Dear Patrick

 

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 Waldmans 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--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 Judges 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 advocates 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 
courts 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.cullinane@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 Harriss 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 
Harriss 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 Harriss 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