attempts.htm        KEY PageChanges 18 Aug. 2004  

KEY to Page & Site
Important Page WARNING
Page DEDICATED to actors
Page IMAGES  - List
Page ARTICLES - List
Page PLEADINGS - List
Norman Scarth Enlightened
FAMILY RIGHTS - ISSUE

Page IMAGES - List
Defence & Counterclaim P1
Defence & Counterclaim P2
Defence & Counterclaim P3
Defence & Counterclaim P4
Strike Out of Counterclaim
Appealing The Strike Out P1
Appealing The Strike Out P2
Appealing The Strike Out P3
Appealing The Strike Out P4 Appeal Lodged Receipt
Appeal Posted To Lord Chan.
Lord Chanc. Acknowledges
Bill of Rights Announced
<>

=======

Page ARTICLES - List
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5

Page PLEADINGS - List
The APPEAL In HTML 4 Links
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6

Page 1 of the Defence and Counterclaim Doc.

Page 2  Def. & Counter.

Page 3  Def.& Counter.

Page 4 Def. & Counter.

The Order Striking Out the Counterclaim in the usual abusive manner.

Letter To Court When Submitting Appeal 

Page 1 of the Appeal Warranted

Page 2 of the Appeal

Page 3 of the Appeal

Page 4 if the Appeal

Appeal Lodged Receipt

Letter Serving copy of the Appeal on the Lord Chancellor

Letter from the Court Service acknowledging receipt of the letter to the Lord Chancellor

The Press Release clear The Times reports the Lord Chancellor's 'Bill of Rights' proclamation. In due course the fraudsters who were sent along to abuse our time will get to know WHY family issues were first on the list of Rights, in the article released by the Lord Chancellor / the government. It is hoped that persons like Mr. Norman Scarth who never had/maintained a family might then come to terms with his/their evil parts while creating false images about their persons and doing their darn best (with other organised fraudsters) to maintain 'the system as is' for personal, albeit fraudulently created / secured gains / rewards.

IMPORTANT NOTICE-WARNING
Readers / visitors / victims of the system should recognise that by causing the announcement for the introduction of The Bill of Rights, the very persons who have been abusing occupation of judicial chairs for centuries / millennia were / have been placed in a position to carry on denying rights to selected / targeted citizens. Judicial chair occupants will simply carry on, as usual, pretend they are dealing with the provisions of 'The Human Rights Act 1998', in exactly the same manner as they had / have been doing in respect of all other Acts of Parliament. So long as there exist fraudsters of the caliber of the persons to whom this page is dedicated, so the system of operations, in place, will flourish. Thereby the criminals in control, as the parasitic vultures that they have been for millennia, will carry on care of their own creation which is NOT founded on any Act of Parliament but endorsed, by politicians, through silence. Contempt for the taxpayers, 'the serfs', 'the shitizens', those who are subjected to the whims of the corrupters, the corrupt and THE CORRUPTED (among the last the persons to whom this page is dedicated) in the order of the day. 

This page is dedicated to persons who were introduced to us by the Litigants In Person Society and to those who contacted us through reference to the list they were issued by the LIPS crowd managers - controllers and advisers. All came along as 'alleged active challengers of the rampant fraud in the Legal System'. All complaining about the luck of interest by the police and the newspapers. Each and every one asserting that they had been the victim of the type of activities we cover in our pages. (*Link to FOOTNOTE for their part as the CIUKU Enterprises (*F2) front line soldiers / promoters and users of' The System As Is').

Owing to the fact that we have been caused to bring forward the release of the evidence we publish in these pages, we request that visitors and readers be on the look out for additional information.

