UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE - Common Law Remedy against Insolvent Corporations 

Click here to edit subtitle

26 May 2015: Four good men and women removed a judge from public office for his Dishonour to humanity under UCC, Article 61 of Magna Carta, Natural law, common law, ancient law, universal law, whilst there was no defence filed by the UK Corporation for its Dishonour against "We The People" of the land known as England.  The draft Order that sought all public service, servants and spending to be with honour, therefore became LAW OF THE LAND.

26 May 2015 Official Transcript of judgement of Mr Justice Jay who committed Treason by refusing to give an Order requiring honour in all public service in the UK, thus deeming all public services and courts, dishonourable in the UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. Not known

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL


Tuesday, 26th May 2015


Before:


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JAY


Between:


NEELU BERRY

Claimant

-v-


UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION

C/O LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN

Defendant


______________________


The Claimant appeared In Person


No attendance by the Defendant

______________________


JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT


Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838


Number of Folios: 32

Number of Words: 2,328

JUDGMENT


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JAY:


I am told that this matter was last before the court, Mr Justice Dingemans presiding, on 11th May 2015, although precisely what happened on that occasion is not clear at all. By this application notice, which I understand was before Mr Justice Dingemans, although the papers have since been supplemented, Miss Neelu Berry seeks various orders against an entity she calls the United Kingdom Corporation. The order sought, according to page 1 of the application notice, is:

“That all public servants must undertake to act with honour at all times in public office in a notarised affidavit of truth and honour and the Uniform Commercial Code will be removed from office immediately.”

There is clearly a lengthy history to this application but I regret I have not got to the bottom of it. Miss Berry told me that in October 2000 her niece died, she says at the hands of the London Borough of Redbridge. According to pages 3 to 5 of the bundle, there was a private prosecution brought in 2013 against an entity described as Mrs Elizabeth Battenberg Mountbatten Windsor (who I take to be Her Majesty the Queen,) the Attorney General, Lord Chancellor and Chief Justice and Justice Ministers. There were various counts on the indictment, four in all. The matter was considered first of all at Snaresbrook Crown Court but then remitted to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and there District Judge Howard Riddle obviously refused to take the matter further, which would hardly be surprising if one reads the indictment in a even a cursory way.

I was told as well that on 23rd May of 2013 there were criminal proceedings brought first in the magistrates’ court against Miss Berry’s sister and brother-in-law and this appears to have related to a licensing matter. There was an appeal to the crown court and the sister and brother-in-law were fined £10,000, and then there were judicial review proceedings, His Honour Judge Sycamore QC presiding. Miss Berry expressed concerns that the court proceeded on the basis that the Snaresbrook Crown Court were neither present nor represented which was “without law and jurisdiction”. But the London Borough of Redbridge were interested party, and under Part 52 of the CPR it is standard practice in this sort of case for the Crown Court not to be present or represented and rather the prosecuting authority to act as interested party but, at all events, whatever the rights and wrongs of that, this court has no jurisdiction or interest in those matters. The only court which might have had jurisdiction following the unsuccessful judicial review proceedings would be the Court of Appeal, but matters are now far too late to be brought up before the Court of Appeal.

In order to try and understand the basis of the cause of action, here I am now on pages 9 and 10 of the bundle, Miss Berry told me that it was a claim really brought under three limbs: first of all, natural law; secondly, either the Geneva Convention of 1930 or what is described as the Uniform Commercial Code which is a form of public international law relating to trade disputes and; thirdly, certain provisions of Magna Carta. What is really being said is that various public servants, indeed all public servants, are in breach of their obligations under those provisions; it is an overarching obligation to act with honour at all times, to provide a notarised affidavit of truth of honour, to cease and desist kidnaps without law and to return property.

In relation to the kidnaps, Miss Berry told me that there were two occasions in April of this year where people masquerading as police officers attended at her premises, a burglary was committed or two burglaries were committed and furthermore she was kidnapped, but the local police, she tells me, were not interested in her allegations at all.

The question arises for me whether there is any basis for the application either under the Uniform Commercial Code or natural law or Magna Carta, and it is quite plain to me that there is not; that what is sought here insofar as one can make any sense of it is an order that public servants comply with their public duties. Well, they owe duties to do that in any event, not as it happens under any of the provisions which are relied on by Miss Berry. Furthermore, she cannot come to this court seeking orders in this respect. Insofar as there is any remedy, which I can assure her there is not, it is really a public law remedy, but it has to be far more precise than the remedy she is seeking.

There are generalised complaints about satanic acts and paedophilia committed by people up and down the country, in particular in Hampstead, I understand, but all of that is not justiciable and there really is no evidence on which I can properly act.

This application is completely misconceived, it is totally without merit. We have spent 45 minutes on it which, frankly, is overly generous.

I have to give consideration now as to whether to make a civil restraint order. My difficulty is that I do not have enough information as to what has happened in the past, although I have been told by Miss Berry that she has been in this court before and, indeed, she told me that she and others were here on several occasions in March of this year. It seems to me that the court should not be troubled with applications of this sort. This court is concerned to deal with potentially meritorious claims on an urgent and expedited basis, not with claims of this nature. Claims of this nature which are inherently vexatious in all senses of the term merely clog up the arteries of this court, waste judicial time, and cause concern to court servants who are here acting in good faith trying to manage court business. In my judgment, this must stop.

The order is going to state that if Miss Berry brings any further applications of this sort or of any sort which are unsuccessful, then consideration will have to be given by the next judge to make an appropriate civil restraint order. Now, that is an order with draconian consequences and means that the permission of a high court judge would have to be obtained in the future. I should make clear that I am not making an order on this occasion but I am giving a very strong warning to Miss Berry that if she comes here again with an application of this sort, a civil restraint order is likely to be made. To adopt a footballing analogy, I do not know whether she is interested in football but I am sure it is understood by those representing her or behind her, this is a clear yellow card; but next time it will be or is likely to be a red card. That concludes my judgment but this application is dismissed. Thank you very much.

A FEMALE SPEAKER: Is it possible to have a word?


THE JUDGE: No.


