB I had transmitted the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds to my private account. ( There was never any dispute that the money was mine beneficially - see Sir Andrew Park in Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2005] EWHC 1409 (Ch) . The ownership of the money is however irrelevant for the purposes of the argument – the money could just as well have been the transmission of Client money to a client) The case of Lloyds TSB v Anal Sheikh (1) Rabia Sheikh (2) Barclays Bank PLC establishes a precedent in the UK that if that happens, the bank can go to court without notifying anyone and obtain a freezing order in respect of the transferee’s account. ( ‘Transferees’ Accounts’) That still isn’t the end of the problem . Bank transfers are also made from private accounts every single minute of every single day during banking hours. What happens if 

the SRA has sent the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument to the solicitor’s bank



after the SRA has sent the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument to the solicitor’s bank, money has moved from the solicitor’s bank to the Transferees’ Accounts



after money has moved from the solicitor’s bank to the Transferees’ Accounts, the SRA has obtained a freezing order in relation to the Transferees’ Accounts



after the SRA has obtained a freezing order in relation to the Transferees’ Accounts funds are paid out to the Transferees’ from Transferees’ Accounts ?

The case of Lloyds TSB v Anal Sheikh (1) Rabia Sheikh (2) Barclays Bank PLC also established the precedent that in the UK the accounts of the Transferees’ from Transferees’ Accounts can also be frozen on an ex parte interim application made without notice. This means that that following is possible:

DESCRIPTION

ACCOUNTS WHICH CAN BE FROZEN ON AN EX PARTE INTERIM APPLICATION

Solicitor transmits money to a client ( In my case I transmitted the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds to my account . I was my firm’s client)

SRA can freeze the bank account of the client, who could be a National and International Corporation, a Foreign National, a Nation State, the UK or an Overseas Monarch. Presumably the SRA could freeze Her Majesty’s bank accounts if her Majesty’s solicitors. Farrers. were intervened upon a few minutes before transmitting funds to Her Majesty or the bank account of the US Government or of Japan

Solicitor redeems a mortgage on behalf of a client by repaying the Bank

SRA can freeze all UK or Overseas Bank accounts

Solicitor sends a land registration fee to HMLR

SRA can freeze HMLR’s bank account

Solicitor pays court fees

SRA can freeze the bank accounts HM Courts Service

Solicitor pays his suppliers

SRA can freeze the bank accounts of BT. Sky, British Gas etc

Solicitor pays his childrens’ school or university fees from office account

SRA can freeze the bank accounts of say Rugby , Winchester. Oxford, Cambridge or any school or university in the UK or overseas

Solicitor pays for family holiday

SRA can freeze the bank account of British Airways

Solicitor pays his staff

SRA can freeze the staff’s bank accounts

Solicitor donates monthly payments to charities

SRA can freeze the bank account of any charity in the world 20

Solicitor pays his tax

SRA can freeze the bank account of HM Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue

Transmissions made of funds or cheques written by the solicitor’s clients including National and International Corporations, Foreign Nationals, Nation States, the UK and Overseas Monarchs. Her Majesty the Queen the US Government or of Japan, any and every UK or Overseas Bank , HMLR , HM Courts Service , BT. Sky, British Gas or any supplier of goods or services, Rugby , Winchester. Oxford, Cambridge or any school or university in the UK or overseas , British Airways or any airline, the solicitor’s staff , any charity in the world , HM Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue

SRA can freeze the bank accounts of the recipients

While I have chosen the profile of small firms to illustrate the problem , the fact is that the largest law firms in Britain could easily find themselves the target of the SRA in which case as they deal with some of the largest transactions in the country if not in the world , we are taking about hundreds of billions of pounds and billions of clients What if they were all intervened upon on the same day? All of Britain’s solicitors’ deposits held in all of Britain’s banks which certainly exceeds £1 bn. which could potentially find its way into the SRA’S hands on a single day , in a matter of a few minutes – all it apparently requires is a letter faxed to their banks. A financial analyst would be able to calculate whether, if the above scenarios are possible which according to the cases of Lloyds TSB v Anal Sheikh (1) Rabia Sheikh (2) Barclays Bank PLC they are 1)

How long it would take for the SRA to control and transfer all of Britain’s Bank Deposits , if desired, to a Foreign Power or an International Terrorist Organization?

Whether the SRA could ultimately control every bank account in the world and how long it would take ?

The reader will obviously say ‘ This can’t possibly happen because surely the SRA only

take these draconian measures if there is something terribly wrong in the solicitor’s firm?

Not at all – as I show below and in the accompanying documents, a firm can be intervened upon if the solicitor drafts bills to his client for work done which ends with a ‘0’ , or if he does not finish a piece of work which usually takes a year or two 21

complete and in which the file is 6 inches thick and consists of 100 letters written and 100 letters received , in 7 hours.3 The Presidents of the Law Society during the material time are Andrew Caplen of Stapletons 2014-2015 , Nicholas Fluck 2013–14 Lucy Scott-Moncrief 2012–13 John Wotton of Allen and Overy [2011–12 Linda Karen Hadfield Lee of RadclifflesleBrasseur (who purported to represented me in Anal Sheikh V The Law Society [2005] EWHC 1409 (Ch) and in Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2006] EWCA CIV 1577 ) 2010–11 Robert Heslett 2009–10 Paul Marsh 2008–09 Andrew Holroyd 2007–08 Fiona Woolf 2006–07 Kevin Martin 2005–06 Lady Janet Paraskeva (former Chief Executive of the Law Society) .The Chief Executive of the SRA was Anthony Townsend ( 2006 – 2013) In additional to basic theft and bank fraud they have committed a number of criminal offences including theft of Bona Vacantia, Charity Fraud, theft of Financial Data, Corruption in Public Office, Property Fraud, Market Manipulation, Fraud Enabling Activities, Exploiting Assets and Information, Racial Hatred and Hate Crimes contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 , the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Theft Act 1968, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the Fraud Act 2006 , and various common law offences including conspiracy to defraud All of them could be arrested and charged today. Their arrest and prosecution would automatically lead to the arrest and prosecution of the barristers who have supported the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. Under the UK Constitution, Parliament is the supreme law making body and has enacted the Solicitor’s Act 1974. There is no dispute between Parliament, the Government and I about the meaning and effect of Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974. Anal Sheikh v United Kingdom 51144/07 [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010 ( and, if they thought about it, tens of billions of people worldwide would agree with us that the SRA’s Fraudulent Instrument at PAGE is not a court order but is only a piece of paper with some words printed on it . The UK’s Supreme Court however disagrees with all of us. The UK’s Supreme Court believes it is a SRA’s Fraudulent Instrument The Supreme Court Justices either

disagrees with the meaning and effect of Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974 on which the Government, Parliament and I are agreed ,or

disagrees that under the UK Constitution Parliament is the supreme law making institution.

See the reference to the case of Burrows in Sir Andrew Park’s judgment DOC 127 22

There can be no other reason for delaying or refusing to endorse UK11 which is my application to the Supreme Court, made ex debito justiciae. For so long as the Supreme Court’s continues to disagree with us , the SRA’s fraudulent interventions continue at the rate of 400 per year, the cumulative cost of which is shown TABLE 22 extracted from EC UN CORE TABLE 22 Column A

This are the number of SRA raids on law firms undertaken on the back of the SRA’s Fraudulent Instrument from 1985 to 2005 I believe that the real number of fraudulent interventions stands at 400 per annum, not 100 as stated

Column B

The quantum of the fraud on the Compensation Fund calculated at £25m per year

Column C

Unbilled costs stolen by the SRA calculated at £1m per firm

Column D

The number of clients disrupted by the SRA’s raids assuming 5000 live client files per firm

Column E

Amount of client money held at the time of the raid assuming £5m per firm which should be returned to the solicitor This is the loss to the UK economy calculated at £15m per firm for loss of revenues, Paye Nic etc No of professional lives destroyed assuming 4 solicitors per firm