• The staff of Enfield Council, in line with the staff (*Link) of other Local Authorities in our country, were demanding a refund from targeted Landlords in the sum of £165 pounds sterling. The reasons given, simple: Council staff alleged that an overpayment had been made in respect of the rent paid for the occupation of private accommodation that *had been occupied* by an assisted person.
• The first four images, to the left in a descending order in this page, are the four pages that constituted the Defence & Counterclaim document that was lodged at court and served on the Claimants.
• The fifth document is the image of an Order issued by the Court whereby the court, of its own motion, simply issued a piece of paper, purportedly a legitimate Court Order, Striking Out the Counterclaim. Most victims should be familiar with this ploy and abuse of the Courts' facilities by persons who determine that sections of the communities in the United Kingdom are not entitled to the protection of the Law. Also, in the instance at hand, it was a case of attempting to steal funds in order to finance the generosity of third parties who determined to create a melting pot of cultures and ethnic groups in the United Kingdom as in other European and Western States. The generous simply abusing the courts facilities in order to finance their schemes instead of  dipping into their savings, their bank accounts or taking a cut in their salaries. You are requested to access and read the letter sent to the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP. six years later (*Link).
• The sixth document is the image of the letter to the court when submitting the Appeal that was warranted after DJ Rose struck out the Counterclaim. Reference to the Order itself establishes blunt discrimination by the court / judge at the very least. We recommend that you read the submissions as put to the court in the letter.
• The seventh to the tenth images on the left are the four pages of the Appeal that was necessitated after the court served its Order on the targeted citizens. Readers should acquaint themselves with the content of the document and then access and consider the assertions by one of the persons who was introduced to us by the LIPS crowd/mob, to which parties this page / file is dedicated (*Link). The Appeal that was necessitated after typical divorce proceedings (theatrics by criminally motivated free-loaders and parasites) which we covered and published subsequently in our pages, actually relates to and covers much, but not all and everything that the abuser of our good-will and time had been subjected to for years (*Link).
• The eleventh image is that of the receipt that was issued by the court when the Appeal was lodged.
• The twelfth scanned image is that of a letter addressed to and sent to the Lord Chancellor with a copy of the Appeal.
• The thirteenth image is that of the Press Release, the article that was published by 'The Times' when covering the Lord Chancellor's announcement of the Bill Rights.
• We have published only part of the warranted work necessitated when the attempts to defraud the targeted 'serfs' were being challenged. The plans of self-appointed Lords & Masters who set off  'to subject the targeted to the fraudulent activities of the criminals and masters in the art of abuse of public office, in our pseudo-democracy had to challenged. We request that you access the stated facts in the case that was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in July 2002. After reading THE FACTS as STATED (*Link) follow on / scroll down to THE VIOLATIONS PLEADED (as argued by us for the member of the *human-rights.org Community On Line*.
• We trust that readers will duly NOTE THE ARGUMENT based on the RIGHTS TO THEIR LIFE as the 'serfs' planned and not as their Lords & Masters conspire in secret meetings to impose on the 'shitizens' in pseudo-democracies. Alleged democratic states where the victims of crimes, at and through the courts, are coerced into the world of the Lords & Masters managing the legal system and controlling the courts. Intrigue, conspiracies, fraudulent misrepresentations with plenty of hypocrisy, sycophancy and the securing of advantages from the targeted UNDER FALSE PRETENCES; (as in the instance of the allegedly legitimate right of DJ Rose to Strike Out the Counterclaim that was resting and founded on the abuse of the time and the resources of the targeted victims).
• Wasted resources and lives as IMPOSED by the criminals who, in acting out their public(?) duties(!), indulge in the free-for-all as advocated propagated, endorsed and promoted by the executioners of dictatorial rulings through which to defraud the 'serfs' of their properties and THEIR RIGHTS IN LAW. Abusers of public office, from the staff and officers in charge and control of funds, belonging to others, indulging in the creation of 'the need for the litigation antics and the frauds pointed to the researcher Stephen Knight' (*Link). Of such practices alleged victims, soon learn the ropes after they are coerced into acceptance of 'the only hope for restitution being the endorsement, acceptance of and compliance with the terms / arrangements ENTAILING THE SECOND FRAUD ON THE SERFS - the taxpayers (*Link).
• We need only add that in reference to 'victims' we mean all who end up, (through the scheming and planning of and by the self-appointed Lords & Masters) before the tools of and the creators of 'The Dictatorship through the back door imported and via the abusers of judicial chairs imposed on the 'serfs' ", thereafter to be subjected to the whims of the corrupters, the corrupted and the corrupt. In the event that readers / visitors to these pages have not recognised to which parties we refer to as the Lords, we clarify as we did when the hero of the LIPS crowd/mob enquired: "Surely you know which persons you are addressing as your Lords when you appear before Court of Appeal judges? As to 'masters' just replace 'public servants' with the word and there you have it".   

Below the appeal as lodged - in HTML for links

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

Case No. ED707382

PLAINTIFFS The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield

DEFENDANTS Arcade Accommodation Services Ltd.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be moved on ..................day the ........................... day of .............................. 1997 at ............................. to hear an APPEAL on behalf of the DEFENDANTS in this action against the ORDER of District Judge Rose whereby the said Judge elected to act in contravention of every principle of Justice and existing Court rules and directions from Higher Authorities and without due notice to the Defendants ordered that the Defendants' Counterclaim be struck out.

AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL are that the District Judge erred and was wrong to seek the suppression of the PLEADINGS as submitted to the Plaintiffs and to the Court by the Defendants and that further and in particular the Judge erred and was wrong because:-

1. The Defendants were not notified of the intentions and or propositions of the Court, and specifically of District Judge Rose, to deal with any aspects of the case before the court 'in camera' and the Court is called to strict proof as to when and how the Defendants were informed and or notified of the proposed 'freedoms' as were to take place and or to be entered into by District Judge Rose'.

2. The Order / Judgement Appealed against contravenes the Judgement of the European Court as in 'Hendrikman and Another -v- Magenta Druck & Verlag GMBH' whereby it was adjudged that "...Judgement NOT RECOGNISED when the Defendants unaware of trial".

3. The order discriminates against the Defendants who hereby plead the case Pery -v- Yiannides when similar attempts and denials of rights were contemplated, were entered into and the Court's processes were wrongly used; subsequently the Court to rescind erroneously and wrongly entered/motivated/secured Orders and to reverse Judgement culminating eventually in the Schooling of all 1800 District Judges on racism.

