Ashoks Letter
Watcher
I am glad to see IBRG independently exposing that I am not the only one
who is experiencing such hideous crimes at the hands of the solicitors.
In my over 20 years of experience with the legal fraternity in the UK I
now know that some evil bunch of vicious criminals are practicing as
solicitors because the Law Society is not what it purports to be. It
would serve better if it were formally declared to be a ‘Crime Society’
like some deranged judges have turned ‘Royal Courts of Justice’ into
‘Justice Prostitution Centre’ [Please see my complaint to Lord Phillips
MR who at best is under control of the Satan or at worst is Satan
himself wearing the mask of a Lord.
Victim of worse than Nazi Law criminal members
of the Law Society of England and Wales
FAO Rt Hon the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Master of the Rolls
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
Complaint of Ashok Mahajan of 20 Ammanford Green London NW9 7SA against:
Perverters of justice evil criminals in the Civil Appeal Court
1. Tuckey/Parker LJJ
A. These two perverters of justice criminals on 25 July 2000
purported to hear my appeal from the decision of a corrupt Judge Ryland
of the Central London County Court in the matter of Mahajan v Vivianne
Bella Waldman and Mahajan v Sibell Associates Ltd which was listed under
the Court of Appeal reference B2/1999/8159 and served fellow judges than
justice to put a lid on perversion of justice by corrupt Judge Ryland of
Central London County Court who had chosen to serve the legal MAFIA and
Jews than justice.
B. Duo, among evidence of series of improprieties in
lower courts had evidence before them that:-
(i) In the employment Tribunal the legal team for Vivianne Bella
Waldman, the director of my then former company, had pleaded that the
money for the work done for her personally that I claimed in the County
Court my then employer company did not owe that to me therefore the
company did not discriminate against me for non-payment of the amounts
due that I claimed in the County Courts; and
(ii) In the County Courts Vivianne Bella Waldman’s legal team had
pleaded that the director did not owe that money personally but the
company whereas all the work done was carried out for the director
personally.
(C) As judges charged with the responsibility of making judicial
decisions according to the law and evidence the duo knew or ought to
have known that the evidence referred to paragraph B amounts to
contradictory evidence about the same matter and two contradictory
statements about the same factual issue could not be true at the same
time the duo did not set aside the decision of judge Ryland and allowed
injustice prevail.
(D) I believe the two were biased against me. My belief is
precipitated by the fact that: -
i. One has to be real idiot to find that two
contradictory statements about the same factual matter could be true at
the same time
ii. There is evidence that Rachel Jean Harrap, solicitor for
Vivianne Bella Waldman secretly approached the Court staff, discussed
the matter with the court staffs secretly and handed over
documents/information, which has been kept from me. Even in the County
Court John Russell, Counsel appointed by Rachel Jean Harrap, who
appeared to know that Vivianne Bella Waldman was telling lies and was
manufacturing evidence including presenting a witness under false
identity, had secretly contacted judge Ryland and filed a large number
of bundles of documents on the day of the hearing about which my legal
team was not aware and I certainly did not know
iii. After perverting justice Tuckey LJ made threats to me in
the name of repercussions to my family, subsequent to which the
freeholder of the flat of my estranged wife made false bills against her
and the same judge who had been instrumental in conducive to perversion
of justice ploys in the Willesden County Court assisted the said
freeholder thieve my estranged wife [with the help of solicitors
instructed by her] of over £12,000 which she did not owe and the judge
knew that [He had found evidence filed by me an overwhelming defence
after which she was blackmailed that if she allowed me give evidence she
will lose her flat].
E. They actively and maliciously denied me a fair hearing and
butchered my human rights.