Column F Column G

From 1985 to 2005

6000

£500m

£6bn

12m

£30bn

£240bn

24000

4.30pm 17th Feb 2005 . The SRA’s Bank Scam in my case takes place in about 1 minute 25th Feb 05– Jul 05 In proceedings which exist (because there is an issued claim form albeit mistakenly drafted) Sir Andrew Park sets aside an intervention under Part II SA 1975 which does not exist . 13 day trial costing me £368,000

All interventions (lawful and unlawful) cease

Dec 05. In proceedings which do not exist (because there is no HC 23

order capable of being appealed and no issued appellant’s notice referring to an order which can be appealed ) Lord Neuberger does not give permission to the SRA to appeal Apr 06 at 3 day hearing in proceedings which do not exist, Hallett LJ and Dyson LJ give permission to the SRA to appeal against Sir Andrew Park’s order which cannot be appealed setting aside an intervention which does not exist Jul 06 at 3 day hearing in proceedings which do not exist in the Court of Appeal Chadwick LJ , Moore Bick LJ and Tuckey LJ set aside Sir Andrew Park’s order which cannot be appealed, setting aside an intervention which has not taken place Jan 2007. Lords Carswell, Bingham and Rodgers refuse permission to appeal in proceedings which do not exist in the House of Lords (because the CA proceedings do not exist) against an order int the Court of Appeal which does not exist setting aside a High Court order which does exist but which is based on an intervention which has not taken place

6400

£525m

£ 6.4 bn

6800

£550m

£6.8 bn

12.8m

13.6m

£32bn

£34bn

£ 256bn

£272bn

25600

27200

2008

7200

£575m

£ 7.2 bn

2009

7600

£600m

£ 7.6 bn

2010

8000

£625m

£ 8.bn

In 2011 in the ECHR, Sir Nicholas Bratza refuses to accept submissions showing that no intervention ever took place and the proceedings in the UK did not exist because the submissions were longer than 25 pages long . He found that the application was out of time because the time for complaining about Convention rights violations had started running from 2005 after my win against the SRA despite , when there were no Convention rights violations because I was happy that I had won

8400

£650m

£ 8.4 bn

Jul 2011 I applied to the Supreme Court to set aside the House of Lords Order in 1all fraudulent interventions. The application should have been granted ex debito

8800

£675m

£8.8 bn

14.4m 15.2m 16m 16.8m

17.6m

£36bn £38bn £40bn £42bn

£44bn

£288bn £304bn £320bn £336bn

£352bn

28800 30400 32000 33600

35200

justiciae

Ms Jenny Rowe, Chief Executive, mistook the application for my application for a remedy in the Marc Beaumont proceedings and mistakenly believed that it is for her to discharge the judicial function of the Supreme Court Justices

2012

9200

£700m

£9.2 bn

Dec 2013 I sent UK11 supported by UK5 and UK6 to each Supreme Court Justice individually and to Lord Carswell . I have had no response

9600

£725m

£9.6 bn

Jan 2014- May 2014

9800

£735m

£9.8 bn

18.4m 19.2m

19.6m

£46bn £48bn

£48bn

£368bn £384bn

£400bn

36800 38400

40000

The Supreme Court could have put an end to the Law Society’s financial fraud and human rights abuses four years ago. By failing to do so are Justices guilty of committing money laundering offences? The Law Society has undertaken the Law Society’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc for decades together with a number of leading barristers The Presidents of the Law Society during the material time are Andrew Caplen of Stapletons 2014-2015 , Nicholas Fluck 2013–14 Lucy Scott-Moncrief 2012–13 John Wotton of Allen and Overy [2011–12 Linda Karen Hadfield Lee of RadclifflesleBrasseur (who purported to represented me in Anal Sheikh V The Law Society [2005] EWHC 1409 (Ch) and in Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2006] EWCA CIV 1577 ) 2010–11 Robert Heslett 2009–10 Paul Marsh 2008–09 Andrew Holroyd 2007–08 Fiona Woolf 2006–07 Kevin Martin 2005–06 Lady Janet Paraskeva (former Chief Executive of the Law Society) and Anthony Townsend (Chief Executive of the SRA 2006 – 2013) . In additional to basic theft and bank fraud they have committed a great number of criminal offences including the following : theft of Bona Vacantia, Charity Fraud, Theft of Financial Data, Corruption in Public Office, Property Fraud, Market Manipulation, Fraud Enabling Activities, Exploiting Assets and Information, Racial Hatred and Hate Crimes contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 , the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Theft Act 1968, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, The Fraud Act 2006 , and various common law offences including conspiracy to defraud Their arrest and prosecution would automatically lead to the arrest and prosecution of the barristers who have supported the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. The ramifications of UK11 are set out in the flowchart at PAGE 28 There are over 100 barristers involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc from Britain’s most preeminent Barristers Chambers. There are over 30 of Britain’s most preeminent Queen’s Counsel involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc . There are over 20 Britain’s most preeminent solicitors’ practices involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc .There are over 1000 of Britain’s most 26

preeminent solicitors directly or indirectly involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc including past Presidents of the Law Society and the current incumbent. A former President of the Bar Council (Timothy Dutton QC) is involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc . The former Chair and Vice Chair of the Bar Standards Board (Baroness Ruth Deech and Patricia Robertson QC ) are involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc Each and every one of them could be arrested on charges of fraud immediately. In the majority of cases, convictions are guaranteed. The outcome of UK11 also has a direct impact on the Barristers’ Class Action in the following ways: 1.

Timothy Dutton QC and Patricia Robertson QC can immediately be committed for contempt of court and probably also charged with offences contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 , Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Theft Act 1968 , Conspiracy to defraud and Hate Crimes [ SRA2].

Baroness Ruth Deech’s Chairmanship of the Bar Standards Board comes under suspicion

The involvement of Timothy Dutton QC, Patricia Robertson QC and Baroness Deech in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc brings the entire Bar Council into disrepute. Any criminal lawyer would agree with me all three of them could be arrested and charged today. The flowchart at PAGE 28-PAGE 29 shows the nexus between the Barristers’ Class Action, the Solicitors’ Class Action and the Victims’ Class Action The wider objective is set out at EC UN CORE PAGE 910-912.

THE PUBLC

SOLICITORS

20m clients can claim 1) return of stolen data eg wills and deeds 2) return of stolen mo ney 3) damages against the Law Society (10000 raids over 50 years x 2000 clients for each firm)

30000 solicitors who have been unlawfully raided can claim the return of billed costs and client money £1.125 BN (30000 X say £1.5m each ) and damages £100bn (30000 X say £5m each )

THE UK ECONOMY The Law Society together with the banking industry has striped the UK of £1.65bn : solicitors whose practices are destroyed are reliant on state benefits for the rest of their lives. Mental and physical illness results in a burden to the health care system. The financial and economic contribution they would have made is not made . The taxpayer has to pay for sham proceedings PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILTY

FINANCIAL FRAUD £55M untraceable residual balances including £11m bona vacantia, was stolen by the Law Society in collusion with the Treasury which could be spent on schools and hospitals. The Law Society has stolen £100m from the Compensation Fund Fraud over 5 years

SOLICITORS WHO HAVE RESETTLED OVERSEAS AND COMMONWEALTH SOLICITORS

UK11

They and their families (where they are deceased ) have substantial claims. DOC 160 to and Who is going tell DOC them?72

Law Society Presidents, Bar Council Chairs and BSB and SRA Executives past and present can be prosecuted for their part in the SRA’s Bank Scam . Baroness Ruth Deech, Patricia Robertson QC (VC BSB) Tim Dutton QC (Chair Bar Council) Anthony Townsend,Dame Janet Paraskeva can immediately be arrested immediately

RACIAL EQUALITY RIGHT TO WORK- FREEDOM OF TRADE 10000 sole practitioners and small law firms can reopen TODAY

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

10000 predominantly BME sole practitioners and small law firms can reopen TODAY 1000 white barristers and solicitors from ‘top’ chambers and ‘magic circle’ firms can be prosecuted for the SRA’s Bank Scam

10000 mainly legal aid practitioners and can reopen TODAY THE END OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Automatic rescission of all disciplinary decisions against barristers and solicitors made over the past 50 years . THE IMPACT IN THE REGULATION OF DOCTORS, ACCOUNTANTS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS

CODE

This shows the automatic consequence of the grant of UK11 Parties who are making breach of duty claims against their barrister and / or solicitor Parties who are making contempt applications , applications challenging forged instruments and strke outs, other applications Mrs Margaret Gommâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contempt application Yash Mahey case set aside the decision by Sir Anthony May in the SRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc , the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and his involvement in the making of the Fraudulent Civil Restraint Orders against Anal Sheikh in favour of the Bar Mutual and Marc Beaumont

GRANT OF UK11 MADE EX DEBITO JUSTICIAE (THE STATE’S JUDICIAL ORGAN HAS NO CHOICE)

REPARATION

Dr Ann Barker

Marc Beaumo nt JR

Margaret Gomm

Doctors Class Action

Robert Burns

Reinstatement & rescission of all convictions

FCA?