MRS BERRY: Yes, I’m going to add to that, if I may, that I do not accept your judgment. It is a complete and utter fraud. You have committed treason. I've already issued you with a cease and desist notice and a notice of dishonour. I’m now issuing you with a citizen’s arrest for the treason you’ve committed today.


THE JUDGE: Yes.


MRS BERRY: I’m removing you from public office and these witnesses here agree with me, yes?


A MALE SPEAKER: I agree, yes.


MRS BERRY: We are removing you. We are four good people. We have now removed you. You do not need to come to work any more because you have dishonoured us. You have dishonoured the British public—


THE JUDGE: Well, I regret to say—


MRS BERRY: You’ve dishonoured humanity; you're an agent for the satanic cults running this country. You're not interested in the crimes against babies and children by priests and head teachers and teachers and police, police and social services and CAFCASS. You are a disgrace of a public servant.


THE JUDGE: Yes, have you finished, madam?


A FEMALE SPEAKER: Are you acting on your oath, sir?


THE JUDGE: I am not answering questions. I think what I might do—


MRS BERRY: Are you acting on your oath of office today?


THE JUDGE: What I might do is consider ordering that a transcript be obtained so that the next high court judge can read what you said but I am telling you unless you leave forthwith I will—


MRS BERRY: I would welcome the transcript at public expense.


THE JUDGE: Sorry?


MRS BERRY: I would… I welcome the transcript at public expense.


THE JUDGE: No, it will not be at your application, it will be at my instigation. It will be my decision but I will need to discuss with my associate the practicalities of that.


MRS BERRY: You do not have any authority to do any further damage than you’ve already done in this matter. It’s not for a dishonourable public servant to deal with. We require an honourable judge to deal with this matter. I suggest you recuse yourself and you also return the paperwork that you have dishonoured us with, if you wish to continue—


THE JUDGE: Well, I am more than happy to return to you, Miss Berry, the crime report, because you know full well because you have been here before that you get different judges each time, so if you come here again it will not be me, it will be some other high court judge who will approach this independently but that high court judge will have a copy of my order and is likely to have a copy of the transcript and I am just warning you that it is possible at the very least that that high court judge makes an extended civil restraint order against you but that will be for his or her decision, it will not be for mine.


MRS BERRY: By what authority do you… do you give a same level judge that is going to act dishonourably as yourself?


THE JUDGE: No, I am saying nothing about what that judge might do. That judge, I am saying—


MRS BERRY: You have just admitted that you have committed treason on every occasion, that you have deemed an honourable person, woman, who has attended before you with dishonour.


THE JUDGE: I am not saying, madam, that you have acted dishonourably. I am just saying that your application is completely without merit but I am not here to debate it because I have made my decision—


MRS BERRY: You're the public servant, you’ve denied me a public service, you’ve denied me my remedy, you’ve denied the whole of the United Kingdom their remedy, you find it quite amusing that you’ve abused your power in public office, you’ve—


THE JUDGE: I find it amusing that you are so brazenly impertinent but it is a matter for you.


MRS BERRY: You're not used to people like myself obviously and you have got quite a few of us here today and you're going to have to deal with each one of us, with 70 million of us, you're going to have to deal with all of us.


THE JUDGE: I am going to ask for the crime report to be returned and I assume now that you are, given the dissatisfaction you have voiced that you are now going to leave.


MRS BERRY: Well, I’m not. I’m going to call the police for your treason. I’m going to get you arrested. I’m going to get a crime reference number.


THE JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: I’m going to watch how the police come and take you away.


THE JUDGE: All right, well—


MRS BERRY: We’re going to wait—


THE JUDGE: Follow your own course, madam.


MRS BERRY: I’m going to call the police right from this court. I’m going to wait for them to come and take you away [inaudible – overlap of speech]


THE JUDGE: I suggest you will have to do that from outside. You are quite free to do that.


MRS BERRY: I am not, I’m afraid not. I’m not leaving this court.


A MALE SPEAKER: This is a public court [inaudible] it’s not your court [inaudible].


THE JUDGE: No, it is my court.


MRS BERRY: It’s our court.


A MALE SPEAKER: [Inaudible] for us.


MRS BERRY: Our court.


THE JUDGE: Because I am the judge in this court and if you are not going to leave—


MRS BERRY: [Inaudible – various people all speaking at same time]


THE CLERK: Can I ask you to leave the court please?


A MALE SPEAKER: [Inaudible] it’s our court.


THE JUDGE: Well, security is being called and you will be evicted.


MRS BERRY: Security is here for our protection.


THE JUDGE: Yes, they will remove you.


MRS BERRY: We’ve just been dishonoured by the judge [inaudible]


A MALE SPEAKER: Do you work for the Queen. Can I ask you, judge, do you work for the Queen?


THE JUDGE: These proceedings are now finished.


[Hearing ends]


Apple Transcription Limited 1495-2139-17/ss

0845 604 5642 v.5


Apple Transcription Limited PAGE 1 1495-2139-17/ss

0845 604 5642

11 May 2015 Official Transcript 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL


Monday, 11th May 2015


Before:


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS



Between:


MRS NEELU BERRY

Claimant

-v-


UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION

Defendant


______________________


The Claimant appeared In Person


No attendance by the Defendant:

______________________






TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UP TO JUDGMENT


Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838


Number of Folios: 19

Number of Words: 1,354

THE JUDGE: Good afternoon, Mrs Berry. How can I help?


MRS BERRY: Yes, I am here on behalf of the British public and there are 16,000 signatories on a petition regarding the conduct of certain elite senior members of public servants in very powerful positions.


THE JUDGE: Yes?


MRS BERRY: In all public service, namely police, social services child protection, priests, churches, primary schools, head teachers, teachers, CAFCASS, OFSTED, regarding certain evidence that’s been provided by two children aged 8 and 9, and myself, I have been kidnapped three times, once outside the Ecuadorian Embassy at a vigil on 4th April, another time my front door was broken into without any paperwork, any warrants, any cause, any law by these non-uniformed, plain clothes… well, strangers alleging to be from the police service and on the third occasion the same again and theft of my property and my family’s property and terrorising me.