2. Neuberger LJ
A. On 23 July 2002 when he was a High Court he purported to hear
my application to the Court that a bankruptcy order on an un-served and
undisclosed Petition of Rachel Jean Harrap be set aside and to obstruct
justice he: -
i. Maliciously changed the course of action and treated my
application to set aside the decision made on undisclosed and un-served
petition of Rachel Jean Harrap entitled Mahajan v Rachel Jean Harrap as
Mahajan v Vivianne Bella Waldman.
ii. Produced all documents given to me as Mahajan v Vivianne
Bella Waldman and in official records recoded as Mahajan v Rachel Jean
Harrap about which I learnt in 2003 coincidentally.
B. Upon learning that the party against me is his fellow Jewish
and Chief Rabbi and Rabbis had been instrumental in influencing Jewish
judges secretly he turned into a beast, took his glasses off, turned his
eyes red and started hurling abuse at me.
C. To serve his fellow Jews and members of the legal/judicial
fraternities than justice he disregarded new evidence that emerged from
his personal knowledge vis-à-vis
i. Registrar to whim I had made an application to go behind the
judgement debt was secretly influenced to take himself off the case and
thus I was prejudiced
ii. Undisclosed and un-served Petition of Rachel Jean Harrap
was said to be heard by an unknown Deputy Registrar Jakes whose identity
the courts never disclosed to me
iii. Although records show that an unknown Deputy Registrar
Jakes heard an undisclosed and un-served petition of Rachel Jean Harrap
the bankruptcy order was made by a retired barrister Brettle.
D. He invented series of falsehoods to serve his fellow Jews and
members of the legal/judicial fraternities than justice, which are fully
explained in my appeal from his decision.
E. He actively and maliciously denied me a fair hearing and
butchered my human rights.
3. Aldous/Scott Baker LJJ
A. On 29 November 2002, the two purported to hear my appeal from
the decision of Neuberger J which was an appeal from the decision of the
lower court refusing to set aside a bankruptcy decision made on an
undisclosed and un-served petition of Rachel Jean Harrap some facts
about which are stated in paragraph 2 above but continuing a campaign to
pervert the course of justice the two justice prostituting monsters put
a lid on the fraud perpetrated by Neuberger J to serve his fellow Jews
and various corrupt members of the legal and judicial fraternities.
B. Aldous behaved in a manner for which any civilised person
would be reluctant to class him a human being.
C. Scott-Baker also obstructed justice in the matter of Mahajan v
LB Barnet from the decision of Eady J before whom a counsel impersonated
to be who he is not and Eady J had made a wholly perverse decision.
Evidence suggested that the masquerading counsel for the LB Barnet had
been in collusion with the Judge’s associate who had been communicating
in sign language and had handed over for the court something secretly
about which I was not informed.
Scott-Baker presided over the matter when I had made complaints against
him and I was given the impression that Brooke LJ was going to hear the
matter, but Brooke LJ contemptuously left the court and after a frantic
search Scoot-Baker LJ was brought to the court who I believe came from a
pub and looked drunk.
Until this day no reasons for his decision have been
provided to me.
D. They actively and maliciously denied me fair hearings and
butchered my human rights.
4. Brooke/Sedley and Latham LJJ
A. On 12 December 2003, the above three purported to hear my
three appeals namely: -
i. Mahajan v VB Waldman and others from the decision of
Patten J made on 9 June 2003 under the Court of Appeal reference
A3/2003/1329, which concerns Patten J, who appears to have been in
collusion to access irrelevant matters to my prejudice, suppressing
evidence and creating opportunities to manufacture evidence to pervert
the course of justice against a decision of practising barrister Lloyds
sitting as Deputy Master it suspicious circumstance and dismissing my
claim against eight defendants including 2 barristers and 2 solicitors
for Fraud, Perjury, falsification of Evidence, conspiracy to obstruct
justice, malicious prosecution and malicious bankruptcy,
ii. Mahajan v VB Waldman and Others, under Court of Appeal
reference A3/2003/1329A from the decision of Ian Joseph of the Court of
Appeal made on 16 July 2003, which concerns Ian Joseph putting my appeal
under reference A3/2003/1329 in dismissal list for refusing to file
undesirable and irrelevant documents demanded by a Jewish staff of the
court who had taken over the matter in suspicious circumstances and was
behaving like a bully
iii. Mahajan v VB Waldman and Others, under Court of Appeal
reference A3/2203/2024 filed on 16 September 2003, which concerns Rimmer
J finding that the demand made by the High Court staffs were unlawful
but had refused to make an order for the costs incurred by me and had
made prejudicial, irrelevant and unsubstantiated remarks in his
judgement which were conducive to obstruction of justice;
And unlawfully, fraudulently, dishonestly and in a conspiratorial manner
dismissed my appeals when the evidence before them showed clearly-
* Patten J had imported evidence and his decision was not in
the interest of justice
* Rimer J found that the conduct on part High Court staff was
unlawful and he had my evidence that the staffs had been acting
maliciously whose conduct gives the appearance of them being
institutionally racists.
