THE AGONY OF BRITISH LAW (2)

The government of Britain has been in the hands of terrorists since
1712.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm

Their morals and logic are the EXACT REVERSE of those of normal
people. That is why EIGHT Popes of Rome agreed that they are "depraved
and perverted".

It is not easy to persuade anybody that the whole world is wrong. So
the "ethic" of this gang is to TERRORISE each other into "believing"
it. Those who join regret it. They pay lip-service to this mad
"ethic", and obey their "masters" like slaves. However, they only do
so to avoid being tortured and killed by their own "brothers" in the
"lodge".

I myself observed, after visiting most of Europe for many years, that
the Pound Sterling was sixfold undervalued in 1977. I ran a campaign
to try to get the government to avoid lifting the trade barriers to
Europe. I reckoned without the back-to-front "logic" of the Gang. They
lifted the trade barriers BECAUSE it was wrong. They WANTED to
bankrupt their own country. Impoverished people are easier to rule.

The trade barriers were lifted in 1977, and although I had anticipated
the disappearance of raw materials from Britain, I was interested to
note that it was CATTLE FODDER that was the first thing to vanish from
the market.

Farmers poured out onto the streets to campaign for government
subsidy. Motorways were blocked by tractors. Cattle were screaming
because of hunger pains. As an act of mercy, farmers slaughtered their
cattle. Cheap beef flooded the market. Then, when it was gone, beef
prices rose to SIX TIMES what they had been before.

Cattle fodder firms, including Spillers, went bankrupt. The "Official
Receiver" was called in. However, the government is a terrorist one.
The "Official Receiver" is a slave of the Gang. So he "receives" these
bankrupt companies on behalf of the criminal government. Thereafter,
these bankrupt companies continue to trade whilst bankrupt - but you
cannot sue a government company before a government court.

Two years after the barriers were lifted, came the "Winter of
Discontent", when ALL industry collapsed. To the disdain of the
government, so-called "government shares" (a euphemism for shares
owned by the gang) became worthless. The decision was made to redeem
their fortune by means of overt crime and war.

Antibiotics were added to cattle fodder, in order to ENCOURAGE the
spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. After all, the "ethic" says
that the Devil is "God". It is crazy, but true. The Devil makes
disease, and the Gang, in the "service of the Devil", spread it.

Scrapie-infested mutton was put into cattle fodder. It led to BSE.
Professor Richard Lacey warned that it might spread to humans. It did.
This was probably the first time in medical history that a disease was
described before it existed.

The Gang declared him mad, and made every effort to SPREAD the disease
throughout Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1207225.stm

Fodder made in Britain was rebagged as "fabriqué en france", and sold
to Switzerland. Despite all the Swiss government efforts to keep it
out, the British Gang now had the pleasure of seeing it spread even in
Switzerland.

The puppet Prime Minister said he would sabotage all European
legislation requiring unanimity unless Europe allowed contaminated
British fodder in.

Here is a censored reference to that story:

At Odds with Europe - spongiform encephalitis (BSE) that this envied
image was seriously dented. .... of refusing British assent to all EU
decisions requiring unanimity, ...
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9248.00104 -
from H Wallace - 1997 -
The Hindustan Times back issues |

Although it was the Hindustan Times, the Gang managed to get it to
vanish from the Web. It was very high-profile for at least a year. Now
the story is hard to find.

Throughout all this time, one farmer managed to keep his head above
water. His pig-farming business, which began with four sows, now had
four THOUSAND animals, including 500 sows.

The Government Gang moved in. They used the crooked Spillers company.

Here is an report of what happened to Roger Jones:

http://www.scandals.org/articles/swg3604a.html

and below is a report in his own words.

Quite simply, Spillers were THIEVING. Then, when the matter came
before a court, a FAKE judge or magistrate would look out for a secret
sign. When Spillers made the sign, the "Law" would decide in favour of
Spillers. So the large business of Roger Jones was being taken from
him, step by step, to finance the WAR CHEST.

The embezzler Abraham Lajbi Hoch masqueraded as the "scotsman" Robert
Maxwell. He was thieving for the WAR CHEST. To help him, the
government itself gave him SIX DOCTORATES OF LAW. He had never
studied.

That fact, from "Who's Who" at the time when his reputation was still
intact, shows how fake British lawyers are.

I leave you with the story of Roger Jones in his own words.

Charles Douglas Wehner

--------------------------------------------------------------------


GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
LAWYERS AND COURT OFFICERS BLATANT CORRUPTION


Below I set out my case which has considerable implications. Of which
Misconduct in Public Office, carries up to seven years imprisonment,
is
the most serious.


MY CASE BACKGROUND


1. With next to no capital at 21 I started a pig business with 4 sows
on
60 acres of land I purchase with a 100% mortgage.