I have… a judge… I was brought before Judge McPhee in the Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 6th April and he said to the prosecution, which would be the London Borough of Camden, that he could not see any charge. They brought it under the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.


THE JUDGE: Yes.


MRS BERRY: And he said that you had better review whether to proceed. Well, they did not review whether to proceed and there were two further kidnappings. Now, the mother of the two children has had to escape this country because nine plain clothes adults appeared outside her door threatening to break down the door without any warrants or any court papers or any cause and she was so terrified she’s been out of the country since early February, as had the McKenzie friend’s had her door broken into and these children have alleged very serious crimes.


THE JUDGE: And what has happened to your proceedings in the magistrates’ court? Have they been dismissed now?


MRS BERRY: Well, they retained my property which… my family’s property, five laptops, three cameras, my mobile phone, for no reason whatsoever and I’m terrified of living in my own home because there’s been no reason, no cause why they keep appearing and threatening and breaking my door and kidnapping me.


THE JUDGE: Right and who do you say is doing this?


MRS BERRY: It’s the London Borough of Camden.


THE JUDGE: Yes and have you told the London Borough of Camden that you are proposing to make an application against them?


MRS BERRY: Well, because I’d already issued a private prosecution in 2013 as a result of the death of my niece, 5-month-old niece, in 2000 and the theft of her organs, her eyeballs and her brain and all her internal organs without consent and knowledge and against the wishes of the parents, that the family’s been persecuted with a false prosecution by the London Borough of Redbridge and that because… and now I have also informed the Royal Courts of Justice, Judge Sycamore, of these local authorities having great powers to falsely prosecute people without remedy of those people—


THE JUDGE: And the prosecution is going on, is it?


MRS BERRY: Well, the prosecution ended up with my sister being fined £20,000 without any law and being kidnapped and that money has been extorted from the family by… We had to go and pay the police station at Bexley £10,703.12 to release and it says on the receipt, “For the release of Sadhana Chaudhari”, who is the mother of the baby, the late baby, my niece.


So it appears that satanic cults that are operating at Christ Church in Hampstead and the eight primary school children who are alleging rape, sodomy, cannibalism, murder of babies and vampirism of baby blood on a daily basis for school dinners is still going on. Father Paul Conrad who has been alleged to have piercings down his spine and tattoos on his privates is still conducting the Sunday service there at Christ Church and the eight primary school children are still having their sex day on Wednesdays where they get the whole Hampstead community comes and rapes each child 60 to 70 times and [inaudible] them, sodomises them and these are the allegations that the police wish to cover up. The children have been found with anal scars and reflex anal dilatation by three medical doctors and this was put before Judge Pauffley here. She hasn’t told us who’s actually responsible—


THE JUDGE: Do you not think you had better go and see Judge Pauffley if this is a family law matter?


MRS BERRY: Well, she had no authority to sit to deal with these crimes in a family court behind closed doors excluding the McKenzie friend of the mother.


THE JUDGE: Right, well if these are crimes, obviously that is for people to bring private prosecutions, as you have said you have done, or for the police to prosecute but there is obviously not much I can do in relation to crimes and do you have a claim, a civil claim, against anyone?


MRS BERRY: Well, this is really for an emergency injunction to prevent… I mean the three bail sheets, there are no charges but the police have come three times. That’s page 6, 7 and 8.


THE JUDGE: I am not going to make any orders without people being present, so if you want to apply for an injunction against the police you will have to give them notice and then come back.


MRS BERRY: Well, this is a notice to the United Kingdom Corporation on grounds of the 1930 Geneva Convention Bankruptcy at the League of Nations by the League of Nations subsequent to the Gold Standard Act Amendment Bill 227 of 21st September 1931. This country is supposed to be under the Uniform Commercial Code which was it was… it agreed [inaudible] ratified it on 12th April.


THE JUDGE: Yes but I am afraid that does not give you jurisdiction to come and apply to make orders against people who are not here. So, Mrs Berry, is there anything else you want to say to me on your application?


MRS BERRY: What the problem is is that in the public interest, there’s 16,000 people signed the petition for a proper investigation into the allegations made by the children. There have been 30 video, police video evidence given by the children in which they allege these various—


THE JUDGE: So the police have interviewed the children?


MRS BERRY: They have indeed [inaudible]


THE JUDGE: Yes, well I mean is that a matter for the police and the CPS?


MRS BERRY: My lord, the way in which the police has handled it is that… is to kidnap people who come to get close to getting some kind of remedy for these children and these babies. These babies that are being cannibalised are coming from Africa, China, India, America and Europe on a daily basis through Heathrow and Gatwick airports. We’re talking here about trafficking of babies for the purposes of cannibalism in primary schools in this country. The children are taught to kill these babies. The 9‑year-old has described how she’s taught to disembowel the babies, remove the eyeballs and how this baby is hung upside down and blood is drained into a bowl and drunk by the… by the biological dad who is a cult member, cult head.


THE JUDGE: All right, well thank you very much indeed, Mrs Berry. Do sit down and I will give a short ruling.


MRS BERRY: Thank you.


[Judgment follows]


Apple Transcription Limited 000/pc

01706 828020


Apple Transcription Limited 1495-2139-16/ss

0845 604 5642 v.5


Apple Transcription Limited PAGE 3 1495-2139-16/ss

0845 604 5642

Transcript of Judgement of 11 May 2015 after which Mr Justice Dingemans abandoned the court after being arrested for refusing remedy of honour in public service for his Treason

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL


Monday, 11th May 2015


Before:


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS



Between:


MRS NEELU BERRY

Claimant

-v-


UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION

Defendant


______________________


The Claimant appeared In Person


No attendance by the Defendant:

______________________


JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT


Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838


Number of Folios: 8

Number of Words: 574

JUDGMENT


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS:


By this application Mrs Berry asks for an order that all public servants must undertake to act with honour at all times in public office and honour under the Uniform Commercial Code or be removed from office immediately.

In oral submissions Mrs Berry has explained that she is concerned about activities at primary schools which appear to have been part investigated by the police but then covered up, as she puts it, and she relies on the petition of some 16,000 people who she says support her case.

