Invitation

:
To the people and to those who have been unlawfully deprived of their homes, property, businesses, health, families and livelihoods. Greetings. You are cordially invited to witness the citizens arrest of the fraudster, Mr Baruch, acting as agent of Baruch Enterprise Ltd., whose illegal activities deprived Mr & Mrs Ebert of their property at 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London NW11 0HS. The arrest will be attempted at 2.0pm on Tuesday the 22nd of February 2011 at the above address. It is proposed to meet at Brent Cross underground station (Northern Line, one stop after Golders Green), at 1.0pm for onward passage aboard the Routemaster Battle Bus to Cranbourne Gardens. The bus will be at this location from 12.45 to 1.30pm. Alternatively you may wish to go direct to 23 Cranbourne Gardens for the 2.0 o’clock arrest. This is an open invitation, so please pass it on to all your contacts who may be interested. Mr. G. Ebert. de8765@hotmail.co.uk 0208 9055209 See attached: 1. www.force4justice.co.uk + bus 2. Notice to the Rt. Hon. Teresa May, Secretary of State for Home Affairs. 3. Nobody is above the law. 4. “MPs can’t pick and choose which laws they wish to obey!” Ken Clarke R.S.V.P.

GEbert
23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS Email: de8765@hotmail.co.uk Tel/Fax: 0208 905 5209 Mobile: 07815 008 775 (Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NW11 9TN)

2 February 2011 BY POST & E MAIL Rt Hon Theresa May MP (In person) Home Secretary 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DP DATA SUBJECT REQUEST & NOTICE Dear Rt Hon Theresa May MP, You were elected to sort out the broken society. When Her Majesty the Queen then officially appointed you, you undertook - and made very public your intention - to sort out the parts of the broken society that are now under your responsibility. One of our problems within the broken society that is now within your area of responsibility is the Metropolitan Police Force. They are now under your watch. In support of your intention to sort things out over the last two years, you have seen some people who were convicted for life as murderers cleared on the grounds that the police fabricated evidence in order to use them as scapegoats. For your information, I and my family are amongst many hundreds if not thousands of victims similarly tortured and deprived of our freedom and properties as a result of unlawful action and subsequent cover up by the police. I enclose hereby a press article describing how I have been arrested at one of my properties (where I had my matrimonial home and which was the roof over our heads) three times by the police without any legal justification. Subsequently, trespassers removed all of our private belongings, demolished our home without permission and erected a new building on the land, again, without permission. The criminal nature of this activity was affirmed by Barnet London Borough Planning Department and Land Registry Swansea Office. As of today, I have made numerous crime reports about this. The latest one, with the hard documentary evidence supporting it attached: Crime Report stamp date 24 May 2009, Cris No. 2411746/09. You will see from these documents that I and my family have been unlawfully deprived of our properties by the police.

1

To our knowledge, there was never any court order with the required prime facia evidence attached which could justify depriving us of our home and property. Specially; • No valid, enforceable possession order exists. • No writ of possession exists. • No valid registration at the land registry exists. I therefore demand, that based on the documentation which I attach and the above mentioned Crime Report which was never fully and justly investigated before your appointment, that you ensure a full and proper enquiry/investigation into this matter now, as requested under the law. In doing so, you will not only be helping my family, but you will go down in history for having taken a powerful stand - and made a significant inroad against - the currently common police practise of acting without lawfully required prime facia documentation to do so. I am available at any time for an interview on this matter to assist the investigation. Alternatively, I will force such an interview to happen in order to present my legal rights under the law. I further attach a notice dated 10th June, 2009 addressed to Inspector Corbet David. I filed this notice with the Metropolitan Police in case I am arrested again on my property. If I am arrested on my property again, it will have been done intentionally and with full foreknowledge that this is an unlawful arrest. I further attach a copy of a letter of instruction by Her Majesty the Queen to your predecessor, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs for full consideration (investigation) into this matter. Her Majesty's request continues to be ignored as of today. Under your watch, you now have both the position and the power to rectify this situation. I await by latest 7 days from the date of this letter, for your acknowledgement of receipt of the attached documents and for a full undertaking to be initiated, that the matter will be speedily investigated and the lawful position restored, as required in law.

Encloser: Exhibit 1 to 14 Financial Action Task Force

2

.-. .-: ... ..._.~.- ~ ..- .:

-

.

1

POUCE walt outside the property In ~boume

Gardens on July 8

..