* Ian Joseph was supporting unlawful conduct of a Jewish staffs
who would appear to have taken over the matters allocated to other
staffs, obviously, to serve his fellow Jews and the demands he was
making were not lawful.
B. Brooke LJ conspired with his former chamber mate and
appointed an advocate to court about which he kept me in the dark and
even did not address my specific enquiries.
C. With callous disregard to the court advocate’s advice that his
conduct amounted to violation of my Human Rights the trio went ahead to
make an Extended Restraint Order against me, but obviously knowing that
they were perverting justice against me gave me permission to set that
side.
D. Brooke LJ continued to interfere with my application dated 3
February 2004 in which I applied for an order to set aside the order of
12 December 2004 and also sough declaration of incompatibility of
various statutes with the community laws and Human Rights Act 1998.
E. Despite my specifically stating the statute and the rules
Brooke LJ repeatedly and manifestly wrongly stated that the court did
not have jurisdiction to determine an application for declaration of
incompatibility and actively obstructed justice. Subsequently he claimed
that he made mistakes yet he showed no decency to set right the wrongs
done to me. I now know he is a lair, corrupt, dishonest, morally
bankrupt, Human Rights butcher and a Perverter of justice criminal.
F. They actively and maliciously denied me a fair hearing and
butchered my human rights.
5. Areden and Sedly LJJ
A. On 5 March 2004, these two purported to hear my application
dated 3 February 2004 and unlawfully refused to deal with my
applications for declarations of incompatibility
B. They imported evidence to show that I had not complied with
the conditions what the order of 12 December 2003 stipulated me to
comply whereas none were stated in the judgement of 12 December 2003.
C. They actively and maliciously denied me a fair hearing and
butchered my human rights.
6. Brooke, Dyson and Mance LJJ
A. On 28 and 30June 2004 the trio purported to hear my appeals in
the matters of
i. B1/2004/0996 Mahajan v The Department for Constitutional
Affairs, which concerned McKinnon J refusing to set aside an order of
Master Tennant who had struck out an action that I had issued with the
permission of Master Ungley of the High Court
ii. B1/2004/0292(A) The Queen on the application of Mahajan v
Central London County Court, which concerned a restraint order that
Brooke LJ and some other judges be restrained from hearing my
substantive matters and any other application that I ever made to the
Court of Appeal for the judges having acted maliciously against me in
the past,
iii. B1/2004/0293(A) The Queen on the application of Mahajan v
Central London County Court, which concerned a restraint order that
Brooke LJ and some other judges be restrained from hearing my
substantive matters and any other application that I ever made to the
Court of Appeal for the judges having acted maliciously against me in
the past,
iv. B1/2004/0996(A) Mahajan v The Department for
Constitutional Affairs. Application of Respondent for a general civil
restraint order made in a huff to maliciously pervert the course of
justice to keep under veil evil acts of various members of the legal and
judicial fraternities
v. B1/2004/0292 The Queen on the application of Mahajan v
Central London County Court. Application of Claimant for permission to
appeal, an extension of time and a stay of execution, which concerned a
fraudulent order made by Sullivan J be set aside and the court
considered my claim for Violation of Human Rights
vi. B1/2004/0293 The Queen on the application of Mahajan v
Central London County Court. Application of Claimant for permission to
appeal, an extension of time and a stay of execution, which concerned a
fraudulent order made by Sullivan J be set aside and the court
considered my claim for Violation of Human Rights
and served the Secretary of State than Justice when the court had
evidence before it which showed then as it shows now that:-
* Master Tennant had been influenced to make the order that is
shown made by him
* The order whish is said to be made by Master Tennant on
court’s own volition was not made on the courts own volition but under
unlawful and criminal influence of the Secretary of State
* Treasury Solicitor had been untruthful
* Treasury Solicitor had abused his office for Extra Judicial
favours
* Application by the Respondent had no locus standi and was
frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an Abuse of the Process.