All that may be, but there is no one here to represent the police and in those circumstances it is wholly inappropriate for me to make an order without hearing the other side. Mrs Berry, thank you very much indeed for coming along.

MRS BERRY: So could I have another opportunity to bring the police notice—


THE JUDGE: I cannot stop you, unless you have been made the subject of a civil restraint order, I cannot stop you making applications and serving them on people but obviously you will need to consider whether you have the evidence to justify any application that you make and, of course, it—


MRS BERRY: I seek an emergency injunction for the return of my property—


THE JUDGE: No, I have refused you the—


MRS BERRY: My property that’s been stolen.


THE JUDGE: If you want to apply, you have to serve a notice on the people who you say have taken your property so that I can hear them and you and then I can perhaps make an order, if it is appropriate, having heard them and having heard you but I am not going to do it—


MRS BERRY: Is it possible to adjourn today so that I may call them next time but I was seeking an emergency injunction—


THE JUDGE: I have refused your emergency injunction. I cannot obviously give you any advice about what further steps you want to take but thank you very much for your attendance—


MRS BERRY: What about my remedy? I wish to invoke my common law for remedy and I’m requiring you to give me a remedy today. I do not accept that you can deny me my remedy today because I was… I will issue you with a cease and desist notice and I will issue you with a notice of dishonour and I will also carry out a public citizen’s arrest on you if you do not provide me with a remedy under Uniform Commercial Code 3503, 504, 505 and 1308 without prejudice.


THE JUDGE: Thank you very much.


MRS BERRY: I’m hereby arresting you for the treason you’ve committed today and are witnessed with other cases, how you favour corporations.


[Hearing ends]


Apple Transcription Limited 1495-2139-19/ss

0845 604 5642 v.5


Apple Transcription Limited PAGE 1 1495-2139-19/ss

0845 604 5642


Published on May 27, 2015

An application in Queens Bench Court 37 before two judges, for all public service, servants and spending in the Uk to be with honour was undefended by the UK corporation and thus became law. The implications of this are an end to profit before people and a return to the Gold standard, ending usury (charging of interest and tax on income and essential goods) - in line with NESARAhttp://www.ashtarontheroad.com/histor... www.hampsteadresearch.wrodpress.com, www.hampsteadchristchurch.com www.icj13.webs.com www.icj2.webs.com www.icj3.webs.com www.wwwicj3.webs.com

District Judge Parfitt sitting in the County Court of Central London, St Thomas More Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 2LL, on 3rd March 2015, abandoned the court after he was issued with a cease & desist notice, a Notice of Dishonour and a citizens arrest for his Treason. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No. 0UC84267

SITTING AT CENTRAL LONDON

Royal Courts of Justice

Thomas More Building

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL


Tuesday, 3rd March 2015

Before:

DISTRICT JUDGE PARFITT

Between:

KENNETH ELLIOTT & ROWE

Claimant

-v-

MISS SADHANA CHAUDHARI

Defendant

______________________

Representative for the Claimant: MR MERWYN EMMANUEL

Representative for the Defendant: MRS NEELU BERRY

______________________

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838


Number of Folios: 30

Number of Words: 2,155

[The quality of the recording was poor, with all speakers recorded on the same channel and only the district judge being picked up clearly; the transcriber has endeavoured to provide as accurate a transcript as possible.]


THE CLERK: Hello, sir.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Hello.


THE CLERK: I've got your fourth one for you.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Come in.


THE CLERK: Mr Emmanuel for the claimants.


MR EMMANUEL: Good morning, sir.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Have a seat. Yes, so interim order made on 30th October 2014, drawn on 4th November in respect of a judgment debt of then just over £72,000 and you would like to make the order final.


MR EMMANUEL: Indeed. Sir, I just would like to clarify a couple of points in terms of procedure. I understand that the defendant to the application is not here to support it.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: So, this is not Miss Chaudhari?


MRS BERRY: Is it sir I call you, sir?


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Yes.


MRS BERRY: Sir, Mr Emmanuel is well aware my sister is not well enough to attend court. He hasn’t attended all the hearings but Judge Baucher did remember at the last hearing that my sister did become very ill and she allowed me to speak [inaudible]


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right, so your sister is too ill?


MRS BERRY: Yes, she is.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: So you are here for your sister?


MRS BERRY: Yes, I’m always allowed to speak. Mr Emmanuel is well aware of that.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: It is all right.


MRS BERRY: Thank you.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Well, it will be up to me whether you are allowed to speak, not up to some other judge.


MRS BERRY: Okay, sure.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: But I am happy to hear from you.


MRS BERRY: Thank you.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Next?


MR EMMANUEL: The other point I would make is that I have not been served with any evidence [apart from giving me no?] notice of the defendant herself not being present or any medical evidence to the contrary. I have not been served with any evidence [inaudible]. Sir, on the file [should be?] certificate of service [inaudible]


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: [I have got it here?] all right, thank you.


MR EMMANUEL: [Unless I can?] assist you any further.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: No, thanks very much. Yes, how can I help?


MRS BERRY: Okay, I have got some documents [sir?]. This has been served on the other side. This is a commercial lien against the solicitors’ firm for the dishonour. This is regarding [inaudible] of the family whose cases have been, basically perverted the course of justice.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: Mr McCormack actually committed perjury before Judge May—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Do you want to sit back down?


MRS BERRY: Sorry and he apologised for his perjury, he admitted to it and apologised for it and in the transcript, these are all court transcripts, you will see that he apologised for the perjury on oath [he actually?] and we did call the police and the police—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: The [inaudible] numbers are there.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: So the judgment is outstanding.


MRS BERRY: Well, there is no—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Why should not the interim order be made final?


MRS BERRY: Well—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Do you want me to keep this on the file?


MRS BERRY: Yes please, yes. The… I want to… I want to take you through the various documents here—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Just tell me why—


MRS BERRY: Sir, page 5, page 5—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Just tell me why the interim order should not be made final.


MRS BERRY: Right, because actually there was… there was… the solicitors’ firm is running a scam—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: But there is a court judgment.


