|
opy 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 d
|
| |
| |
|