2. Over the next 17 years I built up my pig business to 500 sows
producing 10,000 pork pigs per year., to a value of £400,000 /
£500,000
per year.


3. I was trading with Spillers farm feeds purchasing their feeds and
selling my pigs through Spillers.


4. They failed to pay me as they should, despite numerous promises to
do
so. I calculated they owed me £35,000.


5. I called my Solicitor and Accountant to my farm. It was decided
to
go for a Receiving Order that day, Thursday 30 March 1978, in order
to
force Spillers to pay up. I went to the Court that day with my
Solicitor. He made out the form at the Court and I signed it. I was
in
debt to no one other than normal trade terms, but could see I soon
would
be if Spillers did not pay up.


6. Next day, a Friday, a man from Spillers and an assistant O.R.
arrived
at my farm. I demanded that Spillers boss and the Official Receiver
come
to my farm. My Solicitor had gone on holiday. They disregarded my
most
strong complaints and the O.R. told me loudly to "Be quiet, I've
heard
enough, you're wasting my time. It's my business now, it's not your
business any more. It's for me to say what should happen". Spillers
Boss
and the O.R. were on Christian names with each other.


7. The day following (Saturday) the O.R. returned and removed all my
account books and paper work, much to my immense surprise and
concern!!


8. The following Monday Spillers arrived with a fleet of lorries and
took away all the pigs, the O.R. had sold to Spillers.


9. 6 DAYS LATER!! Before my First Creditors Meeting, Tuesday 11 April
1978, Spillers
made the surprise public announcement of £28 million losses, 23
factory
closures, and 8,00 redundant. They were subsequently taken over by
Dalgety`s.


WHAT IS A RECEIVING ORDER


A Receiving Order (R.O.) is a protective device. It does NOT divest a
debtor of his property, or make the debtor a bankrupt, but secures
the
debtor and his property, against action by individual creditors. It
also
allows the debtor to sue for the recovery of what belongs to him
without
giving security for costs.


Following a R.O. the Official Receiver (O.R.) must investigate the
reason why a R.O. was petitioned for, and ensure that debtors make out
a
statement of their affairs, as well as take note of any proposals by
debtors regarding the settlement of their debts with their creditors.


The O.R. must then notify creditors of these matters before the First
Creditors Meeting (F.C.M).


The principal purpose of a R.O. is to allow creditors at the F.C.M.
to
consider:


(a) The debtors proposal for "composition" (the term for a
financial arrangement with creditors).


(b) If it is expedient that the debtor be adjudged bankrupt.


(c) The mode of dealing with the property of the debtor.


A further aspect to those below. Halsbury`s Laws England on
Bankruptcy
at Paragraph 368 reads -- "Effect on debtors estate. The making of
the
Receiving Order vests no estate or interest in the Official Receiver;
it
gives him no power to bring or defend actions." "Before adjudication
it
is not proper for the Official Receiver to realise the debtors
estate,
or deal with it, except for the purpose of protecting and preserving
it;
although he may sell perishable goods."


THE HAPPENINGS IN MY CASE


1. My petitions purpose was completely changed by the added words
"and
that I be adjudged bankrupt" written in a different hand and ink to
the
rest of my petition, made out by my solicitor. My solicitors
affidavit
supports this and the petition with the added words in different hand
and ink is still in my Court file.


2. There was no hearing of my petition, neither was a Receiving Order
or
a Bankruptcy Order signed. Despite the Chief Clerk of Oxford County
Court lying in terms of procedure and fact by stating in a letter to
me
18 June 1982: "you signed the petition in the presence of a Court
Officer and immediately you did this, you were adjudicated bankrupt,
and
a Receiving Order was made against you. The Receiving Order and Order
of Adjudication were placed before the Registrar for his signature,"


3. I was unlawfully kept out of my "First Creditors Meeting" that by
law
I should have attended, despite having written to all of my creditors
imploring then to attend, which they did in such numbers that the
room
was packed.


Section 22 of the 1914 bankruptcy Act reading:


"(1) Every debtor against whom a receiving order if made shall
unless prevented by sickness or other sufficient cause, attend the
first
meeting of his creditors, and shall submit to such examination and
give
such information as the meeting may require."


Also at the heart of my case are the Vice Chancellors words in his
Judgement at my appeal:


"Just how the added words [and that I may be adjudged bankrupt]
came
to be inserted is a matter that cannot very well be resolved today
upon
the information that is now before us."


When the case referred to as a precedent in the white book ORD.
13/9/11.


THE KING'S BENEATH DIVISION, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN
IRELAND, THE COURT OF APPEAL. 1909. NIXON v LOUNDERS (1).