The Crossley case

May LJ, Burnett LJ LJ Nurnett

BAR MUTUAL

Joel Leigh

Marc Beaumont.( Windsor)

Anesta Weekes QC, (29 Essex )

Hugo Page QC, Jonathan HarvieQC (Blackstone) Philip Engelman (Cloistere

Ab initio voidness Discrimination. No separation of powers. EC Treaty infringements. Human rights violations. UN violations. Lady Deech Money laundering Insurance fraud Torture

Treverton Jones QC 39 Essex St Paul Saffron RadcliffesleBrasseur

property

Committals for contempt, debarring of barrister and striking off of solicitors

John Hendy

Public and professional inquiry

PUNISHMENT

Michael Carter

For Anal Sheikh and for 30000 other solicitors. Freezing orders against dishonest lawyers’

Salim Ahmed

ACCOUNTABILITY

Yash Mehey

Victims Class Action

Tariq Rehman

All UK barristers

Lawyers Class Action 30

Further reading is at EC UN CORE PAGE PAGE 43-PAGE 51, Key Evidence , Flowcharts and Diagrams PAGE 102-103 Diagrams showing the theft of the Victim’s right in rem by ‘ converting’ it into a service complaint to a caseworker’s line manager. The creation of non existent rights in the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. PAGE 112 The role and function of Baroness Ruth Deech, the Chair of the Bar Standards Board (2009- 2014) in serious organised fraud in the UK. PAGE 113-114 Flowchart showing the involvement of Baroness Ruth Deech in the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud ; John Deech’s contract with the SRA to do their regulatory work PAGE 114-117 Flowchart showing the links between Baroness Ruth Deech and Lord Woolf, Lord Lester , Lord Beloff , Blackstone Chambers and others PAGE 118 Table showing members of the judiciary common to the Frauds PAGE 119-121 Flowchart showing the chronological synchronisation between the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc, the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 PAGE 134-135 Summary of the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc PAGE 184-193 , PAGE 210-239, PAGE 246-285 Why it is said that the Lord Chief Justice- is behind the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc PAGE 285PAGE 327 The use of public information sites and legal textbooks to facilitate the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. PAGE 428- 470 shows how the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. works PAGE 246-285. The Bar Mutual Fraud shows how the Victim is deprived of a remedy in the courts PAGE 639676. The State’s modus operandi of frauds like the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud PAGE 701-774. How the purported regulator works. The illustration relates to the Bar Standards Board but it could just as well apply to the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority. PAGE 775-821. Allegations of corruption in public office made against those officials who have supported and upheld the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument PAGE 822-824 shows how it the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument is used to steal from the Crown DOC 08 Response in the case of Anal Sheikh v UK Government [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010) 51144/07 and Ref 28863/11 The legal arguments as to why I say all interventions are void are set out in DOC 8 PAGE 116 – PAGE 185 and details of the Compensation Fund Fraud and other frauds are set out in DOC 8 PAGE 185 – PAGE 207 . I argue that there is a possibility that the amendments effected over the years to the original statute may have been prompted financial and other considerations , by an ulterior motive and a hidden agenda. It is truly extraordinary that for the last forty five years the Law Society and the judiciary have mistakenly treated the Notice of Intervention, which anyone can see is an internal document generated by the Law Society, as a court order entitling the Law Society to close down firms and having the effect of freezing bank accounts, resulting not only in incalculable loss to the economy but causing human suffering of an order which is unimaginable in a modern democracy DOC 07, Summary of the Response , Draft indictments to the National Crime Agency to which no response has been received SR1 The SRA’s Bank Scam – preparation of the fraudulent instrument SR2 A draft indictment in relation to the SRA’s Bank Scam – use of the fraudulent instrument . FCA 1-27 Complaints No 1- 27 (SRA Bank Scam –Fraud) to the Financial Conduct Authority FCA 28-54 Complaints No 28-54 (SRA Bank Scam –Mistake as to the Law) to the Financial 31

Conduct Authority EC 1 Complaints to the European Commission and to the United Nations., Application for Sanctions and or Protective Measures against the United Kingdom’s infringements . Report to OLAF, EUROJUST and GRECO in relation to UK’s infringements of The Fundamental and Universal Principles of Banking Law and Practice. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Chapter 4 Articles 63 – 66 . Free movement of capital in the EU. Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence . Discrimination under EU law. Legal certainty and legitimate expectation E

THE DISBELIEF OF THE IMPLAUSIBLE AND A SIMPLE WAY TO SEE THAT JUDGES STEAL HOMES, LAND AND PROPERTY AND DRIVE PEOPLE TO POVERTY, DESPAIR AND SUICIDE

The history of banking for example depends on the history of money—and on grainmoney and food cattle-money used from at least 9000 BC. So how is it possible that, for the past 50 years, the UK’s judiciary have treated the SRA’s Fraudulent Instrument as a court order enabling the Law Society and Banks to freeze the bank accounts of solicitors? The basic principles of contract law must have come into existence over 12,000 years ago in the Neolithic Revolution which marked a wide-scale transition of many human cultures from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement when goods must have been exchanged. The sale, purchase and mortgage of land is contractual and conveyancing is a consensual process . So how it is possible that on 2nd October 2007 , for the first time since Neolithic times, Lord Justice Briggs made up 19 different contracts which did not exist and found that they existed? For the first time in human history, within a time span of 10 minutes in the interim application’s list at an ex parte application (if it can be described as such) held in secret, Lord Justice Briggs changed a debtor of £1.2m into a creditor of £6.5m , and changed his creditor of £1.2m into his debtor of £ 6.5m ; and if a judge in the UK can do that he can wipe out global debt with equal ease. How did that happen? The greatest atrocity in modern human history may provide an explanation: in the Holocaust, in six million Jewish people, as well as gypsies, communists and trade unionists were transported to death camps and murdered in Nazi Germany and surrounding countries under Nazi control.

Nazis were counting on the disbelief of the implausible monstrosity of Auschwitz In a telephone interview with John Przybys of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Elie Wiesel, the Jewish author, gives his explanation for how the Nazis got away with the mass murder of the Jews at Auschwitz: they knew that no one would stop it because no one would believe it. …. ‘But the trouble, maybe, was, why should a normal reader in New York or Paris believe that people were like that, that people did what they did to other people, to other human beings? That they created a universe called Auschwitz, that 10,000 people (a day) would be killed? Why would they believe it?” The almost implausible monstrosity of the event was “exactly what these killers were counting on,” Wiesel says. “By going too far, by embracing too much and daring to do things no other state has ever done, they felt the world won’t believe, so they are immune.”