Ev{ctioll drama 'rn quiet ·stree~
PoLlCE:~ buII.t-proof -..a honae in J bemc ubd abou, the0~ ••...;~ ~ bT h;upod remove eight people fro.tn -rhe hou.e wa. ]OiDdJ' Golden Green-lUXlid c:I.aiznahe eTic:t.ioa GedaHaba Even aDd h.b wife DnaraIi, t 1VUillepl.. and I do not think it ia lawtDl to e"rid him Cranbourne Gardena was blocked off 1rilenhb Wifeown.. hall the houe. at both enda •• the eviction took plaee at "'Iban written to che Lord ChaDceUor 9.3Oam. oa July tL Ten police can and aboat the 0lSe BeVeD times aDd I am atm vans were on the Beene" 'lnliting for a reply. I QDdentaDd Mn It ia not known why the IDgh Court Evert hu £Oneto the Wgh Co~ Sheriff"a Office brought along 30 POllee- A witness, who did Dot wiab to be bullet-proof b.am.ed, &aid: "Itwas quite ahockfoC to.., " men, many of then:aW'~ :rest&. No policemen wearing mvoJved. fireana.. Were, ill the end, aueh a quiet road." bullet.proof varia. OIl • The eviction lr1UI su~ and the The High Court Sheritf'. omce .••• house wu ~rd.ay boarded up. unavailable for con:am.eniyesterday. It Bat GoldenRudi Vl8, MP tor Finchley and I Evert. possible to speak to AIr aDdMn Green, said: "'QQestlou. are wu not
::t i

,i

Ie

Tne Queen has asked the Private Secretary to thank M'1. Rben for his letter,
lL"1d

to say thm: it has been puse.d to the Secretary of State for Home

Affairs so that this approacb to Her l-9"fajesty may ~ kDown. and considerauon given to the points ~.d

in tbc !etter.

21st February t 2001,

------

~

MR. G. EBERT
23 Cranbourne Gardens**London
Mob: 07984 248536

NWll OHS

E-mail: de8765@hotmail.co.uk
1ih October 2007 By Hand To Robert & Anne Baruch 23 Cranboume Gardens London NWll OHS Title No. MX 439914 Crime Ref: 2416149/05 2437039/05

Final Legal Notice 1) Trespass 2) Theft

Re: Mv Matrimonial Home 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London NWll OHS
You are guilty of Trespass and Theft using and controlling our property which you obtained by deception on false documents (data) I and Mrs. D. Ebert are the legal owner registered in the Land Registry on We never sold and/or authorized any person to sell our home.
10th

April 1992.

The Land Registry affirmed that they do not have any application and/or any valid legal document (data) to transfer the title (proprietor) to any person.

Trespass
Any registration obtained by deception on false documents are void. (Section I 16 Land Registry Act 1925)

Theft
A person is guilty of an offense ifhe has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. (Section 6 Fraud Act 1006)

r:-.-

.,

Rightful OWlletCan cliUm
COURT OF APPEAL
Cl

Publtsh II Mmli 21., 2002

Ltd

MaloryEnterprIus v Cheshire Homes (UK} Ltd
and Others
Befora Lord justice Schiemann,

,

Lord Justice Clarke and latly JustIce Arden
1tK/J1frJentre.IJfZJSfY 22, 2002

---------A party who had purebmed IIIlld (rom a wrongdof!1' had been enand tered on the R!Jlster ulegal proprllltor took the tltle subject to the rfsht of the lAwtuJ owmr to seek ree:tlIleatlon olthc fClIla«:t'.The rightful owner had an ovenidlnlllnterot by virrue allts ablllty to dzrim r~·

rlrIhltul owner of the land had sufil~ capable of tniMmlssiOll through dent intefeat to sue the purchaser different ownenhlpll: !Ce WllHtuns 18 trespnss, whether the regbt«:T ' and Gl,y1l4 BlII'Ikv Bolmtd (1198111 AC cmJkt be red:lfiedrlahtM hOO aD 487). the event, It WlI8 not nea:uary . and whether the retroapect.lvely In O'lerrldlng lnttlr=t In the land eOf' to decide the point, but bel: LadytIle purpose.tof S\1ctlon 82. ship said that rectIfu:lIt!on could not . Mr Joful MJU1Jn, QC and Mr Rlbemade retrospective. e:lltmf Oughton for Malory EnterKIn(pQ1lon Ud " Thomes Wat~r -J-.. Mr J '- Da--" " •.••.. , Dcvalopmenu Ltd (T1Ilr TTmI/ll Febrn_••. P''''''''', OW. l!"~ .or .•.. u<:·]1..-27. 2(01) eatabl~ that terms Ire: Mr NJclwhui ~ddtc:k for the ~ not be imposed when grantOJlet Land RealmtH'. Ingor~g aD onlat torredifiea-,LADY JUSTICE ARDBN lIllId I10n and It 'WU dUIkuk to see how a that altbougb Malo\')' UK had no ctretrospective order alUld be made lie to convey, O1eshlre's poalJ:lon without doblg' JlO On terma to procn~ regi/ltered was governed by s«teet auy lntervenlng interellt4 of ~on 69 of the 1925Act Md was thUs • thlrd parties which were llCJt prwlddeemed to ba'Ye Yerlted in It only the ed rot In the Act.' . , :
e&tlItC'.

