Victims Of Masonic Ill-Treatment 17 June 2000

Anyone criticised or maligned in these publications has a guaranteed right of reply. JMF or P2 Lodge UK stands for the hierarchies of the Judaeo/Masonic Faction. The ordinary Mason and Jew are as likely to suffer from the machinations of the JMF as non-Masons and non-Jews are. Almost every institution in the UK is corrupt. While the final blame lies with the Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister, Freemasonry is invariably involved along with the courts, the police and local government.

VICTIMS SHOULD NOT TO MISS THIS HEARING - THIRD POSTING

WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES?

It is accepted that police officers daily commit perjury, with the full knowledge of the judges, in order to secure convictions. Mr Justice Smedley jailed a policeman for 4 months for a minor perjury. Dr Michael Pelling prosecuted His Honour Judge Goldstein for contempt of court. MJ Smedley sitting with LJ Otton exculpated Goldstein. When judges sit in judgement on judges there is a perceived conflict of interest. A jury must always try judges.

THE LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER

*** Summary of Legal Problems and Attempts to Obtain Redress

I. In 1986 Glenway Properties Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the Company'), a small family property company was negotiating a lease renewal and rent review of a doctor's surgery which it owned at 26 Eaton Terrace, London SW I.

2. Normally such reviews are negotiated between surveyors. However, in this case the tenant's solicitor refused to authorise their surveyor to negotiate. Instead a quite inadequate rent was proposed some £4,000, whereas the norm for the locality was in the region of £6,OOO/7,OOO. The Company declined to accept this proposal. Subsequently, in November 1986, the tenant's solicitors referred the matter to the court where the Company, as Defendant, was represented by Anthony Gold & Partners, Solicitors. Judgement was awarded to the Plaintiff and the Company was ordered to pay costs and accept a considerably lesser rent than was justified.

3. Expecting success the Company was surprised by the outcome and requested an explanation from it's solicitors. This request was refused but the Company's solicitors did reduce their fees considerably. In the absence of an explanation the Company refused to pay its solicitor's bill. Subsequently, in January 1991 the solicitors sued and the Company instructed other solicitors (Kenwright & Cox) to defend and counter sue, relying largely upon a report by an independent specialist solicitor, witnesses and documentation. However the Company lost and was ordered to pay substantial costs.

4. The Company was surprised that no witnesses were called. Also it was later discovered that some 13 documents which supported the Company and which were included in the bundle submitted to the court were not considered by the court. It also transpired that the report by the specialist solicitor had been withdrawn from the bundle without the knowledge or consent of the Company. Nor was the specialist solicitor called as a witness. I also discovered that at the original hearing the Company's then solicitors, Anthony Gold & Partners, had agreed, with the solicitor and surveyor acting for the tenant but without reference to the Company, to submit comparable evidence as being correct on the basis that there was no point to be made'. This was in spite of the fact that an expert report, written by the Company's surveyor and provided to the Company's solicitor, condemned the evidence as being grossly inaccurate. In effect the important report, which supported the Company, was ignored

5. The Company challenged the costs and at the taxation hearing in March 1992, its solicitors (Kenwright & Cox) were ordered to refund all costs incurred in obtaining the report of the specialist solicitors because they had failed to present it to the court, and because they failed to call appropriate witnesses. I was obliged to represent the Company at the taxation hearing because the Company's advisors informed me, the day before the hearing, that they could not attend. I would add that the date for the hearing had been known for some six months. Also, during the early hours of the day of the hearing a large stone was thrown through the window of my sitting room. I reported this incident to the police and showed the stone to the taxation judge who advised me to have it finger printed.

6. I made two complaints to the then Solicitors Complaints Bureau who after delay and obfuscation failed to investigate the complaints.

7. With the taxation order in my favour and with the new evidence (paragraph4), 1 referred the matter to the Legal Services Ombudsman. The Ombudsman eventually (1994) concluded that I should pursue redress through the courts. Although empowered to investigate and endowed with the powers of the High Court the Ombudsman stated 'I have decided not to investigate as I have not the resources to assess such hundreds and thousands of pounds in damages'.

8. I experienced substantial difficulty in finding a solicitor to represent me. Eventually I approached the Law Society who recommended a firm of solicitors. However these solicitors merely ran up a bill, obtained payment from me and then failed to proceed with my case.

9. On the advice of my MP I issued a writ in person. At the hearing, in March 1995, the case was dismissed by summary judgement. I was not permitted to present any aspects of my case particularly those relating to the taxation order (paragraph 5), the Ombudsman's recommendation or an affidavit in which the Defendants had admitted to several of the allegations contained in my writ. I was instructed to get a solicitor to represent me and ordered to pay £6,000 costs by the District Judge "Di Castelloni"!!!

10. Because both of my allegations against the solicitors were of a criminal nature I reported the matter to the police. Both the Fraud Squad and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police refused to pursue my allegations, by initiating an investigation, because, as did the Ombudsman (Paragraph 7) they claimed to have inadequate resources. I find this reason quite incomprehensible since it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate allegations of a criminal nature. Indeed, in a subsequent report concerning allegations made by a member of the public against an MP the police are quoted as saying that 'they are obliged to investigate because allegations of a criminal nature have been made to the police'. Consequently it is difficult to comprehend why my allegations were rejected without appropriate investigation.

11. As well as contacting the police I also approached the Fraud Officer of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS). In view of my allegations this gentleman determined it necessary to visit me to discuss the matter in detail and inspect my documentary evidence of which he took copies. Subsequently, after also interviewing witnesses he (an ex-police officer) considered that my allegations should be investigated by the police and so referred my case to them. Such thoroughness is laudable. Regrettably the police again declined to investigate. Reference to the Director of the OSS was at all times met with an unhelpful response despite the findings of his own Fraud Officer.