States:


"... but where the evidence before the Court on the hearing of
the
motion is such as reasonably to suggest fraud, though not to
establish
it, the Court will direct as an issue to try the question of fraud."


Other significant words in the Vice Chancellors Judgement were:


"Throughout the hearing before us the debtor has made many
complaints, has voiced many suspicions and has made many accusations
about many matters in respect of many people. Some grave allegations
have been made against court officials. we have listened, I hope
patiently, to all that he has had to say, and he must not think, and
nobody else must think, that because he has not been questioned on
these
many accusations they have been accepted as being firmly based"


The Barrister for the Treasury Solicitor, backed by a large team, for
the two days of the hearing, failed to challenge me on any
substantial
matter. Because I feel certain to do so would only have enforced the
disgraceful wrongdoing of Court Officers and those responsible for
their
control. As well the blatant lies told by Government Ministers
responsible for overall control.


At a further hearing the Vice Chancellor refused me leave to appeal
from
the High Court to the House of Lords.


Another fundamental at the heart of my case, and related to the
above:


I contacted my MP Douglas Hurd, to ask him to intervene on my behalf.
He
did so. However, the Department of Trade lied to him in a letter
(October 1979) when Reginald Eyre MP (Con), was Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State at the D. of T. with responsibility for the
Insolvency Services writing to Hurd:


"As Stanley Clinton Davis mentioned [(Lab) subsequently a
European
Commissioner, and later made a Lord (Eyre`s predecessor in office)]
in
his letter to you, both the Official Receiver and the Trustee are
officers of the court the Official Receiver being responsible for the
investigation of Mr Jones` affairs and the Trustee for the
realisation
and distribution of the assets in Mr Jones` estate. The Department
cannot intervene"


This "The Department cannot intervene" when Halsbury`s Laws of
England on bankruptcy, at paragraph 221 reads:


FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY"


"The Department of Trade and Industry is vested with statutory
powers and duties relating to the supervision of the administration
of
bankrupts` estates. The Department certifies the appointments of
trustees in bankruptcy other than the official receiver, has the
power
to remove them and to grant them their release, supervises and
controls
official receivers, and enforces the performance by official
receivers
and trustees of their duties in administering bankrupt's estates and
in
investigating the conduct of bankrupts."


Paragraph. 458 reading:


"The official receivers form part of the insolvency survives
administered by the department"


Reginald Eyre went on in his letter October 1979:


"However I understand that Mr Jones has written to my Department
on
several occasions and whilst his complaints have been closely
examined
nothing has been discovered to suggest that the Official Receiver or
Trustee have not been carrying out their duties in a proper manner"


FURTHER ASPECTS OF COVER UP THE LORD CHANCELLORS
DEPARTMENT AND THE LAW SOCIETY


As regards the Law Society. my new Solicitor John Sprat of Shoosmiths
and Harrison. grossly misled Counsel as he grossly misled the Legal
Aid
Board, causing my Legal Aid to be revoked, when claming £4,469 in
costs
including Counsel` fee of £175. Indeed, for example, I discovered when
I
eventually managed to get hold of Sprat`s file:


(a) He turned things inside out with a travesty of the truth:


"His business ran into financial difficulties, Messrs Spillers
helped him out for a short time but then foreclosed on a charge and
eventually Mr Jones was made bankrupt"


(b) The Law Society wrote to him when concerned that he had
estimated
the cost of getting Counsels Opinion would be as much as £2000 to
inquire if the £2000 included an accountants` report. He replied that
it
did. Though he had already spent £3,830 at 1980 prices! He never did
obtain an accountant's report, though council advised the obvious
need
to obtain one, and I insisted in writing that one be obtained, he had
promised me he would obtain one. How could he possibly justify
spending £4,469 without getting an accountants report in such
circumstances?


I complained to the Law Society of Sprat`s behaviour in hiding
Court Officer's and Government Ministers deceit and wrongdoing.
I complained of his acting generally against my interests, together
with those conducting the Law Society's complaints procedures
that I had fully utilised.


The Law Society wrote to me in defence of their own non action
in the matter:


"Further, it is the opinion of the society that, as a matter of
law
the society's handling of Legal Aid applications or of complainants
againat solicitors dose not give rise to a duty of care to the
applicant
for Legal Aid or the complainant"


What rot! What absolute tripe! The Law Society stands no differently
to
any other Society, Business or Individual in Tort. The test for
deciding
whether their has been a breach of duty of care is laid down in the
oft-
cited dictum of Alderson B., in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.:


"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable
man,
guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct
of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do."


Note the use of the word "reasonable" twice. How could it be
reasonable
for the Law Society not to show care in investigating the behaviour
of
Legal Aided funded "Solicitors of the Supreme Court" and in
administering (at that time) government funds in the form of Legal
Aid?


We now see how ranks close even more as every attempt is made to
appear
reasonable whilst covering up the unreasonable and the embarrassing
Professionals just hate faults in their work being pointed out by
laymen. When I complained to the Lay Observer (the Lord Chancellors
appointed supposed independent catch net behind the Law Society) -
and
this is important - he wrote to me regarding Legal Aid and
misrepresentations and omissions of facts by solicitors:


"I am here bound to observe that I have seen no evidence
whatever
to indicate that the solicitors deliberately confused and
misrepresented
matters or that any facts were improperly omitted, Such facts would
only
have been improperly omitted had they been omitted with the
deliberate
intention of harming your case"


I complained strongly about this utterly outrages response in terms
of
law and fact, to the Lord Chancellor's Office.


A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Norton v Lord Ashburton
(1914) stated:


"The solicitor contracts with his clients to be skilful and
careful. For failure to perform his obligations he may be made liable
at
law in contract or even in tort, for negligence in breach of a duty
imposed on him."


Further regarding Solicitors, in a Precedent case - Myers -v- Elman
on
appeal before the House of Lords. It is made plain beyond any
question
whatsoever, the grate care required by Solicitors in carrying out
their
work, because they are Officers of the Court.


I further complained about the response to my complaints to the Law
Society. The Lord Chancellor's office in response disclaimed the Lord
Chancellor's responsibility for control over the Law Society,
Solicitors, Legal Aid and the Lay Observer when writing to me:


"The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the professional
conduct
of solicitors since they are members of an independent, self-
governing
profession."


This ridiculous high-handed dismissal is despite knowing:


The Lord Chancellor's responsibility for all Court's, and so for the
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and for Legal Aid, is clearly shown
in
Vacher`s Parliamentary Companion under:


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT


"...and for the administration of the Supreme Court (Court of
Appeal. High Court and Crown Court) and County Courts in England and
Wales, and for Legal Aid schemes."


Plainly Solicitors are "OFFICERS of the COURT"
so the Lord Chancellor's responsibility.


END


Notes:


1. My bankruptcy was extended, when it came up for review in its 5th
year. Which it had to at that time (now much shorter). It was
extended
by 6 months to just after the 6 year time limit for me to bring a
case
for damages.


A bankrupt cannot bring a case without the permission of the Trustee.
I
was claiming damages from the OR (effectively against the Department
of
Trade) and Trustee.


The Trustee was a man called Peak, an accountant. He came to my farm
with Spillers App. 18 hours after my filing my petition. He was later
made Trustee at my F.C.M. of which I was unlawfully kept out. The
question must be asked as to why Spillers and Peak came with an
O.R.`s
assistant so shortly after I filled my petition? Plainly the O.R. had
contacted Spillers. As I have said the Spillers boss and the O.R.,
were
on Christian name terms when they arrived later at my insistence.


2. Following my filing my petition late Thursday afternoon and
Spillers
and the O.R.`s visit next day, a Friday. (As I have said. The O.R.
came
to my farm on the Saturday morning and removed all my account books
and
paper work!!!) Spillers removed all my 4000 pigs on the following
Monday.


3. As my solicitor L. Chamkin went on holiday the day following my
signing my petition. I tried two further firms of solicitors. One at
Oxford the other at Bicester. Only to be told that they had no one
that
had expertise in bankruptcy, or knew of a firm of solicitors that
did.


4. It took me years to get a sight of my Court Papers, that I had a
right to see. I only managed to do so when the Chief Clerk was out at
lunch! I did not release their importance not knowing of the added
words
"and that I may be adjudged bankrupt" that were not on my copy.


5. At my private examination prior to my F.C.M. the at the O.R.
offices
accounts were produced by the O.R. that were plainly grossly
incorrect.
I refused to sign them as correct as I should within the letter of
the
law. Naturally I wished to bring this matter up at my F.C.M.


6. I made every effort to draw the injustice that I had suffered to
the
attention of those responsible for the disposal of my estate; indeed
my
correspondence during the ensuing 14 months included: 22 letters to,
and
13 from the Inspector General of Bankruptcy at the Department of
Trade;
12 to, and 9 from the O.R.; 20 to, and 13 from the Trustee of my
estate;
and 11 to, and 7 from the Trustees solicitor.


7. Not surprisingly to me in the circumstances. 732 of the pigs that
the
O.R arranged to be sold to Spillers and removed from my farm by them
were never accounted for. This was theft pure and simple.


8. To get a sight of my Court Papers at Oxford County Court, and hold
of
the papers removed by the O.R. (recovered from Peaks office) as well
as
solicitor Sprats papers took years and required I am afraid to say,
some, if I say so myself cunning on my part.
--
Roger J. P. Jones



.