.

' .

.

1.

Malosy Bntex:Pd-

bad caused
the .; .

I

tlon and bad !bus suftlc:lent

POlIw.,

In trI!.s{JaBa Ilgll!nst the registered SOtY ~t to maintain an actlon own«. The Court of Appeal m held dlsmlBSlng an appeal by l1f3t defendant, e::nellil~ 'fWm,l!:l (UK) L:d,

~y BW:e the transfer to lVlYeffect could not In Itselfconsti- of OldUre In law, It eQUid not be tnte a ·dlsposltion· to wbkb sectlon ;~ could apply g\'Ilng abaoktte title to Chemire, O:.ed1h~·! i!h\tu!, Il4regfstered
,>"

flll1U3 to be Il1llInWned round

keep ~, \lIl1d aod blwdal out, wtndows to " up bad ac:ee!& !rom ndJolnin(r land wbtch was man- . ascd with It, sod had used tblllaod : to Si)J1le extent fOr stoolge. It waa , tbeft!lbre In ~l OC1.'U,l)lllion at

a /t'QmJOOgit Maddow. sitting deputy ChJinary DivlsWn j~ as Jo thll Manchester DJstrlct Regbtry,ln

'proprietor of Mlliory Enterprllles as the rights waa thettd'ore tIUb.Ject tD . bene!ldal owner with the rl!S9lt that

tbe'l;wt within !li:l:tion 1Q(1){g) or , . the 1925Act.' ' None of the aut~ had dealt
with retjlliIIIte pre:rence had to but I the completely derelict land. be to put Ii pi:t'!on Impecting the land on notiCe that !lllmeone. 'W1I8 In oc:cupatlon.. " ' ; Lord JUJrtlceOarke agreed ex~~;"
llUth lI$

c

an action by VIrgin lshmd compaMalocy bad .wffIdent Uti, a Brltlsh Malo\}' E'nterprlses standing ~ Ne fur tre:lpB.SS without to ny, seeking rt:ctlfu:atlon of the Land rectllkatlon: see Olowood v LjItl:ll (Nil 2) (fl930] 2 Ch 156, 16.3-164). Charges Register on the ground that entry on the register In relation Nelther U1ediscretionary nature to II property whlcl1 It owned hlld of the right to seek re~lkln nor bl!efl altered PUr:luant to ~on82 the notlon that a claim to rect1ficao( the Laud Regjamdon Act 1925, tlon was Itselt an avertldlng Interest mentioned In section 82(3) pnvlintat a rellUlt ot"the fraUi!ulent conduct oflndi'tidualtl who had set up II CIlIlI~ed the rliIbt from l\IlIountlng tQ an
pany t1re land Ma1orY,UK and then sold ClIled to CbdblrC'. overriding c1almant WM In IcNalInterest f( thewithin :seeoceupatiol1
"tlOD

l

cept that. M was oat convinced • .

that

.

the court could not make a retroJIllecttve order tor rectlfica1lan. '
on butLor1i Suatlcc Q{llnlo~ thea8l"'ed , fQefVed his 5chielDAAn quesI.lonof $ospectlvity.

While It was common ground

7O(1)(g).

.

. the !3!UeSon appeal were M to the- , .. tight In reference to the transmla:dble that the reglater should be rect!fled, _, The r1l:lht wu 1\ flUId. satisfynatua of the purchasllr. whether the Ing the requimnent that It should

, .

.,

i'

SoUcltoa: ~:Il SQUn4em, Man· chew:r, P11.wI~ &. Partners, M~ chester: TreB51.ll1 Solicitor. '

,I
L; I

OFFICIAL COpy OF HISTORICAL REGISTER ENTRIES
This copy shows the entries subsisting in the register on 28 November 1999. This edition was last updated on 24 September 1999 at 09:31 :00.
...
.

.

.

.