4. The Defendants hereby also plead the case Korytsas -v- Demetri when the Court, and others who were abusing the Court's facilities (and Legal Aid Funding for years) were caused to abandon the theatrical productions they had entered into, and a settlement was secured by agreement between the parties and attempts to intimidate and threaten one of the parties with imprisonment for alleged/promoted contempt of Court had been entered into which were abandoned following a succinct and explicit Appeal and communication to those who sought to abuse the Court's processes for other aims than the service of Justice through Parliament's Laws, the facts of the case and the Principles of unbiased Justice administered by truly independent of other influences and undisclosed policies and practices 'Judicial persons'.

5. That the Order / Judgement as entered into in private and arbitrarily by District Judge Rose cannot be allowed to stand in as much as that it is an attempt to silence the Defendants and to suppress material facts in futile efforts, by the County Court, to evade dealing with the issues arising out of the pleadings and the practices entertained and perpetrated at the expense of the citizens and imposed on 'selected members of the communities within the United Kingdom'.

6. The District Judge erred and was wrong to discriminate against the Defendants in as much as that the Order Appealed against is clearly endorsed with the words "Upon the Plaintiff not appearing and the Defendant not appearing". AND that discrimination in any form and or on any grounds is covered by the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights as were pleaded in the Defence and in particular the Counterclaim that District Judge Rose sought to suppress from the Court's records thereafter for the Court to default to deal with the Defendants' Pleaded RIGHTS IN LAW, national and international. And that the Court ( in the person of District Judge Rose) to contemplate and or to entertain any EX PARTE application/alleged hearing by any party (to which the Defendants had no access and right of audience) was wrong to rest and found its ruling/Judgement/Order on the grounds stated on the Order specifically endorsed that the parties did not appear before District Judge Rose.

7. That until such time as the close of Pleadings the Court, District Judge Rose and or any other, could not and ought not to enter into any directions in the matter, let alone seek to suppress well founded Pleadings resting on matters of Law and Principles that the United Kingdom and its Parliament subscribe to through membership of the United Nations, the European Community and through ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially when specific violations of the last were and are pleaded in the Counterclaim which District Judge Rose sought to suppress through the Order appealed against.

8. The Court ought not and cannot suppress the Pleadings and or obstruct the Defendants without dealing with and or hearing the fundamental 'facts of life' within the United Kingdom until such time as the Court can establish and produce evidence that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament have authorised and suctioned the use of the Courts' processes in order to impose on the public 'Robin Hood practices and indulgences' at the expense of the uninformed and unsuspecting as pleaded in the Counterclaim that District Judge Rose sought to suppress through his public office in contravention of every principle of Law and Justice.

AND THE DEFENDANTS WILL SEEK THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:-

I. An Order setting aside the Order of 30th September 1997;

II. The Defendants' Counterclaim be re-instated;

III. The Plaintiffs proceed to enter and file a Reply to Defence AND THEIR DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM and that the said document be duly served on the Defendants;

IV. The Defendants to enter and file their Reply to Defence to Counterclaim and that thereafter the parties hereto attend Court for directions in accordance with the rules and that such directions from the Court be founded on the facts pleaded by the parties AND IN PARTICULAR THE LAW AND THE PRECEDENT CASES PLEADED BY THE DEFENDANTS.

V. The Plaintiffs do qualify and or justify their demands of the Defendants IF SUCH BE FOUNDED and resting on any Appeals against the Court rulings and Judgements in the precedent cases referred to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants and subsequently Pleaded.

VI. The Plaintiffs to furnish to the Defendants the National Insurance number (and or other Central Government reference number) of and or for the tenant M Alberto whom Central Government was supporting by way of Housing Benefit entitlement so that the Defendants can take matters further in order to establish the facts in the case at hand AND that any failure to furnish such information be pronounced and or be deemed to be nothing but attempts to obstruct Justice and or that the Plaintiffs and their staff and agents are lending themselves to be accessories to acts of dishonesties and deceptions on the Defendants and conscious promoters of such practices and acts.

VII. District Judge Rose be ordered by the Lord Chancellor (who will be served with copy of this Appeal) AND or invited by the Lord Chancellor to state in a written reply to the Defendants and to the press the grounds upon which the Counterclaim was struck out if other than the suppression of facts of life in the United Kingdom and the promotion and encouragement of dishonesties and deceptions and or the denials of rights to selected members of the communities that constitute the citizens of the United Kingdom leading to a society with no morals and a society that ignores Parliaments laws and to a state that disregards its own undertakings and commitments to the International Community.

VIII. AND that District Judge Rose be removed from this case.

Dated this the ................... day of ............................. 1997

................................................ P. Nicolaou , a Director, for and on behalf of

The Defendants - Arcade Accommodation Services Ltd.
158 Clay Hill
Enfield EN2 9AL

TO THE COURT with extra copy for service by the Court on the Plaintiffs on completion as to date and time.