The balances and restraints that hold us in check are delicate: they took many centuries to construct but take only moments to destroy. When judges like Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs commit theft using their judicial power and authority, they, the very people to whom society looks to uphold the rule of law, smash those balances and restraints, and destroy the principles by which civilisation has endured and thrived , not for centuries, but for millennia. Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs, and their like, represent the most brilliant legal minds of their generation. The frauds they commit are discharged with such legal and criminal brilliance that no ordinary person can even understand what has happened to them let alone attempt to recover what they have lost. The judge, barrister, solicitor or public official who steals from the Victim appears momentarily to commit the theft and then forever disappears from the scene of the crime, thereafter protected by an entire army , from insurers and ombudsmen to the judiciary and Government Departments. He will never have to explain himself and the Victim will never be given the opportunity to challenge him. The Victim is effectively permanently gagged from the very moment of the theft. It is left to the Victim to try and explain where the title to his property went. Many Victims will spend years , sometimes decades, attempting to understand and articulate what has happened. There is no record of a single Victim who has recovered his home, land or property, when a judge, barrister or solicitor is involved in the theft. 33

The documents supporting the Class Action include proceedings, academic theses, forensic and legal analyses, legal submissions , evidence and other material. They are lengthy, detailed and complex. For the majority, they are unreadable and incomprehensible - that is why this type of fraud is so successful. If the approach suggested below is adopted, there is no reason to read any of them : one or two illustrations suffice to convey the entire fraud. First, however, the reader has erase from his mind any notion that any judicial process was engaged, or could have been engaged. Taking the example of the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage, conveyancing is done by solicitors in their offices, not by judges in courtrooms, so what sort of judicial process could possibly have taken place? Conveyancing is a discipline. When Lord Justice Briggs ordered a lender who had lent £1.2m ,as well as the lender’s solicitor, to hand back the executed legal mortgage to the borrower to trust him to register it, he might just as well have entered an operating theatre, donned a medical robe and mask, ordered the surgeon to pick up his scalpel and directed the entire operation. Conveyancing is a skill. Lord Justice Briggs might just was well have mounted the stage at Proms, seized the conductor’s baton and directed the orchestra. If , contrary to all of my allegations and assertions, a judicial process did take place, then these are the precedents which that judicial process has established EC UN CORE PAGE 184- PAGE 218 Constitutional law 1)

In the UK, a) b) c)

judges can create new law judges can change existing law judges can disapply law which Parliament has created DOC 114

In the UK, one public official can injunct another public official from performing his statutory function, By the Order of 2nd one public official (Lord Justice Briggs ) whose functions derive from Parliament procured that another public official (the Chief Land Registrar) would not perform the function that Parliament has conferred upon him. Therefore a judge can injunct the police from policing , or can injunct those Government Ministers who have statutory functions from discharging them. If the Ministry of Justice’s function are statutory, presumably a High Court judge could interfere with foreign policy and can injunct the UK from going to war or order the UK to go to war.

In the UK , a person can consent that statutes will not apply to them (The SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument , the Fabricated Order and Marc Beaumont’s Fraudulent Consent Order.) 34

In the UK, one person (whether a barrister or solicitor or other agent, or third party or anyone else whosoever) can deprive another person of their rights and obligations under statute law by entering into a consent order on behalf of that other person and without their knowledge agreeing that statute law should not apply to that other person (The SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument, the Fabricated Order and Marc Beaumont’s Fraudulent Consent Order.)

There is no a separation of powers under the UK Constitution : power is vested in a single organ of State or is absolute and unfettered power vested in a single individual Criminal law

In the UK, a judge can commit criminal offences from the Bench, order that criminal offences be committed or procure that criminal offences are committed. This proposition is based on the fact that by the Order of 2nd land and conveyancing related criminal offences were committed including offences under s123 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (suppression of information), s124 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (improper alteration of register) Law of Property Act 1925 s 183 , Fraud Act 2006 s. 2 ( fraud by false representation ) s.3 ( failure to disclose information ) s4 ( fraud by abuse of position ) s 6 ( possession of articles for fraud ) s 7 (making of articles used for fraud ) ,Theft Act 1968 ,Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 . Briggs J personally committed a criminal offence under s 22 of the Solicitor’s Act 1974 by conveying land. It follows that a judge in the UK can order a bus full of people to be blown up, a judge in the UK can order the torture of child, a judge in the UK can order the rape of a woman, a judge in the UK can order a group of people to be murdered, judge in the UK can order the genocide of a nation. In fact a judge can do all of the aforegoing in the interim application’s list of the Chancery Division of the High Court during summer vacation when the courts are closed.

The SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument, the Order of 2nd and Marc Beaumont’s Fraudulent Consent Order establish a legal precedent that the victim of a crime can not only consent to a crime being committed against him but that the victim’s barrister or any third party can consent to a crime being committed against him on his behalf and without his knowledge. Those convicted of murder, rape, burglary , assault and terrorism may not have been aware that they could have relied on the defence that their victims consented to being raped, burgled, assaulted , terrorised or killed , and even if their victims say they did not consent, those convicted should have been given the chance to procure consent orders from third parties 35

consenting on behalf of the victims and without the victims’ knowledge to being raped, burgled, assaulted, terrorised or killed. Should all convicted criminals be released pending a new trial?

Contract law 8)

In the UK a judge can create a contract which does not exist, find that it does exist, order parties who do not know he has created it to be bound to it, find that the parties have breached it and can make them liable for damages for the breach of the contract (Order of 2nd, Fabricated Order Marc Beaumont’s Fraudulent Consent Order)

In the UK anyone can create a contract which does not exist which can be treated as though it does exist , is binding upon parties who do not know it has been created between them and the parties can be treated as having breached the contract and be liable for damages for the breach of the contract created between them ( Order of 2nd, Fabricated Order, Marc Beaumont’s Fraudulent Consent Order) Mortgage law

10) In the UK, the concept of the mortgage which has been in existence since Anglo Saxon times has been redefined by the UK judiciary and the HMLR : a mortgage is not created when a borrower secures his property for a loan which he has received from his lender ; a mortgage is created by a land owner who does not receive a loan from anyone and who does not agree to securing his property to anyone DOC 202 Banking law 11) For the first time since the emergence of banking in 12,500 BC it is lawful for the Bank in the UK to freeze a customer’s bank account upon receipt by the Bank of written request from an unconnected third party and the funds held by the customer or the client can be transferred to that third party again without the customer’s or client’s knowledge and approval. 12) In the UK banking is justiciable4 which means that a judge can now fix interest rates, decide what services the bank will provide, decide when or if penalties should be charged to customers, fix bank opening hours, decide who can be given credit facilities and who cannot and so on.

See the response by the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Independent Assessor who agree 4

13) In the UK, it is possible for an individual, an organisation or the SRA to control and transfer all of the UK’s Bank Deposits , if desired, to a Foreign Power or an International Terrorist Organization ? 14) Under UK law , it is possible for an individual, an organisation or the SRA to Whether the SRA could ultimately control every bank account in the world Banking law 15) All of Britain’s solicitors’ deposits held in all of Britain’s banks which certainly exceeds £1 bn which could potentially find its way into the SRA’S hands on a single day , in a matter of a few minutes – all it apparently requires is a letter faxed to their banks. What if they were all intervened upon on the same day? Trade 16) Conveyancing is based on principles of trade and exchange which have existed since trade began millennia ago. The Order of 2nd establishes a precedent that after a Customer has handed the Shopkeeper money for a loaf of bread, the Shopkeeper can make an application in the interim applications list to a High Court Judge without notifying the Customer and can obtain an order from the High Court Judge a)

ordering the Customer to hand back bread to the Shopkeeper and trust him to keep it in tact (viz. the Sheikh Charge)

enabling the Shopkeeper to retain the Customer’s money and use it if he wants (viz. the £1.2m secured by the Sheikh Charge)

enabling the Shopkeeper keep the receipt for the bread (viz. the Sheikh Charge in which a borrower acknowledges receipt )

providing if the High Court Judge got it all wrong the Customer could make a claim against the Shopkeeper

providing that if the Customer disobeys his order he will be committed to prison for contempt

If the High Court Judge makes such an order , how does the customer avoid starving to death while he is litigating against the Shopkeeper ? The Economy 19) Briggs J struck out a winding up petition at a secret hearing which did not exist in the Chancery Division’s interim applications list which does not have jurisdiction to hear winding up applications (a shipping case might just as well be heard in the Family Court). The winding up petition claimed an 37

admitted debt. Lord Justice Briggs struck out the winding up petition within an hour of service in the creditor’s absence. If a judge can do that, can a judge control global corporations and hence the Global Economy ? 20) In the space of 10 minutes, Briggs J converted a Debtor indebted to his Secured Creditor for £1.2m into his Secured Creditor’s creditor indebted to him for £6m; and vice versa. If a judge can do that he can wipe out World Debt Qualification and Training 21) Conveyancing is a discipline which requires qualification and training. If in the UK Briggs J could do conveyancing from the Bench, a judge can also do open heart surgery in the interim applications list in the High Court, he can cook a Michelin starred meal or conduct the London Philharmonic. According to Dr, Vince Cable the aggrieved conveyancing client, heart patient , diner or audience has the right to appeal or apply for judicial review. Administration 22) The Land Register is a public record. The Order of 2nd establishes a precedent in the UK that a person (as well has his solicitor or any solicitor in the world whom he wishes to instruct) can be permanently injuncted by a High Court Judge at an interim application without notice from making any application whatsoever to HMLR . Therefore people can be permanently injuncted from appearing on            

The Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages Electoral registers Passport and Citizenship registers DVLC registers Registers entitlement people to receive Social Security Registers entitlement people to receive their pension Patent registers Company registers Shipping registers Professional registers School registers Club memberships

Moreover they would never know it because they would never be notified that the judge had done that or served with any order Liability of legal representatives and clients’ conduct

their relatives

for the

23) The Order of 2nd establishes the precedent in the UK that the actions of a legal representative, the actions of his client and the actions of the legal 38

representative’s mother or other relation are one and the same and they are all liable for the same thing in the same proceedings It follows that a)

In an application for ancillary relief the judge can order the Husband’s solicitor as well as the Husband to pay maintenance to the Wife

Ms Dinah Rose QC, who represented Mr Julian Assange in his extradition case should be extradited to Sweden to face charges of rape

Mr Alun Jones QC, who represented Mr Abu Hamza , should be extradited to the USA to face charges of terrorism

Mr Nicholas Bowen QC, who recently represented the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe in his latest application to the High Court, should also be committed for the rest of his life in Broadmoor Hospital.

The mothers of divorce lawyers should also be ordered to pay maintenance to the spouses of their children’s divorce clients

Dinah Rose QC’s mother should also be extradited to Sweden to face charge of rape

Alun Jones QC’s mother should be extradited to the USA to face charges of terrorism

Nicholas Bowen QC’s mother, should also be committed for the rest of her life in Broadmoor Hospital.

Legal representation 24) A judge in the UK can permanently injunct every solicitor in the world from representing someone in the UK. 25) A judge in the UK can permanently injunct every solicitor in the world from representing all of their clients in the UK Philosophical and Existential 26) If a judge in the UK can make up a contract which does not exist, find that a person is bound by the contract he has made up , find that a person is in breach of the contract he has made up to which he has bound that person , find that the person is liable to pay damages for the breach he has made up of the contract he has made up, to which he has bound that person, can extinguish the person’s actual interest in property by way of set off against damages for the breach he has made up of the contract he has made up (which is what Briggs J did by the Order of 2nd ) an asset which exists can be extinguished by a debt which does not exist. 39

27) The UK has the right to deprive citizens of the right to exist The Victim’s title to his property disappears in a single moment in time. one minute, and gone the next. The only relevant question is

It is there

‘ Where did it go ?’

If a judge, barrister, solicitor or other third party intervened when the Victim’s title to property disappeared, it is for that judge, barrister, solicitor or other third party to explain where it went; it is not for the Victim to do anything. If the judge, barrister, solicitor and other third party cannot provide a proper explanation or will not do so, that judge, barrister, solicitor or other third party must be treated as being the thief who stole the Victim’s property. After all, title to property cannot simply vanish into thin air. If that approach is adopted, of the vast body of documents which is generated first by the judge, barrister, and solicitor to accomplish the frauds, and then by the Victim, to attempt explain how it was done , not a page need be read. In the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud [EC UN CORE PAGE EC UN CORE PAGE 52-PAGE 101 (Diagram, flowcharts and the internal emails passing between senior judges planning the fraud) PAGE 104 , PAGE 130- PAGE 134, PAGE 143- PAGE 145, A simple way of understanding the fraud ) PAGE 176PAGE 183 (How, if Briggs J could commit the Red River fraud, he could just as easily order one man to kill another etc) PAGE 184 – 218 (How conveyancing works) PAGE 240- PAGE 246 (Why Lord Philips had to be the person behind the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud) PAGE 285- PAGE 307 PAGE 346- PAGE 395 (The theft of land – the global perspective) PAGE 396-PAGE 410 ( Letters from the Attorney General, the Serious Fraud Office and the Police ) PAGE 471 PAGE 522 (Detailed description) PAGE 639-PAGE 676 (The State’s modus operandi)] 

At 15.00. on 5th October 2007, the registration of the Sheikh Charge was still being processed



At 15.01 on 5th October 2007, the application for the registration of the Sheikh Charge and the Sheikh Charge itself had disappeared



The intervening factor was Lord Justice Briggs in that minute of time



Therefore Lord Justice Briggs must have stolen the Sheikh Charge and the title to the Stoke Newington Site

In SRA Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc 

At 16.30 on 17th February 2005, all of my money and my clients’ money was in my firm’s bank accounts



At 16.31 on 17th February 2005, I no longer had access to my account.



The only intervening event was that the Law Society had sent the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument to my banks.



The Law Society Presidents and the banks must have stolen my money.

In the Bar Mutual Fraud (Marc Beaumont) EC UN CORE PAGE 135- PAGE 140, PAGE 566-PAGE 638 

In May 2010 ,a judgment in default for £900,000.00 had been entered in Anal Sheikh v Marc Beaumont in the Queen’s Bench Division



About a fortnight later, the judgment in default had disappeared



The intervening factors were Queen’s Bench Masters , the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Lord Chief Justice



The Queen’s Bench Masters , the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Lord Chief Justice must have stolen the judgment in default and split the money between them

In the Bar Mutual Fraud (Hugo Page QC and Nigel Meares) EC UN CORE PAGE 135 -PAGE 140 , PAGE 566-PAGE 638 

In March 2010 Rabia Sheikh v Hugo Page QC (1) and Nigel Meares (2) , claim in breach duty, deceit and fraud, damages for which are between £8m (minimum sum) £15m (median sum) £64m (maximum sum assuming that the lender would herself have built out the Stoke Newington Site)



6 ½ years later, no defence has been filed



After 21 days, the chose in action became a judgment in default, and an Article 1 Protocol 1 right to property



The right to property has since disappeared



The intervening factors were Queen’s Bench Masters , the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Lord Chief Justice



The Queen’s Bench Masters , the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Lord Chief Justice must have stolen the judgment in default and split the money between them

In the Theft of Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and a Half Acres of Land (Marc Beaumont) EC UN CORE PAGE 523-PAGE 558



At 10.30am on 26 March 1990 when she attended court in small claims building dispute Mrs Gomm was the owner of her freehold land free from incumbrances



At 4.30pm on on 26 March 1990 she was informed that she was no longer was the owner of her freehold land free from incumbrances and would shortly be evicted



The intervening factor was a judge and those who are now judges (Mr Harold Godwyn - the Builder’s solicitor, now District Judge Harold Godwin of Haverfordwest and Aberystwyth County Court and the President of the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges , Mr Milwyn Jarman QC - the Builder’s Leading Counsel, now His Honour Milwyn Jarman a Judge in the Lands Tribunal Mr T Lewis-Bowen, purporting to be His Honour Judge Lewis-Bowen, the purported judge at Aberystwyth County Court



They must have stolen Mrs Gomm’s home and land and split the proceeds of sale between them DOCUMENTS

The Class Action for Lawyers, Doctors and Victims of Land and Property Fraud is in the Barristers’ Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court, the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court in which there are common documents. The Class Action Documents Index is updated from time to time. The designation of the files is [A1-1 ] where A1 is the file number and -1 is the tab number The following documents are relevant for the present purpose THE UMBRELLA DOCUMENTS

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5f27lyvw0ifuokf/ECUN%20CORE%20%5BPARTS%201%20%26%202%5D.pdf? dl=0

1-912

EC UN CORE – is a core document Part I consists of flowchart and diagrams to assist with understanding the underlying concepts , details the key allegations and sets out the purpose of the document

Part II shows that there is no separation of powers in Britain but that ultimate unfettered power is vested the Lord Chief Justice and in the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State whom, it is argued, make legislation in order to steal from members of the public and from the State. There is also good reason to believe that Lord Phillips, Lord Chief Justice 20052008 , Lord Judge Lord Chief Justice 2008 -2013 and the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Mr Kenneth Clarke MP QC were personally involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and that their respective successors have suppressed it and their involvement in it.

