Copy FAO Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

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--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