* The Respondent had not made his case
* The Respondent with the support of conniving courts staffs
and the judges had obstructed a fair hearing to me by creating a
situation that I should not be able to file evidence to show that
various decisions made in the past against me on the basis of which the
Respondent wanted to seek an order against me are perverse and an
outcome of frauds and conspiracies by various corrupt judges which
prevailed due to dishonest conduct under the by above mentioned corrupt
judges.
B. Although Mance LJ never heard the matter yet he lent his
name to the judgement published on the judgement. To keep this
information from me the copy of the transcript that the court gave to me
shows names of only Brooke and Dyson. I learnt that three judges have
shown to made the decision when the Judicial office of the House of
Lords sent me a copy printed from the secret website on which the Human
Rights Butchers assassinate characters of their victims.
C From the line of enquiry that Dyson LJ adopted which shut the
evil counsel for the Respondent and left her wondering like an idiot,
Dyson LJ knew that Brooke was acting maliciously yet he allowed a crook
rape justice than serve it and thus desecrated the sanctity of the
office of a judge who is supposed to be fair, independent, honest and
fearless.
D. After the trio have raped justice the court manifestly denied
me copies of the transcript to prevent me from filing my Petitions in
time and sent me copies on a date that I should receive that only after
I had filed my petitions.
E. From the Transcripts I learnt that the hearings on 28 and 30
Junes were a farce. In fact decisions had been made and secretly
published around a week before the date on which a drama of a public
hearing was being played.
F. Although matter B1/2004/0996 Mahajan v The Department for
Constitutional Affairs, has never been heard yet the perverters of
justice criminals have shown that matter heard and have published a
judgement on the secret website
G. They actively and maliciously denied me a fair hearing and
butchered my human rights.
7. Di Mambro, Ian Joseph and formerly Roger Venne
They have been behaving like gangsters and are abusing ethnic staffs to
accomplish their racist ambitions. They falsify evidence and even make a
fair hearing impossible by having the matters listed when the matters
are not even ready for hearing and many applications for hearing in half
an hour where likes of Brooke behave like scoundrels, lie, apply the law
wrongly and then pretend making mistakes. I believe they are a bunch of
most evil racists who should never be allowed to work in any Pubic
office. There are various other thugs who work behind the scene.
8. As a result of crimes of misuse of courts and perversion to
justice:
(1) I have been greatly injured in my credit reputation and have
been brought into scandal odium and contempt,
(2). I have suffered very substantial financial losses
(3). I was maliciously arrested and was assaulted by the Police
who have injured my right hand, which may have been injured for life
(4) I am being persecuted and LB Barnet has specifically been
grateful to Brooke LJ for that
(5). I am suffering prejudice in every walk of life
Ashok Mahajan
20 Ammanford Green
London NW9 7SA
In a message dated 25/03/2005 00:06:59 GMT Standard Time,
patrick....@tiscali.co.uk writes:
IRISH IN BRITAIN REPRESENTATION GROUP (IBRG)
42 Augustine Road
Harrow Weald
Harrow
Middlesex HA3 5NP
FAO: Rod Thurman, Senior Partner
Edwards Geldard Solicitors
Dumfries House
Dumfries Place
Cardiff CF10 3ZF
Tel: 02920 391 776
Re: Ms Mary Harris, 48 Bransfield Place, Uxbridge UB8 2UN
&
‘Ms Mary Harris, 37 Ruislip Court, Raleigh Close, Ruislip HA4 6JP’
Mary Harris has instructed IBRG that your firm of solicitors has been
subjecting her and her family to inhuman and degrading treatment over a
number of years, which you will be aware, is a serious violation of
their human rights.