MRS BERRY: No but that’s the thing. There is no court judgment.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: No, there is.


MRS BERRY: Well, there isn’t because… because a solicitor admitted there was no contract and Miss Camilla Ter Haar, I have the transcript here, she said there was no contract. It’s in the transcript.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: But the judgment – let me have a look.


MRS BERRY: If I may take you through it, it might save time, sir.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Let us have a look. [Pause] So the judgment was 1st August 2012 and then again 25th April 2014, yes?


MRS BERRY: And in the meantime, sir, I have a transcript before Lord Justice Kitchin, that’s page 11 and 12, which unfortunately the judge had to be arrested for his treason but he did thank me for that because—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: So the judge was arrested?


MRS BERRY: Yes, he was.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: For his treason?


MRS BERRY: For his treason.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Lord Justice Kitchin?


MRS BERRY: Yes, he was.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: In the middle of your hearing?


MRS BERRY: Well, no, I have the transcript. He actually thanked me for that. That’s page 11.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: You arrested him in court?


MRS BERRY: I did and, yes, I did and it’s in the transcript.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Yes.


MRS BERRY: It’s been properly transcribed, if you care to look at page 12 at D. Sorry, E.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: This transcript does not relate to this case, does it?


MRS BERRY: It does.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Well, no, because this is in claim B3/2012/0034.


MRS BERRY: [Inaudible – overlap of speech] the commercial lien, sir, is to do with the dishonour, is to do with the dishonour by the firm. There is a counterclaim of £42 million. That is the £6 million times seven under biblical law, the Leviticus for the dishonour against [four?] members of the family. This was issued to the firm, all the directors of the firm, on 26th October 2014 and they had 30 days to settle for 6 million which they failed to do that—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Mm.


MRS BERRY: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, notice of dishonour UCc 3-503.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: In these proceedings that were before Judge Kitchin, has any order been made in your favour or in favour of your sister?


MRS BERRY: Well, it was a solicitors’ firm that had—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Yes or no?


MRS BERRY: [Given?] medical evidence. There is an underlying dishonour by the firm which has led to the personal injury claim. They claim… they're claiming private fees when they themselves wrote to my sister to say there was a no win, no fee.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Has any order been made in that other claim?


MRS BERRY: Well, this is the transcript of the arrest of Lord Justice Kitchin.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Has any—


MRS BERRY: This is what [caused that?]


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: One more chance. Has any order been made in that other claim?


MRS BERRY: The commercial lien is dealing with that. That is… that is the commercial lien there—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: So, no?


MRS BERRY: That was issued to the firm in settlement of the dishonour.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Yes.


MRS BERRY: This is the… the solicitors’ firm is committing dishonour.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: Which is [fraud?], perverting course of justice and treason rolled into one.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: The document that you have shown me creates no enforceable or real debt whatsoever and does not affect the outstanding judgment that has been made against your sister. It follows that I am going to make the interim charging order final.


MRS BERRY: Okay, well I have to issue you with a notice to cease and desist. If you fail to cease and desist, then I will have no option but to issue you with a notice of dishonour to your person in the sum of £5 million for the treason that you will be committing. You will become party to that and then I will also have no option but to remove you from public office and issue [you with a?] citizen’s arrest for that. You’ll then become the last person who’s going to be liable for all the… all the treason committed by Judge May, treason committed by Judge Baucher on two occasions, the treason committed by Judge Saggerson, Judge Kitchin, so you are the last person to—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I am the last one in the line.


MRS BERRY: [Inaudible – overlap of speech] for my remedy which I seek which a solicitors’ firm has been well aware of since October last year, sir.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Anything else?


MRS BERRY: Well, the solicitors’ firm needs to be shut down. I need an order for the solicitors to be basically barred from operating the scam of dishonour and also I have to inform you that pursuant to the Geneva Convention 1930 a number of corporate governments such as the United Kingdom and therefore all companies, corporations registered thereunder are operating illegally due to their bankruptcy and insolvency. This is evidenced by the Gold Standard Amendment bill 227, 21st September 1931 suspended and the subsequent Uniform Commercial Code international law. So the notice of dishonour comes under 3-503, 3-504, 3,505 and 1‑308 which is without prejudice to privileges, there will be [no penalties?] accepted. Sir, that’s the notice of dishonour in a commercial lien in the sum of £5 million that is issued to any public servant acting with dishonour. Sir, this is only to stop dishonour in public service, sir, and it’s not a lot to ask for a deterrent. I have issued it many times to people in the hope that the dishonour will cease.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: And it’s only a deterrent amount. I don’t pursue the amount but it’s just a message to say that anybody that’s acting fraudulently since the bankruptcy [of the UK?] and it’s only to bring back the Gold Standard which was agreed at the Geneva Convention that there would be no paper monty and China already has gold enough for us, 30kg each, £3 million worth of gold to distribute to us to bring it back, so we’re not going to lose out.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right.


MRS BERRY: And you won’t need to work again and none of the judges have to come back to work and they can just enjoy their time, so it’s a good win for everybody, sir, and you're going to be the first person to get the ball rolling here today and I don’t wish anything else for anybody else. This court can [cease?] trading because it’s been dishonouring the public for many, many years, I've witnessed it.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Final charging order and costs of?


MR EMMANUEL: £250.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: £250, all right. Thank you all very much.


MRS BERRY: Sorry, what was the outcome?


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Final charging order.


MRS BERRY: What does that mean?


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: That means the interim order remains in place and now it is a final order.


MRS BERRY: So you’ve [issued the?] solicitors’ firm, you have committed treason, sir.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: The hearing is finished now.


MRS BERRY: You have now committed treason so I’m arresting you for the treason you’ve committed today and the dishonour. That would be to your personal assets—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Are you going to—


MRS BERRY: Because unfortunately—


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Are you going to leave or am I going to have to call somebody?


MRS BERRY: Unfortunately your public liability, professional liability does not cover you for the dishonour you’ve committed today so it would be your personal assets that would be seized.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Are you going to leave or am I going to need to call somebody?


MRS BERRY: What do you intend to do? I should be calling the police on you, I should be getting your [inaudible] number for the treason you’ve committed today, otherwise I will not be a good citizen, a good person. Can I ask if you're on your oath of office today?