Part III discusses land appropriation and judicial corruption from a global perspective as well as the social and political phenomena associated with it such as State oppression, torture and slavery Part IV are the State’s responses. Part V lists the supporting documents. Part VI is a legal and forensic analysis of the four main frauds and the modus operandi of State sponsored fraud. In Part VII I argue that the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority are not regulators but are at the heart of the criminal network in the UK. In particular I discuss the connection, which I say is a criminal connection, between Baroness Ruth Deech, former Chair of the Bar Standards Board, Patricia Robertson QC, former Vice Chair, and Timothy Dutton QC, former Chair of the Bar Council. I also argue that there is no separation of powers. Part VIII details allegations against UK’s public officials of corruption, corruption in public office, theft, mortgage fraud. conspiracy to defraud, money laundering and land registration offences . The public officials include Mr Dominic Grieve QC MP, the Attorney General 2010 to 2014 , Lord Judge , Sir Nicholas Bratza and/or the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Malcolm Dawson OBE former Chief Land Registrar Mr. Ed Lester, Chief Land Registrar, Mr. John Pownall, Head of Litigation at HM Land Registry. Mr. Edward Cousins , Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, Dr Vince Cable MP, Secretary of State for Business , Innovations and Skills, Mr Adam Sampson the Chief Ombudsman of the Legal Ombudsman, Mrs Linda CostelloeBaker CBE, the Independent Assessor of the Financial Ombudsman Service , Ms Natalie Ceeney CBE the Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman Baroness Ruth Deech , 43

Chair of the Bar Standards Board , the Presidents of the Law Society and Chair of the Bar Council Part IX deals with aspects of the Frauds where they concern the Crown and the Queen under the Judicial Committee Act 1833 s 4 Part X Racial hatred in the 21st century. The belief that black and ethnic minority individuals are corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and fundamentally unfit for the higher professions and for public office Part XI analyses UK’s torture techniques with reference to the lawyer’s regulator but it could just as well apply to the Victim who has been stripped of his land and property by a purported member of the judiciary and attempts to recover what he has lost through the courts which is an exercise in futility. The techniques are extracted from a random selection of official torture manuals such as Biderman (1956, 6-13), the "basic communist techniques of coercive interrogation" , KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation and LTC Jerald Phifer‘s memorandum to the Commander of Joint Task Force 170 (Guantánamo) Part XII provides evidence that there is no criminal law agency in the UK for the prosecution of economic crime

Part XIII deals with the proposed impeachment of Lord Phillips of Matravers Worth, Lord Justice Briggs, Mr Justice Henderson, Mr Kenneth Clarke MP QC and Mr Chris Grayling

Part XIV identifies aspects relevant to the cost and consequences to the EU of UK’S fraud and money laundering : Part XV set out my three main objectives in the UK which are ‘1. Holding the barristers at the lowest rung of the criminal ladder to account, 2. Establishing a fully funded legal aid system and 3. Bringing about the most fundamental change the legal profession will have seen for over one hundred and fifty years (since the days of Jinnah , Nehru and Gandhi)’

CL1 Notice of Class Action

THE CLASS ACTION [SOLICITORS ] CORE DOCUMENTS

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqmh7yssneji19l/UK%2011%2 0Supreme%20Court%20%20%20Miss%20A%20Sheikh%2 0v%20Law%20Society%20%20%281%29%20Timothy%2 0Dutton%20QC%20%282%29%20Charles%20Plant%20% 283%29.pdf?dl=0 UK11 This is my application made ex debito justiciae for a declaration that all interventions by the Law Society based on the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Order are void , for permission for a class action claiming damages for all 10000 law firms, for a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 and for an order that the SRA Conspirators (as defined) be committed to prison for contempt of court

SR2 A draft indictment in relation to the SRA’s Bank Scam – use of the fraudulent instrument

DOC 8 Response in the case of Anal Sheikh v UK Government [2010] ECHR 649 (23 April 2010) 51144/07 and Ref 28863/11 The legal arguments as to why I say all interventions are void are set out in DOC 8 PAGE 116 – PAGE 185 and details of the Compensation Fund Fraud and other frauds are set out in DOC 8 PAGE 185 – PAGE 207 . I argue that there is a possibility that the amendments effected over the years to the original statute may have been prompted financial and other considerations , by an ulterior motive and a hidden agenda. It is truly extraordinary that for the last forty five years the Law Society and the judiciary have mistakenly treated the Notice of Intervention, which anyone can see is an internal document generated by the Law Society, as a court order entitling the Law Society to close down firms and having the effect of freezing bank accounts, resulting not only in incalculable loss to the economy but causing human suffering of an order which is unimaginable in a modern democracy . The consequences if there were to be a similar misunderstanding in relation the proposed statute do not bear contemplation.

THE CLASS ACTION (VICTIMS OF LAND AND PROPERTY THEFT

RR1

A draft indictment against Lord Justice Briggs who impersonated a judge to commit a conveyancing and land registration fraud (the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud)

DOC 133

Graphic illustration of the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud

DOC 50

Fraud Report Vol 0. Vol 1, Vol 2 which can be accessed from the High Court , the Court of Appeal , the Ministry of Justice, Harrow Police Station and the Land Registry where originals were sent. It also appears on the USB device with blanks where material needs to be scanned and inserted. This is the report which prompted the former Solicitor General, Vera Baird QC, who had personally examined it, to ask the Victim to refer ‘judicial corruption’ to the police . It is also the document upon which the 26 paragraph SFO report [DOC 05] is based. In April 2010 the Land Registry gave effect to a transfer of the Stoke Newington Site to the Metropolitan Housing Trust (‘MHT’) notwithstanding the contents of the report. Ms. Genny Millenger, a Registrar and solicitor at the Land Registry, said she could not see anything in the Fraud Report

DOC 72

A letter to the Prime Minister dated 31st May 2012. PAGE 43 - PAGE 50 shows how Sir Andrew Morritt , Briggs J , Deputy Registrar Schaffer and others conspired to commit a mortgage fraud against two Victims Mrs Sheikh and Miss Sheikh PAGE 23 - PAGE 43 shows that if an nd ordinary purchaser is faced with the Order of 2 the cost of a £300,000 house would be £935,000 if he does not challenge the Order of 2 nd , and if he does challenge it the cost of a £300,000 house is £9.13m . This section also shows that transactions in land in the UK are no longer possible. PAGE 50 – PAGE 72 show why the Order of 2nd is legally void and does not exist

DOC 140 Graphic illustration of Bar Mutual Fraud BMIF 1

Draft indictment against Deputy Master Nicholas Bard accepted a bribe not to enter judgment in default for £5m four years ago at a hearing which is still continuing

ANNEX 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN THE UK

CODE

Indicates serious conflict

Indicates route for complaints or governance (HMLR was an MOJ agency at the material time) Indicates route to obtain a remedy, compensation or reparation

Theft of Bona Vacantia in SRA Scam

EXECUTIVE We’ve avoided paying the Victim compensation or reparation, kept them out of court and protected all of the barristers solicitors and judges as well as HMLR

LeO ‘ Go to court

HM Courts

LSB ‘ Go to the BSB

BSB ‘ Go to the police’

Victim’s own barrister

Victim’s own solicitor

Other barrister

Steal what you can from the Victim . Give me a 50% cut and I’ll protect all of you .