.-

.

l.Jndec\.61 qft!}e},@J1dAt:3giS1r9tioh J\m<?002~thisSbpy is admissible in evidence to the same .. :::::::::. ':':.":.:., ...:'.:<.'::' exte.f:J~:as.th~.rt9 'pal :><" 'T?::>'" ()
This::title'is:>~:tealt With:byJiind

R~hi~hry:··Swan~ea>bffice.

Land l3egri~try>
":.::"::.-

...

.":':.

Title Nurrlber :
Edition Date:

::'MX439914

24 September 1999

...........

":.

....

'"'

.....

.......

':.

:·:::«:·:/A:·>P"opertyj~eglsfer ::{.:::{:::. :.:..:::.:::::: .":.....
::'Th¥ regis.tEifd~cri~.s.<:tJW Jijild a./Jd :~~.te c#pprise(j)n
GREATER LONDON

the title.
LONDON BOROUGH

BARNET

r

'-"",

1-

(13 April 1962) The Freehold lanci shown edged with .. red on the pla,n of the above Title filed at the Registry andl:>eiJi92}.C.r~PJ;>0I4.rn.7. Ga,rd.en,s, Golders Green, (NWll DES). ." ...
..

This register specifies the dass of tit/e and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the right .of disposal.

B: Proprietorship

Register

Title Abso lute
1. 2. (10 April 1992) PROPRIETOR: GEDALJAHU 23 Cranbourne Gardens, Golders Green,
EBERT and DEVORAE London NWll oas. EBERT both of

(9 September 1994) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no disposition by the proprietor of the land or made in exercise of the power of sale in any Charge subsequent to that dated 9 August 1994 in favour of Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Limited referred to in the Charges Register is to be registered without the consent of the
,_.:

L....LLHC

--

"\...

UC:..l,.UIj

--.:

--

..
[15 GED. 5.]
Land Regi8tration Act, 1925.
[C1L

21.]
A_D. 1925_

but no other persoll, may inspect a.nd'make copies of and extracts from any register.or clqcument in the custody of the registrar relating to such rand or charge. "'-; 113. Officecopies of and extracts from the register and of and from documents and plans filed in the registry shall be admissible in evidence in all actions and matters. and between aU persons or parties, to the same extent as the originals would be admissible, but any person suffering loss by reason of the inaccuracy 0:£ any such copy or extract shall be entitled to be indemnified under this Act, ~nd no solicitor, trustee, personal representative~ or other person in a. fiduciary position shall be answerable in respect of any loss occasioned by relying on any such copy or extract. 114. Subject to the provisions in this Act contained with respect to indemnity and to registered f 1 d dispositions f or va IUB.ble conSI era ti- on, any dis' 'd . posItion 0 an or 0 f a charge, which if unregistered would be fraudulent and void, shall, notwithstanding registration, be fraudulent and void in like manner.

Office

copies te be evidence.

F~aud~~ent
dish

pofslhons b ow ar to void

e

.

~-trar or the court in puxsuance of this Act any person suppressiOn ~~ in such proc~edingsas principal or a.gent, with ~~:eeds mter:.t :-0 conceal the tiMe of any proceedings before the Penalty ~or 115. If in the course or claim of a.ny person, or to evidence.
subst.a.r:ti&te a .£aISe claim, suppresses,
attempts

to sup-

\

. press, the :.:: ~n fact, c::x p-nry to the suppression of, ~ny document or so suppIessing7 attempting to su:p: press, ox p=h5 to suppressio~ shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.

.,

.

-

116.-{1', If any attempts fmn.d::L.cntIv'"" toperson fraudulently procures, or is privy to the fraudulent procu..~t Q 7 any entry on, erasure from or alteration of the ~Er, or any land or charge certificate, he shall be gu:ilty of a misdemeanor.
fraud, shall jbe void.. a3 between aU persons made are (2) .Any entry, erasure, or alteration so who by parties or pnvy to the mud. 117. A person guilty of So misdemeanor under this

l=:

fraudulent Pena~ty certam for t

I"

ac s.

1 I

Act shall(a)

Puni:'hmellt of mISde. meanors.

on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a teIm not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds;
83

;4

&

(CH.21.]
A.D. 1925.

lA:nil, Regi3lratian Act, 1925.

[15 GEO. 5.]

neither the mortgage therewith nor discharges retained at the registry.

nor a.ny instruments dealing affecting other properly besides

the registered land shall be required to be permanently
Power for
proprietors

to bind

107.-(1) Subject to any entry to the contrary on the register, the proprietor of any registered land or charge

successors

and to
enforce

may enter into any contract in had not thereto in like manner as if the land or charge reference been reO'istered,
and, subject to any diSposition for valuable consi~eratlOn
which ma.y be registered

1

I

contracts.

or protected

on

the

register

before the contract is completed or protected on the register, the contract may be enforced as a. minor interest against any succeeding proprietor in like manner and to the same extent as if the land or charge had not been
registered.