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Could you get somebody to clear my court please? I am going to go and sit in my office. All right, thank you.


MRS BERRY: You're abandoning the court, sir, and so I declare this court null and void.


THE DISTRICT JUDGE: All right, thank you.


[Hearing ends]


Apple Transcription Limited 000/pc

01706 828020


Apple Transcription Limited 1495-2139-15/ss

0845 604 5642 v.5


Apple Transcription Limited PAGE 7 1495-2139-15/ss

0845 604 5642

District Judge Bowles receives a verbal Cease & Desist Notice, Notice of Dishonour and a Commercial Lien in the sum of £5 million in the Romford County Court on 01 September 2014 



__________________

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING


IN THE ROMFORD COUNTY COURT Claim No. RM13D0298

2a Oaklands Avenue

Romford

RM1 4DP

Monday, 1st September 2014

Before:

DISTRICT JUDGE BOWLES

Between:

RAJESH KUMAR

Applicant

-v-

SADHANA CHAUDHARI

Respondent

_____________________


Solicitor for the Applicant: MISS SANGHA

McKenzie Friend for the Respondent: MISS BERRY

______________________

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838


Number of Folios: 38

Number of Words: 2,714

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes, good morning.  [Pause]  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  Sir, I represent the applicant within these ancillary relief proceedings, Mr Kumar, who sits behind me.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  Next to me sits Miss Berry who is actually the sister of the respondent, Miss Chaudhari.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  Miss Chaudhari is not present today.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Is there a reason why she is not here today?

MISS SANGHA:  I do not have a reason.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  No.

MISS SANGHA:  Also we have already had one hearing before on this matter on 24th June—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes, I see that.

MRS SANGHA:  — which was before District Judge Mullis.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Directions were given.

MISS SANGHA:  Directions were made and the form E still has not been served upon us.  I do not know whether it has been filed with the court.  I did not receive a response from Miss Berry as to whether that has been done.  The main reason – part of the directions were for the matter to be returned to court if there is a non-compliance with the directions.  One of the main concerns that we have which we feel is going to cause a delay is in relation to the valuation of the properties.  Proposal valuers were sent to Miss Berry but we have received no – sorry, to Miss Chaudhari but no response has been received.  Our client is concerned that this is going to be a delay within these proceedings on the non-compliance.  

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MRS SANGHA:  There was a hearing listed on 18th November.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  But I think that was going to just be too long for us to wait and there does not appear to be any progression.  So we have not received the form E from Miss Chaudhari, I do not know if that has been filed with the court.  There has been no response about whether we can reach an agreement for valuers.  Just to make note, Miss Berry was in attendance on the last occasion and I think her position was she said that she had power of attorney and I think her position was she was going to represent Miss Chaudhari in her absence and District Judge Mullis made it quite clear that because she did not have rights of audience that she was not in a position to do so but she could attend as a McKenzie friend.  I raised no objection to her remaining in court because I thought it may have been helpful that if she heard what happened at the hearing it could be relayed back to Miss Chaudhari.  

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  Unfortunately Miss Berry kept on trying to make her position on behalf of Miss Chaudhari quite clear and which resulted in Miss Berry being removed from the court room.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Let us find out what is going on.  Orders were made last time for your sister to file various documents which she does not appear to have done.  So, firstly, two things: why is she not here?  Do you know why she is not here today?

MISS BERRY:  First of all, there were no orders made.  The police attended to the judge on the day and the judge confirmed to the police that the matter was adjourned.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  There is quite a detailed order of the court made.  Whether that was made before or after you went I do not know but—

MISS BERRY:  Well, the police attended the judge after that order was given to me by Miss Sangha and she’s confirmed to me that that order was drafted before the hearing.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Is there a reason why your sister is not here today?

MISS BERRY:  I just want to, I want to confirm that you’ve—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  No, I want you to answer the question I have put to you which is why is your sister not here today, do you know?

MISS BERRY:  I have – I would like to ask you if you are under your oath of office today?

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Pardon?

MISS BERRY:  Are you under your oath of office today?

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Mm.

MISS BERRY:  And do you have your oath with you, the document—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Probably not, no.

MISS BERRY:  With your name on but—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Well, if you are not going to co-operate, I will simply proceed on the basis your sister is not here and that you are not going to help me resolve matters.

MISS BERRY:  Well—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I have allowed you to come in because I thought you might be able to help.

MISS BERRY:  Well, I am going to assist you as to why the directions have not been followed.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Right, well tell me why then?

MISS BERRY:  The reason is that in 1930 the League of Nations—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Oh, right—

MISS BERRY:  —bankrupted this country and thereafter—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes, well that really is not helping me, so what I am going to—

MISS BERRY:  This country has been under the Uniform Commercial Code—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  What I am going to do – thank you – what I am going to do—

MISS BERRY:  The Uniform Commercial Code, I’m issuing you with a notice of dishonour under UCC 1-308 and 3-503, notice of dishonour before commercial lien on you personally—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Miss Berry, I am going to ask you—

MISS BERRY:  —your name being District Judge Bowles—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I am going to ask you to be quiet.  If you are not going to be quiet I shall ask the police to come and remove you.  Now, I do not really want to do that again because it gets a bit tedious, so I would just be grateful if—

MISS BERRY:  I’m sorry; the police were not called to remove me.  I called the police—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Well, I will call the police—

MISS BERRY:  —to investigate the fraud committed by the judge—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I will call the police to remove you—

MISS BERRY:  —Judge Mullis—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  —if you do not sit quietly because McKenzie friends are there to assist—

MISS BERRY:  You are not required to call the police.  I've not requested you to call the police.  You're required—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  You are not assisting by the comments that you are making.

MISS BERRY:  You're required to be honourable towards me in this matter that I have—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Miss Sangha, what I am going to do is direct that a penal notice be attached to the order requiring the form E, that is all I can do.  So far as the valuation is concerned, if you tell me who you want to value the property I will direct that they value the property.

MISS SANGHA:  All right, thank you.