Please explain FULLY why you send correspondence to Mary Harris at 37
Ruislip Court when she never owned or lived in that property? Mary
Harris lives at 48 Bransfield Place, which is a Council property.
1) Edwards Geldard Solicitors states the following in their Letters
(Ref: JAF/C16198) of 9th March 2005 to the TWO addresses above:
a) “We are fully aware that you sold your previous property and
have changed your address.”
b) “Should a Statutory Demand in bankruptcy be issued, and you are
made bankrupt”
c) “the official receiver appointment will access your financial
position”
d) “the official receiver will be made aware of your previous
ownership of 107 Collingwood Crescent.”
e) “If the official receiver believes that assets have been sold
with the intent of placing assets out of the reach of creditors”
f) “Please also note that any private pension may now be at risk
through bankruptcy.”
g) “We are prepared to represent your offer of £1,000.00 to our
client in full and final settlement, on condition funds can be available
within seven days.”
2) In order to protect our clients interest we demand a full disclosure
of ALL the documents relating to this matter under: section 7 & 35 of
the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
We are asking to be furnished with ALL information on Mary Harris, which
is held at your office or in related offices within your firm of
solicitors or associates.
3) It is imperative that you include ALL the documentation you hold
that Mary Harris was a previous owner of 107 Collingwood Crescent.
4) Please supply us with copies of all documents, internal memos,
reports,
etc that have Mary Harris’s name on it or relating to this matter,
whether it is typed,
hand written or electronically produced, etc.
5) Please supply us with copies of all documents etc, containing Mary
Harris’s name or
are related to this matter, which were sent out from, or received into
any of
your offices in any way, i.e. including post, fax, Email, memos, notes,
or
transcripts of telephone conversations or meetings, by any clerk,
administrator, Executive or other personnel at your offices.
6) Please furnish us with the gist and decisions reached as a result of
any
conversation in which Mary Harris’s name was mentioned or this matter
discussed.
7) Please supply us with a list of any documents you are refusing to
disclose and the reason for your concealment. Also confirm that no
third
party has been given documents or files relating to this matter, which
would limit the disclosure requested. For example the Mortgage
Corporation, etc.
8) Please confirm that no documents have been lost, altered or
destroyed or
will be destroyed to limit the disclosure we are now requesting.
9) Please give an undertaking that that no vetting of the file will be
undertaken to conceal information we are entitled to under the
aforementioned
Acts or that would limit a FULL disclosure.
10) The data controller is entitled to a fee of £10.00 for compliance
with
the above requests, which we are prepared to pay, if required to do so.
Within 21 days of receipt of this document the data controller is
required
to inform us of her/his intention to comply and whether a fee is
required
and to whom it should be paid.
If you are not the right person to deal with this correspondence, please
put
it in the hands of the person who can.
Thank you in advance.
Yours truthfully,
Patrick Cullinane, Human Rights Caseworker for the IBRG.
PS. Please acknowledge the safe receipt of this correspondence by
return of e-mail.
PPS. The IBRG are fully aware of the, “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
AND THE LAW SOCIETY”:
Evidence of the British State terrorism suffered by the migrant ethnic
Catholic Irish community in the UK:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283193.html
Evidence of the British State terrorism suffered by Patrick Cullinane:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,952455,00.htm
l
-&-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,952457,00.htm
l
-&-
http://money.guardian.co.uk/tax/story/0,1456,1411088,00.html
Shredded the evidence of British State terrorism, and genocide of an
ethnic migrant Catholic community:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=595640
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com