(2) A contract entered into for the benefit of any registered land or charge may (if the same would have been enforceable by the owner for the time being of the land or charge, if not registerei4 or by a. person deriving title under the party contracting for the benefit) be enforced by the proprietor for the time being of the la.nd or charge.
Acquisition

of ease·

c

menta a.nd other benefits.

108. The- proprietor of registered land ma.y accept for the benefit· thereof the grant of any easement, right, or privilege or the benefit of any restrictive covenant or
provision (a.ff~cting other land, whether registered or not)
in like manner and to the same extent as if he were legally and beneficially entitled to the fee simple in possession, or

to the term c:reated by the registered lease, for his own
benefit free from incumbrances.
Restriction
on exercise of powers off the register.

109. Subject to the express provisions relating to

leases and mortgages, nothing in this Part of this
Act shall be construed as authorising any disposition of any estate, interest, or right 01' other dealing with land
to be effected under this Part of

rules.

or dealing is one which could. be effected. under another Part of this Act, and any such disposition or dealing 8ha11be effected upder and in the manner required by such other Part of this Act, and when so required shall be registered or'protected as provided by this Act or the
.

this Act

if

the

disposition

78

GEbert
23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS Bmail: de8765@hotmaiI.co.uk TellFax: 0208 905 5209 Mobile: 07984 248 536 (Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NWll 9TN) To Inspector Corbet David Director of Professional Standards Colindale Police Station Graham Park Way Hendon London NW9 5TQ

10 June 2009 By E-mail and post Your ref: PC/5913/08

LEGAL NOTICE
Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, Golders Green London, NWll OHS I Gedaljahu Ebert, the owner (with my wife D. Ebert), give to the Metropolitan Police a Legal Notice that in case I will be arrested on my Property and/or any issue connected to the property, this will be an unlawful arrest and deprive my Rights. The ground for this Notice: I have been 3 times arrested in the last 10 years on my property without any Lawful excuse. In the case that the Met has any clarification and/or investigation of any issue, I am available for a meeting and/or interview at any time. Any arrest is a violation of the guidance and my freedom.

c
''''

Please ensure that this Legal Notice shall be transmitted to and placed on record with the Metropolitan Police. In case you do not accept and/or agree to any of the statements above, please give the reason supported with documentary evidence no later than in 7 days from today Implied admission by absence of response.

/

Please acknowledge safe receipt.

MrG. I) Copy of Land Registry, Title of ownership 2) Land Registry Act 1925, section 107 & 116

Enc.

L)

Q

Freedoms
Article 6. Right to liberty and security > Everyone has the right to liberty and security
of person. ...b Article 7. Respect for private and family life I > Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8. Protection

of personal

data
of personal data concerning and him or her. purposes

> Everyone has the right to the protection

> Such data must be processed fairly for specified
on the basis of the consent of the person concerned

or some other legitimate

basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. authority.

> Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent Article 9. Right to marry and right to found a family > The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed
in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

Article 10. Freedom of thought,
This right includes freedom either alone or in community to manifest

conscience

and religion
<Jnd religion. or belief and freedom. practice and observance. with the national

> Everyone hus the righl lo freedom of thought. conscience
to change religion

with others and in public or in private, teaching,

religion or belief, in worship, objection

> The right to conscientious

is recognised.

in accordance

laws governing the exercise of this right.

Citizens· rights
_
to the European Parliament in a free and secret ballot.

l,
J

Article 39. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections

> Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament > Members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage

Article 40. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections

I

i

> Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate
ul

municipnl elections in the Member State in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of that State. administration time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.

1- Article 41. Right to good

t > Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable > This right includes:

- the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
!.

j

- the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and'of professional and business secrecy; - the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. > Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused " by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.

> Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages
of the Treaties and mu~t have an answer in the same language.

·1 Artic~e 42. Right of access to documents

> Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its

registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to European Parliament. Council and Commission documents.