MISS BERRY:  I’m issuing you with a cease and desist notice now before commercial lien.  I’m going to issue you with a commercial lien if you do not cease and desist in this fraud that you're committing right here now.  You're not acting under your oath of office, you're acting dishonourably.  This country is bankrupt.  I have issued—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Oh, a penal notice was attached last time.

MISS SANGHA:  There was a penal notice—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  So you need to apply to enforce by committal, I do not need to do it again.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes, I did just see that.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes, so you do not need that.

MISS SANGHA:  I was hoping that Miss Chaudhari may be—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  So the way forward is to apply to commit. [Pause] 

MISS SANGHA:  My client instructs me he would like to instruct James Berlin & Associates.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  James?

MISS SANGHA:  Berlin.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  As in the—

MISS SANGHA:  As in Germany, Berlin.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS SANGHA:  And Associates.

MISS BERRY:  We have submitted to the court that Mr Rajesh Kumar is a fraudulent name.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  What is their address?

MISS BERRY:  That is not the name, that is not his first name and he is also an Indian citizen.  He’s not a British citizen.

MISS SANGHA:  It is in Ilford.  We do not—

MISS BERRY: So this is property heist.  This result—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Are they surveyors?

MISS SANGHA:  Yes.

MISS BERRY:  This is a property heist by this firm of solicitors, Gary Jacobs Co Limited.  I've already issued them with a commercial lien and notice of dishonour which I’m going to issue to yourself now and in front of you, sir, I’m issuing you with the commercial lien for the crime you’ve committed of fraud and dishonour.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  And the property is referred to in paragraph 5 of the previous order?

MISS BERRY:  And I’m handing this to yourself.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes, sir.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Thank you very much—

MISS BERRY:  This is your commercial lien against you in the sum of £5 million for the dishonour you’ve done today, you personally and that’s to seize your personal assets.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  [I have not got many of those?].  Messrs James Berlin do prepare valuation reports in relation to the properties—

MISS BERRY:  I see Kiran Sangha finds this amusing.

MISS SANGHA:  No, sorry, I just… I do not actually.

MISS BERRY:  I have already sent documents to this firm of solicitors which they're denying.  They're committing fraud.  Mr Kumar is actually not Mr Kumar, he has another name and he also is an Indian citizen.  He also has properties in India.  He has – he’s a multimillionaire in India.  This is called foreign shopping where men come to this country to, to marry women in this country—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  So how quickly can this be done, four weeks?

MISS SANGHA:  Yes.

MISS BERRY:  He’s never held a job in this country.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  By, if I say 6th October?

MISS BERRY:  And he’s been able to afford very many other fancy ladies on the side, been living off my sister who’s severely disabled, that’s why she can't attend today.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  That is the answer to that question [why she is not?], thank you.

MISS BERRY:  So that you're aware, this information has already been submitted to court.  You don’t appear to have that information before you’ve acted because these courts are treasonous courts.  Treason is commonplace in these courts.  These courts have already acted criminally, acted fraudulently since 1930.  I request your assistance in acknowledging this fact that you are trading illegally, dishonouring individuals, members of the public—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  So, you do not need a penal notice.

MISS SANGHA:  No, sir, I have noticed that.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Because you have already got one.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  If I give a direction that Messrs James Berlin & Associates to prepare the valuation reports in relation to the property referred to in paragraph 5 of the previous order to be filed by 6th October; that is all you need really.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes, we have—

MISS BERRY:  All costs in this matter will be borne by the judge himself personally and your firm of solicitors.  My sister’s assets will not be—

MISS SANGHA:  There is already a hearing on 18th November if that can be retained.

MISS BERRY:  —will not be touched.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  That should remain listed, yes.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes.

MISS BERRY:  She does not consent—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  That should remain listed I think.

MISS SANGHA:  Yes, I agree.

MISS BERRY:  She does not consent to any of her assets being – any solicitors’ fees, Mr Kumar has assets, he’s a multimillionaire in India.  You can recover any of your monies from him from his assets in India and my sister’s entitled to half of his assets in India which this court must, must do which is what my sister has requested by way of affidavit and Miss Sangha has lied in this court, she’s perjured in this court by saying that—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I am going to say that the respondent pays the applicant’s costs of this hearing because this hearing has been a waste of time caused by the failure of the respondent to comply—

MISS BERRY:  My sister is severely disabled.  That matter is before the court.  You haven’t read the papers; you haven’t read anything my sister’s submitted.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Miss Berry, what I suggest you do is arrange for your sister to be legally represented.

MISS BERRY:  My sister is disabled and she does not—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  And if—

MISS BERRY:  She is not going to co-operate in the fraud that you are committing here today.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  If she wants to seek a share in her husband’s assets, she needs to engage in the process which means filing her form E, supplying the information that is required and turning up at court.

MISS BERRY:  She’s not going to have a contract with an illegal entity—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  All right.

MISS BERRY:  —called the Romford County Court which has already lost my tapes, these tapes go missing.  There’s a complete treason being committed here on a daily basis and you're not under your oath of office because you have not – I've not consented to anything that you’ve gone ahead and done and Judge Mullis did not give any directions as he told the police he hadn’t done that and you said that he had.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  The directions will need to be served personally if they have not been done so already because otherwise it cannot be enforced [inaudible] so I will leave that with you.

MISS BERRY:  So you're biased—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  And thank you very much.

MISS SANGHA:  Thank you, sir.

MISS BERRY:  And I’m asking you to recuse yourself from this matter otherwise you’ll be subjected to the commercial lien.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Good day to you, madam.

MISS BERRY:  Which is already with every MP in this country and now your name, you're an interested party in it, you're a named defendant in it.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  [I do not think so?]  Thank you very much.  You may go.

MISS SANGHA:  Thank you, sir.

MISS BERRY:  Okay, so if you’d like to assist me in my commercial lien?

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  No, I am asking you to leave the court.

MISS BERRY:  It’s due for settlement and that is your personal assets will be seized as a result of your actions today.  I've put you on formal notice—

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I am going to ask you once more to leave the court please?