12. Consequently, in 1996, I reported the matter to the then Home Secretary then Home Secretary, A reply, after further representations from my MP, was unaccountably based upon a claim made by the police to the effect that 'the matter had been thoroughly investigated'. Again this is incomprehensible since the police had confirmed to me in writing that they had not and would not investigate my allegations.

13. I also corresponded with the then Home Office Minister, David Maclean MP, who was helpful in referring the matter to the Metropolitan Police Committee. However their response was disappointing in that they simply claimed that 'we do not feel that the police have done anything wrong. Such a response is at least playing with words if not evasive. The facts are that senior police officers have confirmed in writing to me that they will not investigate my allegations and they have subsequently erroneously assured the Home Secretary that they have so investigated. Further, the positive and appropriate response of the police to allegations made by a member of the public against a MP (paragraph 10) contradict their handling of my case

14. I have since raised the matter with the current Home Secretary. In response a letter from the Operational Policing Policy Unit of the Home Office stated 'Actions and decisions taken by officers in the course of their duties are operational matters and are the responsibility of the Chief Officer of the force concerned. Ministers have no authority to intervene'. This reply raises several issues. Firstly, why should a ministerial department have an Operational Policing Policy Unit if the minister has no authority to intervene? Secondly, in other cases contradictory statements by the police (Paragraph 13) certainly have resulted in enquiries, interventions and indeed successful prosecutions. Also, I have to say that although my letter was addressed to the Home Secretary there is no evidence that it has been shown to him. The response that I received directly contradicts other statements and actions by the current Home Secretary in relation to allegations similar to my own.

Yours sincerely, Dr.A.M. Micallef B. Sc., M.D. ***

LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN ANN ABRAHAM

*** I am writing to inform you that any further correspondence from you to this Office, which does not relate to your application to the Ombudsman, will be destroyed. ***

MONICA BLAIR

A Suffolk coroner is improving Anglo/US relations. He is Brother Humphrey Bill Walrond (Fax 01284 761214), a Bury St Edmunds solicitor. There must be an inquest into the recent fatal accident when an American serviceman newly arrived in the UK ploughed into a bus. The USA driver was convicted, fined £500 and sent back to USA within a few days. American servicemen in the UK enjoy a special status.

DORSET CORRUPTION AGAIN

A person calling herself Linda Moore made a telephone call to us with scurrilous allegations against Miss Handley. We informed the caller that she was a "dirty woman" and told her to "piss off". We received also an anonymous letter scandalising Miss Handley. It said that Miss Handley had to face charges connected with election expenses. Miss Handley had documents stolen from her home. A magistrate, as expected, upheld the decision to prosecute. Moore and her associates, having extra sensory perception, attended the court.

Why is Moore attempting to stifle criticism, which is being made in the public interest against someone that has access to public funds and holds public office? Let Mrs Moore declare "I do not have a criminal record". Let her explain her charity shops scam to her Masonic friends in Dorset police.

Miss Lomond should contact Barry Hunt (Ph/Fax 01305 777348) before placing reliance on solicitors. Dorset Masons force even honest solicitors into a corner. Either they have to betray their clients or have their careers ruined or commit "suicide" like solicitor David Dolton.

BUCKS COUNTY COUNCILLOR ALLEN

A male claiming to be Allen's son threatened to come round in 5 or 10 minutes and give us a beating. He used "F" words. He did not visit us but sent the following fax.

From Delerium (sic) Records (Phone 01753 890635, fax 01753 892879), 13:31 , 12-06-00 to 01494 870031

*** FROM THE GRAND WAZOO OF THE ORDER OF MING

THE POLICE ARE NOW DEALING WITH YOUR FAX

ALSO I HAVE BLOCKED THE LINE FROM YOUR FAX MACHINE

ALL HAIL THE HORNED ONE ***

Blair and Straw blame the parents and not the children. We live in the Thames valley. Three councils, one police force and one police authority are corrupt as in Dorset and probably in every other part of UK. They assault and threaten assault without fear of prosecution.

STRAW PERSECUTES ALBERT DRYDEN

We now have Counsel's advice drafted for Albert Dryden's appeal.

*** Ground 6. The Jury's attention was repeatedly drawn to aspects of the evidence which were capable of supporting the Prosecution's case not only in relation to the count of murder but in relation to all the counts in the indictment. Similar treatment was not accorded to those aspects of the evidence which were capable of supporting the Defence case. Taken as a whole the summing up was capable of being an indication of the Judge's conclusions on the evidence. Although the Jury were correctly directed that they were the sole judges of the facts it is arguable that the summing up taken as a whole was unfairly balanced towards the Prosecution. *** Comment: This criticism of the judge could be used in almost every case where justice is denied. The trial judge was Mrs Justice Ebsworth.

To forestall biased judges in two of our cases we summed up thus. "Prosecuting Counsel has not summed up because he expects the learned judge, who has the last word, to sum up on his behalf." Twice the Jury acquitted us unanimously within minutes. The first time the Recorder blatantly summed up for the Prosecution. The second time the judge summed up for us. He had done everything to impede the Defence, even committing us to the cells for contempt. One of our key witnesses was a Jewish solicitor named Simon Serota. He is a partner with Wallace & Partners, Gt James Street, London WC1N 3DA. (Phone 020 7404 4422 Fax 020 7831 6850). Mr Serota may still be honest.

We sent Mr Dryden 3 copies of his appeal documents, in a strong envelope, for submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It arrived in tatters!

APOLOGIES

Published by J M Todd, B.Sc. Misbourne Farmhouse, Amersham Road,

Chalfont St Giles, Bucks. HP8 4RU

Per pro Vomit. No copyright. Tel 01494 871204. Fax 01494 870031