I"

t2lwYEJr

«)Jfi:

~b-ue ee~; David Thomas w

t\

CS

So ~-;

~ ~

(

()

1"J

tr.;~·
1 (

~--:i,::>

David London solicitor Hartnells, a SouthThomas, afirm, actedattor tenants of Lambeth Borough Council after it brought possession proceedings against them, The leases of the properties they occupied, provided by a charitable housing trust, had been terminated in 1999. The House of Lords ruled in 2006 against the tenants, saying that they could not use the right to respect for a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on lluman Rights as their defence against the propcrties being repossessed. But the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has now ruled that the law lords' ruling volated the tenants' right to respect for their private and family life and homes. They were awarded E2,000 each. What were the main challenges in this case ami possible implications? The loss of one's home is the most
: IGM '(•

I

.-r -, ,.....""("" ~ (

Ie- ,(

C \-h--1-)

~-\i\.~ Z~t:...

s

'.

I,Ijudgment's Court is considering now in Supreme implications even the : Manchester City Council v Pinnock, in . , which its ruling is expected The to MUcle 8 in this resl eel. shortly.
:1'

What was your worst day as a lawyel'? Going bust in my own legal aid practice after 17years, halfway through this case, The margins in legal aid work are so narrow that one bad decision 01' piece of bad luck can put you under. Who has been the most intluential person in your lite and why? lain Robertson, a great actor (under the name lain Anders) and criminal practitioner, who was my business partner and best friend un til his death
in 1997.

socialjustice. What would your advice be to anyonefor those who wish to fig,iltfor stand wanting a career in law? In my area ofthe law, these are difficult times. But I would not wish to that that was what who felt stronglydo. discourage people they wanted to

I I
j

If you had not become a lawyel', what: would you have chosen and why? To \ be a teacher, an academic, a computer programmer OJ' a tap dancer. I would have enjoyed an)' ofthose. Where do YOll see yourself in ten years? Where 1am now. I have the chance to do the sort of work I want to do in a supportive environment and among friends, I can't imagine wanting to do alJything else.
UndaTsang

extreme form of interference with the right to respect for one's private and family life and home under Article 8. [n principle, everyone should be able to have a court decide whether it is necessary and proportionate for them, to be evicted. The Strasbourg court has now said several times that our UK courts are n~! giving sufficient regard

Why did you become a lawyer? Itis not that the law is necessarily a force for good, but it can afford a place to

Ctsang@hotmail.com

--1?nnter

.Fnendly

Page 1 of2

TIMES
From The Times May 21,2009

Ingrained arrogance in the police leads to miscarriages of justice
John Bromley-Davenport, QC Police attitudes have progressed by light years since the bad days of the 1980s and highly publicised miscarriages of justice. So runs the prevailing wisdom. But the recent police operation at the G20 summit and instinctive reaction <2fsome officers to doctor the facts indicates that a deep-seated corruption in policing still prevails. It reared its head after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and stems from a self-righteous arrogance within police forces and a belief, held widely by many officers, that they are above the law. It leads to attitudes that have led to manipulation of evidence and wrongful convictions: victims include Colin Stagg and Barry George. '

I)'

policing. More than 30 years ago police procedures made it easy to concoct and manipulate. These were history of the by the ubiquitous is "verbal". with false convictions caused by overzealous and dishonest The epitomised criminal courts littered Until 1984 interviews with suspects were conducted in the absence of a defence solicitor and without notes being taken. Officers would get together later and write up an account of the conversation, invariably containing a confession. Many criminals claimed falsely that they had been "verballed up" but there was a large number of cases in which police officers concocted confessions. Verballing was endemic in every force, including Lancashire, where the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner cut his investigative teeth - although I do not suggest that he was involved. The practice was obvious to those of us who defended in the criminal courts. A 25-minute interview would, when reduced to writing, consist of a couple of pages of handwritten notes. When it was suggested to police officers that a great deal of conversation had been omitted, they would claim that they had faithfully recorded all questions and answers.~any judges seemed blind to police dishonesty and, although juries tended to be more sceptical, there were numerous cases that resulted in convictions based on lies. Judicial myopia reached the very top. In the appeal of the Birmingham Six, Lord Denning said: "If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous ... this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further." Eleven years later it was accepted that the "appalling vista" was no less than the truth. The introduction of contemporaneous notes meant that there were fewer confessions, which was inconvenient for the police. It had been all too easy to threaten or mistreat a defendant into a confession or, if that failed, to invent one. Now officers had to write down the conversation as it happened. Ever resourceful, however, new methods were found to overcome the difficulty. Notes were doctored with omissions or additions; in 1989 it was discovered that interview notes with Patrick Armstrong, one of the Guildford Four, had been heavily edited and rewritten before trial. The four were released after spending 15 years in jail. In 1976 Stefan Kiszko was convicted of murdering an 11-year-old girl. He was interviewed without a solicitor. As a result of threats, which were not alluded to in the notes or evidence of the police officers.

f

http://business.timesonline.co.

ukItollbusiness/law/artic1e63

29052. ece?print=yes&rand...