No money needed from Treasury as no payments made to Victim

MINISTER OF JUSTICE

We’ve protected the insurance companies and the Banks

Other solicitor

RED RIVER FRAUD

FCA

JICO

Complaints Commission er

‘Go to court’

FSOM ‘Go to court’

Purported judge

SRA’S BANK SCAM COMPENSATION FUND FRAUD ETC

MARGARET GOMM

TREASURY

Treasury pays for court to commit fraud

HMLR

BMIF ‘ You are not allowed to go to court

Banks

Anthony Townsend

THEFT OF MOUNTSIDE 48

ANNEX 2- DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE THEFT OF THE VICTIM’S RIGHT IN REM TO A SERVICE COMPLAINT TO A CASEWORKER’S LINE MANAGER. THEFT OF THE CREATION OF NON EXISTENT RIGHTS INVESTMENT 1)

PROPERTIES

The SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc

Right to make a claim for right in rem within 6 months or lose right

in rem

Right to complain about the SRA to ICR within 6 months or lose right to complain Right to complain about the judiciary to the OCJ Right to complain about to BSB within 6 months or lose right to complain

Right to make an application to court for the SRA’s misfeasance in public office or lose right in

Client’s rights in

rem

Right to make a complaint to the police for theft by SRA, corruption in public office etc

Right to complain about solicitors to SRA within 6 months or lose right to complain Right to complain about own lawyer to Leo within 1 year or lose right to complain Right to complain about police to IPCC

Clients rights in rem include :



Client deposits for a variety of payments such as sale proceeds , the purchase price, settlement sums in litigation, payments on account.



Client funds for untraceable clients



Estate monies 49



Bona vacantia

The diagram below charts the SRA’s theft of the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds (which could be any client’s money) Represents my right in the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds Represents the SRA’s appropriation of the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds Represents Radcliffes’s appropriation of the NRAM Remortgage Proceeds

Right in

rem

Right in

persona m

Chose in action

Illusory chose in action property within discretio n of judge

Right to complain to the police , regulator y body Ombuds man etc

Right to complain reviewer or line manager

No rights

17 Feb 2005 4.30Pm 17 Feb 2005 4.340Pm Start of hearing April –July 2005 Hearing April –July 2005 July 2005 – Oct 2013

The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud

Represents Mrs. Rabia Sheikhâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights Represents Mr. Ismail Doganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights

Rights in

rem

Rights in

persona m

Choses in action

Property within discretio n of judge

Right to complain to the police , regulator y bodies etc

Right to complain reviewer or line manager

No rights

3.00 5 Oct 2007 3.01 5 Oct 2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012 2013

The theft of Mrs Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and a Half Acres of Land

The diagram below charts what happened to Mrs. Gomm’s rights in her land.

Represents Mrs. Gomm’s right in rem in her land Represents Mrs. Gomm’s chose in action Represents the Builder’s chose in action

Rights in

rem

Rights in

persona m

Choses in action

Property within discretio n of judge

Right to complain to the police , regulator y bodies etc

Right to complain reviewer or line manager

No rights

10.30am 26 March 1990 4.30pm 26 March 1990

Sept 2013

The case of Mrs Grazyna Mekarska

Represents GM’s rights in the Property Represents GM’s rights in the Property projected into the future Represents the Defendants’ claimed rights in the Property Represents the Defendants’ claimed rights in projected into the future

the Property

Represents GM’s rights respectively against the Police , Henderson J, and Mr Jonathan Allcock . It shows how a right in rem in the Property is converted to a right to complain (I coincidently met one of the Hillingdon Police a few days ago in a local park. I asked him how he could allow people to be put on the streets on the back of warrants which were fraudulent. He responded that I should complain about him if I were dissatisfied with his actions) Represents GM’s right to complain respectively against the Police , Henderson J, and Mr Jonathan Allcock projected into the future

Right

in rem

Right in

personam

Chose in action

Right to Illusory complain to chose in the police , action regulatory property body within Ombudsman discretion etc of judge

Right to complain reviewer or line manager

No rights

Thu 06 Mar 2014 10.00.am Thu 06 Mar 2014 10.01 am Theft and displacement Fri 07 Mar 2014 Supreme Court Application Mon 10 , Tues 11 and Wed 12 Mar 2014 Applications Henderson J Thu 13 Mar 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 31 Dec 2014 2015

2016

2017

ANNEX 3- THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD

3PM 05 OCT 2007 SITE VALUE = £2.4M - £2.98M

Bank of Scotland = £1.2m

Rabia Sheikh = £1.2m

THEFT BY BRIGGS J OF THE SHEIKH CHARGE

IN 10 MINS AT INTERIM HEARINGS BRIGGS J AND HENDERSON J CHANGE MR DOGAN FROM A DEBTOR OF £1.2M INT0 A CREDITOR OF £ 6.2M.

3.10PM 05 OCT 2007 SITE VALUE = £2.4M - £2.98M

Bank of Scotland = £1.2m

Ismail Dogan = £5m

Ismail Dogan = £0

APRIL 2010 SITE VALUE = £64M PLANNING PERMISSION FOR 100 FLATS AND 6 SHOPS Hugo Page QC, Nigel Meares = £1m Lexa Hilliard Tom Smith Marc Beaumont = £ 1m Andrew Speight QC defending the BMIF = £1m Briggs J = £1m Deputy Registrar Schaffer = £1m Chadwick LJ and Rimer LJ , Simon J , Burnett J Master Leslie, Deputy Master Hoffman = £2m Burges Salmon = £500,000 MHT = £1m The Met and COLP = £500,000.00 Land Registry officials, Mr Pownall and Chief Land Registrar = £1m Andrew Morritt = £?m Henderson J = £?m

AUG 09 SITE VALUE = £1M NO PLANNING HACKNEY COUNCIL PROBABLY BRIBED

Bank of Scotland = £1.2m

Ismail Dogan = £5m

WHEN ASKED HOW MR DOGAN COULD MAKE A £5M DEVELOPMENT PROFIT WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION AND BUILD COSTS OF £6M ON A PROPERTY VALUED AT £1M AND ALREADY SUBJECT TO A FIRST CHARGE TO THE BANK OF IRELAND OF £1.75M AND A NOTIONAL SECOND CHARGE TO RABIA SHEIKH OF £900K, HENDERSON J ‘FOUND’ THAT MR DOGAN COULD BORROW £6M FROM A FRIEND AND SECURE IT AS A THIRD CHARGE

HOW THE ORDER OF 2ND WOULD AFFECT AN ORDINARY HOUSE BUYER

Completion’s done . I will now register the transfer to you.

9am that day

12pm that day

I order the Buyer and the Buyer’s solicitor to remove the application to register his transfer and to deliver the Transfer (TR1) to the Seller to lodge with his TR1 when and if he , the Seller , has completed his own purchase. Until that time (1) the Buyer , the Buyer’s solicitor every solicitor in the world shall be injuncted from making any application to HMLR for the Buyer, (2) the Seller shall live in the Property and (3) the Seller shall keep the purchase monies. If the Buyer suffers loss, he can make a claim for damages against the Seller

4pm that day

Sorry, but I need £ 9.1m if you want to instruct me to challenge that order (See DOC 72)

BED AND BREAKFAST Vacancies 1 month later

The official certificates of search under the Land Registration Rules 2003 protection the registration of the Sheikh Charge

SEPTEMBER 2007

OCTOBER 2007

Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mon 1

Tue 2

Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 3 4 5 6 7

Sheikh priority searches dated 15th August (Page 12) and dated 21st September 2007 (Page 14-15)

Bank of Ireland Priority Search dated 30th August (Page 13)

Extension of time given by HMLR to complete the Sheikh Registration Applicaiton (Page 16-17)

The Lenderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s solicitor applies to register his clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legal mortgage following completion and during the priority period

The attempt at the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud on 5th October 2007 scuppered by the Sheikh Registration Application

Lord Phillips of Matravers Worth , Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (3 rd October 2005 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30th September 2008 ) arranges for Lord Justice Briggs, Justice of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice (2006-2013) to masquerade as a solicitor on 2nd October 2007 and 5th October 2007 to remove the Sheikh Registration Application and complete the fraud

Judges in the UK make law in the UK- not Parliament

Judges in the UK can create contracts and order parties to accept them

Judges in the UK can order criminal offences to be committed or legitimize the committing of them

Judges in the UK can dispose of land in the UK without a written memorandum

Judges in the UK can do conveyancing from the Bench

One public official in the UK (a Judge) can injunct another public official ( the Chief Land Registrar) from performing his statutory function

Judges in the UK can injunct a person from instructing any and every lawyer in the world and can injunct any and very lawyer in the world from representing that person

Bank of Scotland £1.2m Rabia Sheikh £ 1.2m

Mr Dogan £ 0 –£ 580K

I am going to ‘ unfreeze’ the Register during Rabia Sheikh’s Priority Period which is unheard of and is impossible to do under the global principles of the land registration system and under statute

I am going to ‘undo ‘ or disregard the contractual terms of the Sheikh Charge and, first time in 12,000 years I am going to make up my own contracts and find that parties have entered into the contracts I have created.