MISS BERRY:  I've put you on formal notice that you have committed treason today, you have dishonoured me and my sister and my family, the Chaudhari clan.  You do not have the authority to do so.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Thank you very much.

MISS BERRY:  Because you are acting outside your oath of office.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  You may go.

MISS BERRY:  And I’m arresting you.

THE CLERK [?]:  Can you leave the court now.  He has asked you to leave.

MISS BERRY:  For treason.  I've issued you with a citizen’s arrest.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Thank you very much.

MISS BERRY:  For treason.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Good day to you.

MISS BERRY:  And the Uniform Commercial Code—

THE CLERK [?]:  Can you leave the court room?  You have been asked to leave.

MISS BERRY:  1-308, 3-503, notice of dishonour before commercial lien.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Thank you.

[Hearing ends]

_______________________


The above transcript proves that District Judge Bowles accepted that no-one can lawfully negotiate any terms of any contract with an illegal entity such as the United Kingdom, bankrupted in 1930. without acting Dishonourably and being subjected to the commercial lien of £5,000,000 (a deterrent amount, not for profit).


The below is not legal advice - if you believe in solicitors, go to them - they only know man-made laws of a bankrupt corporation.


There are different ways of responding to Court Orders, Penalty Charge Notices where you have not agreed in the presumed contract, which you deny, revoke, reject & Dishonour and there is no proof that you signed an informed honourable contract.


The shortest route is to tell them that there is no legal contract between you and THEM unless they can provide your signature in that contract (which they can't for all PCN's or court orders that are not SEALED (embossed) and SIGNED by the JUDGE) - which they are usually NOT.


You can get a red pen, draw two diagonal lines, at 45 degrees (left bottom to top right, with 

in red the text:-

"NOTICE OF DISHONOUR BEFORE COMMERCIAL LIEN Contract revoked, rejected, denied and dishonoured, UCc 3-503 without prejudice, UCc 1-308"


in between the two red lines, sign your initials just above the lower red line, in black.


The two lines are a separate document and you have signed a letter on top of whatever they sent you so they cannot say they did not get it.  You send it recorded delivery, if you can afford it.


What does this mean - 

1. League of Nations bankrupted the WEST including the United Kingdom & USA after the Geneva Conventions from 1928 to 1932

see http://www.greatdreams.com/political/1930-bankruptcy.htm

2. All man-made laws, legislations, Acts of Parliament and all decision relying on those are null & void in law

3. All countries thereafter came under the International Trading or Maritime Contract law called the Uniform Commercial Code UCc see http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc

4. The corporation HID this law from the judges and courts so we could not use it, BUT they used it against us

5. UCc relies on the parties to a contract to act with HONOUR at all times, UCc 3-503 is Notice of Dishonour (BEFORE COMMERCIAL LIEN)

6. It can be verbal, written but must be based on truth or evidence. Verbal if accompanied by video evidence such as here:_

here I issue verbal £5 million Commercial lien for theft of my oyster card, assault, kidnap at Paddington Station

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrpZpHwkGzo

Here I issue it after Police raid three homes of my family, kidnap my sister 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEKhYy3Rv9g

7. Below is formal notification of UCc, Lien,  issued it to a District judge after receiving an unsealed & unsigned Order from a hearing in which( trasnscript below) the District Judge was issued a verbal UCc, lien & arrest.

_______

NAME & ADDRESS

01 September 2014

District Judge 

Solicitors & any future agents 

Ref: Final Notice of Dishonour in Commercial Lien 

Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 & 3-503 Your Ref 

Read carefully, it means what it says, it says what it means

Pursuant to the Geneva Convention 1930 a number of corporate governments such as the United Kingdom and therefore all companies/corporations registered there-under are operating illegally due to their bankruptcy and insolvency. This is evidenced by the Gold Standard Act Amendment Bill 227, 21 September 1931 [suspended] and the subsequent Uniform Commercial code (“UCc” International Law).

Further to you being served 46 page Notarised affidavit and Exhibits by Mrs Neelu Berry, in Romford County Court at 10.50am on 01 September 2014, after Judge Mullis informed Police that he had adjourned the matter in which he abandoned court on 24 June 2014, you have committed further Dishonour in the unsealed, unsigned null & void Order dated 01 September 2014, hence original is returned defaced in red under UCc 1-308 & UCc3-503.  This is a Notice of Dishonour & Cease & Desist as a named interested party in the fraud, perjury, Treason against the Chaudhari clan.  Further such Dishonour will be a penalty of £5,000,000 per incident per company or individual, settled within 30 days, failing which there will be a sevenfold penalty of £35,000,000 in accordance with biblical law [Leviticus 26 v 28 and Proverbs 6 v 30-31]. That is £5,000,000 x 7 (Total £ 35,000,000 Commercial Lien), see www.icj2.webs.com/lien

AND I make this Solemn Declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835

NAME 

Declared  this ____________________ day of ____________________, 20____.

WITNESS 1. WITNESS 2.

NAME NAME 

Without Prejudice UCc 1-308: A party that with explicit reservation of privileges performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the privileges reserved. Contract revoked, rejected, denied and dishonoured, UCc 3-503 without prejudice, UCc 1-308

https://treaties.un.org/pages/LONViewDetails.aspx?src=LON&id=547&chapter=30&lang=en

Please feel free to use Crime Reference Number CAD 2327/29MAY2014 in the Commercial Lien against the UK in the sum of 2 Trillion GBP - for dishonouring the British Public whilst insolvent
- Telephone call to Police to report kidnappings by Police without warrants, without law, persecuting the family of late baby Sunaina Chaudhari who died in the care of Redbridge social services
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2dh7si7cvM Affidavit 1 of 2 29 May 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK5FzJHDc8c Affidavit 2 of 2 29 May 2014

Public servants must be issued with Citizens Arrests if caught dishonouring the public outside their oaths of office, to serve & protect the public with honour (and serve justice with honour - judges) and fined a deterrent amount
25 May 2014 £5m lien - UK POLICE ARRESTED FOR ACTING OUTSIDE OATH OF OFFICE AGREE TO PAY £5,000,000 EACH
see youtube accounts vpc1111 at 
Apology: contact page not working