21/05/2009

,,~i1ilterYnendly

Page 2 of2

he confessed and spent 16 years in jail before his innocence was proved. In 1977 Reg Dudley and Bob Maynard were convicted of murder. They spent 20 years in jail but in 2002 it was established that their confession notes had been fabricated. The introduction of tape-recording prevented the doctoring of interviews. But the culture of falsity, of deciding on guilt and fitting evidence to the decision, had become ingrained. Its tentacles spread into other spheres of police investigation. In recent years, I can attest that officers from Lancashire, Liverpool and Northumbria have used a variety of ingenious methods in attempting to secure the convictions of innocent men. These cases resulted in acquittals: they were "carriages of justice" that could so easily have become miscarriages rank with Kiszko, the Birmingham Six and many others.

to

The police have a difficult job and many officers are fair. I pay tribute to the thousands who would not dream of lying or of manipulating evidence, who are capable of being objective, who are not blinkered in their approach to an investigation. Nor do I suggest that any police officer sets out to secure the conviction of people he or she believes to be innocent. The danger to liberty and to the rule of law lies in the tendency of some to decide on guilt first and then look for evidence in support. It is this tendency with its deep-rooted origins in the history of the police service that leads to injustice. It is this tendency that can and does lead to the conviction of the innocent. And it stems from the same malaise that causes the overreaction and brutality we saw at the G20. The author is at Deans Court Chambers, Manchester, and

3 Paper

Buildings

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement. Times Online Services: Dating I Jobs' Property Search I Used Cars I Holidays' Births, Marriages, Deaths I Subscriptions I E-paper News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search I Property Finder' Milkround Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, published by a member of the News International Group. holding company for the News International group and is

Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy To inquire The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

http://business.timesonline.co.

ukItol/business/law/artic1e63

29052. ece ?print=yes&rand...

21/05/2009

-

---- -

~.~ - ~ ~ -

---

_

.. -

-

Fralld through
concealing information
AdalTIS
A

vThe

Queen

~~:son could b~ guilty of fr~ud whe:~ he. dishon~~r ly con~e:lleri Iniufm:1tiol1 frUln :lrIOlh(::'" wniL::-t

to U$c l.1ishono(!y :.l ~)'stt:m of disguising tht:: ~ourL:;: lnu utilisation of rnlm:.:y~ f::!l:~
by i.lgr~eing

ht \... unt.i~:" J ·a~

dULY to

Ji~d(J~L;u l
w;::.s

!L~[tim~le ~nJ~uiry hy tlh':. ~~i: .:; uii~hurc:: "':OInpanil.·~~n~ han\... ..;.v
CDum:;

char orh~r or which

that ocher

:.lnd ;.l Nt;"' •.•. Z:::.l!~ntiIc~:.d

e:ui;ld tu n:quire him (0 disciuse. Tn~ Judicb.l Commirrt:"": of In\.:
{Lon.! Tt:moit:man. Lord Jaun~y of TulliL:ht:rtl~ Lord Browne-Wilkinson, L)rd \Vcotr
Privy Cuum:il

firm.',

ir~

.

Si m~~ :~\..:nn1 pany W:.l:: ~n[ it1t:d f(..• ,,:l.)V<.:r ;':'tHIl t.lirt..'t.'~(jr:( .~C"...:n:1 pruI\.:.:'\pt::nsc. :.Iny

ill
i
.,'
....

il~ m~u.h.:by t11t::n at lhL' cumpal1;( ....

di~honc:it

:J.gre:::mt.:.."1:

~d

Lord Uoyd

sralt:d on Oerober
Jl1 ~ppe:1 by the
'1'ls.~

BerNl~) ~o 31 in di$mi$sino ~
Dr

by c.iin..•.:turs w impede :.l L1Jrnp:l~Y • in ·thl· ,~xl'rci:ic of it" righl ut
I1.w.:t)vl..:ry

"\

,~

,1'

~ppdt.m[.Grant

wuuld

con~tituh,'

.~

I

L1m::;pirJcy to def f::.lUt.L

..~-:" l![

Adarn::i,.irom the disI11issal by m~ Caun at Appd of Nt:="vZ~bnd of his apPe:.:llagninst his conviction of conspi~cy to defraud_ LO RO JA UN CEY said that rhe appell~t had be~:1 charot:d with consplnng wnh hIS co-a.CC'u.s~ to anyone or more of defraud Equiticorp Holding~ Ltd. its $ubsic:ibry companie; :lnd othe:-s
• • • • l:;;l

in th~ else of four of the tiv~ trans~lt..:!ions in question the appd .. Ia.n! had 'ocen parry to the use of th~ overseas struclure for the nur-~se of di$hone-sI conee:llmenr aiinformiltion which. as a direc!or. he was under a dury to disciose to th~ company. and so he h::ld properly re.:n convided of conspir ..
-:'C'j

to ddraud .

.r-

o~1<ij.~est warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder - MSN News - MSN UK

Page 1 or 4

ITN, \tn.co.uk,

Updated:

12/02/2011

12:0Ll

Arrest warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder
42

A Pakistan court has issued an arrest warrant for exiled former president Pervez Musharraf over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Mrs Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an

~ :~ .....
Pakistan's turbulent

.

election rally in the city of Rawalpindi in December 2007, weeks after she returned to Pakistan after years in self-imposed exile. Her assassination was one of the most shocking events in

Warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder

history and remains shrouded in mystery.

A spokesman for Mr Musharraf said: "The court has issued an arrest warrant and asked that he should be produced before the court during the next hearing on February 19." Mr Musharraf has repeatedly dismissed suggestions he, the security agencies or military were involved in killing his old rival. The former military chief came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999 but has lived in self-imposed exile since he stepped down under threat of impeachment in 2008. He spends most of his time in London and Dubai.

He has expressed his intention to return to Pakistan and said he aimed to establish offices for his new political party by March. The warrant for his arrest follows a similar court order in December for the arrest of two senior police officers on allegations they failed to provide adequate security for Mrs Bhutto before her assassination. A report by a UN commission of inquiry released last year said any credible investigation into the killing should not rule out the possibility that members of Pakistan's military and security establishment were involved. It heavily criticised Pakistani authorities, saying they had "severely hampered" the investigation. The initial investigation blamed a Pakistani Taliban leader and al-Qaeda ally, Baitullah Mehsud, for Bhutto's murder.
42

Join the discussion!

Sort

by:

Oldest first

1-8 of 8

12 Februarv 201113:57:56

Mr. 10% and now Mr. 100% is to be blamed for murder of his wife!

12 February 2011 14:52:11 About time that someone got done for her murder, and good to see that they're taking it to the highest source rather than just prosecuting some middle ranking stooge in a show trial.

http://news.uk.msn.com/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=15611

0317

13/02/2011

.,i

Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4, Oakleigh Road South London N11 1NP

GEbert 66 Woodville London NW119TN

Road

contact: tel: e-mail: fax: date: our reference: your reference:

Neil Goldberg 020 8359 4763 neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk 0870 8896821 23/07/2008 23CranbourneGdns

Dear Mr Ebert,

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS
Please find the letter sent to the agent (Mr Baruch) enclosed.

Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4, Oakleigh Road South London N11 1NP

Mr R Baruch Enterprise Ltd 208 Acton Lane London NW107NH

contact: tel: e-mail: fax: date: our reference: your reference:

Neil Goldberg 02083594763 neil. gOldberg@barnet.gov.uk 0870 8896821 23/07/2008 23CranbourneGdns

Dear Mr R Baruch,

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHSApplication Reference C05707E/01
It has been brought to my attention that you have did not served notice on the owners of the above property as part of application C05707E/01. Certificate A of the application form was signed declaring you were the owner of the land to which the application relates. Certificate Bshould have been signed and notice should have been served on the owners. As a result your previous permission may be invalid. You need to be aware that your building could be unlawful and enforcement action may be likely to proceed. Please can you contact me as soon as possible disc your option

Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4, Oakleigh Road South London N111NP

Mr. GEbert 66 Woodville Road London NW119TN

contact: tel: e-mail: fax: date: our reference: your reference:

Neil Goldberg 020 8359 4763 neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk 0870 8896821 27.08.08 23CranbourneGdns

Mr. Ebert, Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS Application Thank you for your query. I apologise for the delay in responding. To date we have had no response from Mr. Baruch sent on the 23rd July 200B. The council would like to stress that although we acknowledge and note your evidence of criminal activity, the council will not be pursuing the claim that flie declaration, signed by the applicant on application C05707E/01, was done under deception. The planning permission was granted on its planning merits, regardless of the applicant or ownership of the land. The grant of planning permission is not a grant to carry out the building operations since other legislation requirement including land ownership need to be satisfied. Issues of land ownership are civil matters and should be explored through the courts. The council take the view that there is no justification in the interests of the public to revoke the grant of planning permission. The council do not consider they have made any error in their processes and therefore there is no further action to take. Reference C05707E/01

I

Cc. Karina Sissman Mr P. Oaks