I am then going to order the Chief Land Registrar in violation of s. 1 of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Act ) 1984 to register the contracts I have ‘created ‘ as dispositions of land.

Finally I am going to permanently injunct the Chief Land Registrar from accepting any applications whatsoever made by Rabia Sheikh or by any lawyer in the world on her behalf. In other words I am going to prevent another public official from performing the statutory obligation imposed upon him by Parliament or absolve him from so doing.

Briggs J then provided that if Rabia Sheikh (a mortgagee with whom Mr Dogan had completed a mortgage under which funds had been advanced to him ) or Anal Sheikh (the mortgageeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s solicitor) suffered loss by his Order removing the mortgageeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s application to register the Legal Charge, they could make a claim for damages against Mr. Dogan. Briggs does something which is universally a legally impossibility ; he reduces a right in rem to a right in personam ; he reduces a right in real property to a mere right to a chose in action ; he causes a secured debt to be diminished to a unsecured debt and a secured creditor to an unsecured creditor.

Mortgagors , borrowers , debtors

Mortgagees, lenders, creditors

GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN

Yes, Mr. Smith you’re right. Miss Sheikh seems determined to stop the fraud we are planning against her client and mother

Better keep it quiet that I told her to issue the winding Oops ! I TOLDup her to issue

the winding up petitionpetition better keep that quiet

The Borrower [Mr Dogan] had completed a mortgage with Bank A on the Stoke Newington Site securing £1.2m ,which sum he had received from Bank A. Had Bank A [Rabia Sheikh] permitted him to also remortgage the Stoke Newington Site with Bank B [the Bank of Irelend] for £1.75m, the Borrower would have been able 1. to pay Bank A, the first

mortgage instalment of £300K due

on 31

July 2007 under Bank A’s mortgage and 2. make a profit of £5m from the construction of a 100 unit development with no experience in developing land (his only experience being in running takeaways) ,without a feasible planning permission, without having build costs of £6m, in a property recession Accordingly, Bank A must pay damages of £5m to the Borrower and furthermore Bank A’s mortgage is extinguished , making the total damages payable to the Borrower, £6.2m.

WHAT!?

The TRADING OF CORPORATIONS and hence CONTROL of the GLOBAL ECONOMY falls within absolute and unfettered discretion of a CHANCERY DIVISION INTERIM APPLCIATIONS LIST JUDGE in the UK who can, if he wishes, strike out a winding up a petition within a hour of its service.

The actions of a legal representative attach to his client. It follows that Ms Dinah Rose QC, who represented Mr Julian Assange, should be extradited to Sweden to face charges of rape and Mr Alun Jones QC, who represented Mr Abu Hamza , should be extradited to the USA to face charges of terrorism! The actions of a legal representative attach to his family. Therefore a logical consequence, Ms Dinah Rose QCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mother and Mr Alun Jones QC mother should

be extradited to face the respective charges of

rape and terrorism!

SERIOUSLY.WHAT !?

Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs steal the Sheikh Charge

BURGES SALMON

SHEIKH £1.2M. LEGAL CHARGE

REGISTRAR SCHAFFER

BANK OF IRELAND

MR DOGAN

But, where’s my

legal charge for £ 1.2m……?

Violated UK Statutes

Violated universal principles

Violated EC Law Violated Convention Rights

ORDER OF 2ND Conveyancing practices evolved over the course of 400 years disregarded

Violated Land Registration principles

Criminal offences committed

Civil Procedure Rules breached

Violations of the United Nations Conventions against Torture and Other Degrading Treatment 1984

On 2nd Oct 2007, Michael Biggs QC, using empty courtrooms in summer vacation when the courts are closed and bribing court officials to pretend there was a hearing, masqueraded as a High Court Judge to commit a conveyancing and mortgage fraud. He disregarded 400 years of conveyancing practice, the global principles of Land Registairon and violated over 50 statutory provisions associated with the disposition of land including s. 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 (replacing the Statute of Frauds 1677 ) .These are the consequences if a single one of the 47000 members of UK’s judiciary sets aside the fraudulent instrument Briggs used (‘the Order of 2nd) which can be done at any minute henceforth in a matter of a few moments and without any formality

Conveyanicng by a solicitor costs about £500. The land registration process (usually done by the secretary costs £30 (thirty pounds) in a solicitor’s office The cost to the public purse for the Red River Fraud spread over 5 years was £4m ( four million pounds )

Assuming 500,000 proceedings are issued in the High Court every year and 1% of them are sham proceedings extrapolating from the statistics in my case that means that every 5 years the total cost to the public purse of sham proceeding is £20,000,000.000.00 or £20 billion.

INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES FOR EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, PENSIONS AND SOCIAL WELFARE

About 50 members of the senior judiciary and Government officials were involved in the fraud.

The 100 units have a £ 64m development profit. What is the quantum of moneylaundering on disposal of all units £300m? £400m?

Legislation for secret hearings set aside (Kenneth Clarke)

What is the total quantum of money laundering involved in all property fraudulently acquired in the UK ?

Legal aid cuts set aside (Grayling)

The Chief Land Registrar and the Land Adjudication Office were party to the Red River fraud

All UK titles fraudulently altered to be rectified and compensation paid to owner

Lehman Bros cases set aside (Briggs)

Cayman Islands decisions set aiside (Sir John Chadwick masqueraded as a UK Court of Appeal Justice when he was the Cayman Islands President of the Court of Appeal )

All decisions by Lord Philips (he authorized the use of empty courtrooms in summer vacation to commit the fraud)

ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROPER SYSTEM OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

About 100 barristers involved including about 50 QC’s including Hugo Page QC, Anthony Speiaght QC How many other clients have suffered

TRANSFER OF WEALTH BACK TO RIGHTFUL OWNER75

ANNEX 4- EMAILS BETWEEN SIR ANDREW MORRITT, FORMER CHANCELLOR OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, MR JUSTICE NORRIS AND MR JUSTICE HENDERSON, ALSO IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION, SHOWING TWO HIGH COURT JUDGES AND THE THIRD MOST SENIOR JUDGE IN BRITAIN CONSPIRING TO COMMIT A MORTGAGE FRAUD AGAINST TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

THE INTERNAL EMAILS THE JUDGES WROTE TO EACH OTHER

AND NOW FOR THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THE CHANCELLOR, SIR ANDREW MORRITT CVO, (THE THIRD MOST SENIOR JUDGE IN THE UK) CONSPIRING WITH MR JUSTICE HENDERSON AND MR JUSTICE NORRIS (TWO SENIOR JUDGES IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE UK) TO COMMIT AN EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT REGISTRATION GAP MORTGAGE FRAUD ON TWO ORDINARY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

ANNEX 5- DIAGRAMS SHOWING BARONESS RUTH DEECH’S INVOLVEMENT IN SERIOUS ORGANISED FRAUD AND HER CONNECTIONS WITH LORD BELOFF, LORD LESTER, LORD WOOLF AND WITH BLACKSTONE CHAMBERS

See EC UN CORE PAGE 541-542

For allegations of corruption against Dominic Grieve MP QC see EC UN CORE PAGE 779-790

The BSB has refused to consider

complaints against any barrister

John Deech’s firm Blake Lapthorn has a contract with the SRA to do regulatory work. The case of Anal Sheikh v the Law Society stopped all interventions . Baroness Deech’s family income depends on dismissing claims against barristers who further the SRA’s Bank Scam

Hugo Page QC of Blackstone Chambers was involved in the Red River fraud

Hugo Page QC was also involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Jonathan Harvie QC of Blackstone Chambers was involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam