Invitation:

To the people and to those who have been unlawfully deprived of theirhomes, 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 illegalactivities deprived Mr & Mrs Ebert of their property at 23 CranbourneGardens, London NW11 0HS.

The arrest will be attempted at 2.0pm on Tuesday the 22nd of February2011 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 theRoutemaster Battle Bus to Cranbourne Gardens. The bus will be at thislocation from 12.45 to 1.30pm.

Alternatively you may wish to go direct to 23 Cranbourne Gardens for the2.0 o’clock arrest.

This is an open invitation, so please pass it on to all your contacts whomay be interested.

Mr. G. Ebert. R.S.V.P.de8765@hotmail.co.uk0208 9055209

See attached:

1. www.force4justice.co.uk + bus2. 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

GEbert23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS

Email: de8765@hotmail.co.ukTel/Fax: 0208 905 5209Mobile: 07815 008 775

(Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NW11 9TN)

2 February 2011BY POST & E MAIL

Rt Hon Theresa May MP (In person)Home Secretary2 Marsham StreetLondon 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 - andmade very public your intention - to sort out the parts of the broken society that arenow under your responsibility.

One of our problems within the broken society that is now within your area ofresponsibility 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 seensome people who were convicted for life as murderers cleared on the grounds that thepolice fabricated evidence in order to use them as scapegoats.

For your information, I and my family are amongst many hundreds if not thousands ofvictims similarly tortured and deprived of our freedom and properties as a result ofunlawful action and subsequent cover up by the police.

I enclose hereby a press article describing how I have been arrested at one of myproperties (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 ourhome without permission and erected a new building on the land, again, withoutpermission. The criminal nature of this activity was affirmed by Barnet LondonBorough Planning Department and Land Registry Swansea Office.

As of today, I have made numerous crime reports about this. The latest one, with thehard documentary evidence supporting it attached: Crime Report stamp date 24 May2009, Cris No. 2411746/09. You will see from these documents that I and my familyhave been unlawfully deprived of our properties by the police.

1

To our knowledge, there was never any court order with the required prime faciaevidence 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 abovementioned Crime Report which was never fully and justly investigated before yourappointment, that you ensure a full and proper enquiry/investigation into this matternow, as requested under the law.

In doing so, you will not only be helping my family, but you will go down in historyfor having taken a powerful stand - and made a significant inroad against - thecurrently common police practise of acting without lawfully required prime faciadocumentation 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 legalrights 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 myproperty. If I am arrested on my property again, it will have been done intentionallyand 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 yourpredecessor, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs for full consideration(investigation) into this matter. Her Majesty's request continues to be ignored as oftoday. Under your watch, you now have both the position and the power to rectifythis situation.

I await by latest 7 days from the date of this letter, for your acknowledgement ofreceipt of the attached documents and for a full undertaking to be initiated, that thematter will be speedily investigated and the lawful position restored, as required inlaw.

Encloser: Exhibit 1 to 14Financial Action Task Force

2

::t i

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

Ie

POUCE walt outside the property In ~boume Gardens on July 8 ..

Ev{ctioll drama 'rn quiet ·stree~PoLlCE:~ buII.t-proof -.. h;upod J bemc ubd abou, the ~ ••. ..;~ ~remove eight people fro.tn a honae in -rhe hou.e wa. 0 ]OiDdJ' bTGolden Green-lUXlid c:I.aiznathe eTic:t.ioa GedaHaba Even aDd h.b wife DnaraIi,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 ChaDceUor9.3Oam. oa July tL Ten police can and aboat the 0lSe BeVeD times aDd I am atmvans 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 bemen, many of then:aW'~ bullet-proof b.am.ed, &aid:""Itwas quite ahockfoCto..,:rest&. No fireana.. Were, ill the end, policemen wearing bullet.proof varia. OIlmvoJved. aueh a quiet road." •

The eviction lr1UI su~ and the The High Court Sheritf'. omce .•••house wu ~rd.ay boarded up. unavailable for con:am.eniyesterday. It

,i Bat Rudi Vl8, MP tor Finchley and I wu not possible to speak to AIraDdMnGolden Green, said: "'QQestlou. are Evert.

1

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"fajestymay ~ kDown. and considerauon

given to the points ~.d in tbc !etter.

21st February t 2001,

------ ~

MR. G. EBERT23 Cranbourne Gardens**London NWll OHS

Mob: 07984 248536

E-mail: de8765@hotmail.co.uk

1ih October 2007

By HandTo Robert & Anne Baruch23 Cranboume GardensLondon NWll OHS

Title No. MX 439914Crime Ref: 2416149/05

2437039/05

Final Legal Notice1) 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 obtainedby deception on false documents (data)

I and Mrs. D. Ebert are the legal owner registered in the Land Registry on 10th April 1992.We never sold and/or authorized any person to sell our home.

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

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

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

c

.,r:-.-

Rightful OWlletCan cliUmCOURT OF APPEAL rlrIhltul owner of the land had sufil- ~ capable of tniMmlssiOll throughPubltsh II Mmli 21., 2002 dent intefeat to sue the purchaser different ownenhlpll: !Ce WllHtuns .

Cl Ltd 18 trespnss, whether the regbt«:T ' and Gl,y1l4 BlII'Ikv Bolmtd (1198111 AC •MaloryEnterprIus v cmJkt be red:lfied retroapect.lvely 487). .Cheshire Homes (UK} Ltd and whether the rlahtM hOO aD In the event, It WlI8 not nea:uary

and Others O'lerrldlng lnttlr=t In the land eOf' to decide the point, but bel: Lady-Befora Lord justice Schiemann, tIle purpose.tof S\1ctlon 82. ship said that rectIfu:lIt!on could not

Lord Justice Clarke . Mr Joful MJU1Jn, QC and Mr Rl- bemade retrospective.and latly JustIce Arden e:lltmf Oughton for Malory Enter- KIn(pQ1lon Ud " Thomes Wat~r

, -J-.. Mr J '- Da--" " •.••.._••. , Dcvalopmenu Ltd (T1Ilr TTmI/ll Febrn- '1tK/J1frJentre.IJfZJSfY 22, 2002 P''''''''', OW. l!"~ .or .•..u<:·]1..-27. 2(01) eatabl~ that terms .

---------- Ire: Mr NJclwhui ~ddtc:k for the ~ not be imposed when grant-A party who had purebmed IIIlld OJlet Land RealmtH'. Ingor~g aD onlat torredifiea--(rom a wrongdof!1'and had been en- ,LADY JUSTICE ARDBN lIllId I10n and It 'WU dUIkuk to see how atered on the R!Jlster ulegal proprlll- that altbougb Malo\')' UK had no ct- retrospective order alUld be madetor took the tltle subject to the rfsht lie to convey, O1eshlre's poalJ:lon without doblg' JlO On terma to pro-of the lAwtuJ owmr to seek ree:tlIlea- cn~ regi/ltered was governed by s«- teet auy lntervenlng interellt4 oftlonolthc fClIla«:t'.The rightful own- ~on 69 of the 1925Act Md was thUs • thlrd parties which were llCJt prwld- .er had an ovenidlnlllnterot by vir- deemed to ba'YeYerlted in It only the ed rot In the Act.' . , :rue allts ablllty to dzrim r~· 1. e&tlItC'. Malosy Bntex:Pd- bad caused

tlon and bad !bus suftlc:lent POlIw., ~y BW:e the transfer to flll1U3 to be Il1llInWned round the .; .I SOtY~t to maintain an actlon OldUre could not In Itself be of \lIl1d aod blwdal up wtndows to "In trI!.s{JaBa Ilgll!nst the registered lVlYeffect In law, It eQUid not consti- keep ~, out, bad ac:ee!&

own«. tnte a ·dlsposltion· to wbkb sectlon !rom ndJolnin(r land wbtch was man- .The Court of Appeal m held dls- ;~ could apply g\'Ilng abaoktte title ascd with It, sod had used tblllaod :

mlBSlng an appeal by l1f3t defend- to Chemire, to Si)J1le extent fOr stoolge. It waa ,ant, e::nellil~ 'fWm,l!:l (UK) L:d, ,>" O:.ed1h~·! i!h\tu!, Il4regfstered tbeft!lbre In ~l OC1.'U,l)lllion at

/t'QmJOOgit Maddow. sitting as a 'proprietor waa thettd'ore tIUb.Ject tD tbe'l;wt within !li:l:tion 1Q(1){g) ordeputy ChJinary DivlsWn j~ Jo the rights of Mlliory Enterprllles as the 1925Act.' ' , .thll Manchester DJstrlct Regbtry,ln .bene!ldal owner with the rl!S9lt that None of the aut~ had dealt

an action by Malo\}' E'nterprlses Malocy ~ bad .wffIdent with completely derelict land. but lUti, a Brltlsh VIrgin lshmd compa- standing to Ne fur tre:lpB.SSwithout the retjlliIIIte pre:rence had to be Iny, seeking rt:ctlfu:atlon of the Land rectllkatlon: see Olowood v LjItl:ll llUth lI$ to put Ii pi:t'!on ImpectingCharges Register on the ground (Nil 2) (fl930] 2 Ch 156, 16.3-164). the land on notiCe that !lllmeone.that entry on the register In relation Nelther U1ediscretionary nature 'W1I8 In oc:cupatlon.. " ' ;

to II property whlcl1 It owned hlld of the right to seek re~lkln nor Lord JUJrtlceOarke agreed ex~~;"bl!efl altered PUr:luant to ~on82 the notlon that a claim to rect1fica- cept that. M was oat convinced that .o( the Laud Regjamdon Act 1925, tlon was Itselt an avertldlng Interest the court could not make a retro-at a rellUlt ot"the fraUi!ulent conduct mentioned In section 82(3) pnvlint- JIllecttve order tor rectlfica1lan. 'oflndi'tidualtl who had set up IICIlIlI~ed the rliIbt from l\IlIountlng tQ an • .

pany ClIled Ma1orY,UK and then overriding Interest f( the c1almant Lor1i Suatlcc 5chielDAAn a8l"'edsold t1re land to CbdblrC'. WM In IcNal oceupatiol1 within :see- but fQefVed his Q{llnlo~on the ques- ,While It was common ground "tlOD 7O(1)(g). . I.lonof $ospectlvity.

. that the reglater should be rect!fled, , .. _, The r1l:lht wu 1\ transmla:dble SoUcltoa: ~:Il SQUn4em, Man·the !3!UeSon appeal were M to the- tight In reference to the flUId. satisfy- chew:r, P11.wI~ &.Partners, M~natua of the purchasllr. whether the Ing the requimnent that It should chester: TreB51.ll1 Solicitor. ', . . , i'

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:3giS1r9tiohJ\m<?002~thisSbpy is admissible in evidence to the sameexte.f:J~:as.th~.()rt9 'pal :><" 'T?::>'" .. :::::::::. ':':.":.:., ...:'.:<.'::'

This::title'is:>~:tealt With:byJiind R~hi~hry:··Swan~ea>bffice.

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

Title Nurrlber : ::'MX439914

Edition Date: 24 September 1999

.................. ":. .... '"' ..... ':.

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

GREATER LONDON 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). ." ...

..

B: Proprietorship RegisterThis register specifies the dass of tit/e and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect theright .of disposal.

Title Abso lute

1. (10 April 1992) PROPRIETOR: GEDALJAHU EBERT and DEVORAE EBERT both of23 Cranbourne Gardens, Golders Green, London NWll oas.

2. (9 September 1994) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar nodisposition by the proprietor of the land or made in exercise of thepower of sale in any Charge subsequent to that dated 9 August 1994 in

favour of Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Limited referred to inthe Charges Register is to be registered without the consent of the

,_.: - - "\... --.: --L....LLHC UC:..l,.UIj

116.-{1', If any person fraudulently procures, Pena~ty for I"attempts fmn.d::L.cntIv to l=: or is privy to the certam'"" fraudulent

fraudulent procu..~t Q 7 any entry on, erasure from tor alteration of the ~Er, or any land or charge ac s.certificate, he shall be gu:ilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) .Any entry, erasure, or alteration so made by Ifraud, shall jbe void.. a3 between aU persons who are 1parties or pnvy to the mud.

117. A person guilty of So misdemeanor under this Puni:'hmelltAct shall- of mISde.

meanors.(a) on conviction on indictment, be liable to im-

prisonment for a teIm not exceeding two years,or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds;

83

Office

copies te beevidence.

[C1L 21.]

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

but no other persoll, may inspect a.nd'make copies of and A_D. 1925_

extracts from any register.or clqcument in the custody ofthe registrar relating to such rand or charge. "'-;

113. Officecopies of and extracts from the registerand of and from documents and plans filed in the registryshall be admissible in evidence in all actions and matters.and between aU persons or parties, to the same extent asthe originals would be admissible, but any person suffer-ing loss by reason of the inaccuracy 0:£ any such copy orextract shall be entitled to be indemnified under this Act,~nd no solicitor, trustee, personal representative~ or otherperson in a. fiduciary position shall be answerable inrespect of any loss occasioned by relying on any suchcopy or extract.

114. Subject to the provisions in this Act contained F~aud~~ent

with respect to indemnity and to registered dispositions dish pofslhonsf I bl 'd ti- dis' . f 1 d f ow ar toor va UB. e conSI era on, any posItion 0 an or 0 b voida charge, which if unregistered would be fraudulent and e .void, shall, notwithstanding registration, be fraudulentand void in like manner.

115. If in the course of any proceedings before the Penalty ~or \

~-trar or the court in puxsuance of this Act any person suppressiOn

~~ in such proc~edingsas principal or a.gent, with ~~:eedsmter:.t :-0 conceal the tiMe or claim of a.ny person, or to evidence.subst.a.r:ti&te a .£aISe claim, suppresses, attempts to sup-

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

;4 &

(CH.21.] lA:nil, Regi3lratian Act, 1925. [15 GEO. 5.]

Power forproprietorsto bindsuccessorsand toenforcecontracts.

A.D. 1925. neither the mortgage nor a.ny instruments dealingtherewith nor discharges affecting other properly besidesthe registered land shall be required to be permanentlyretained at the registry.

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

may enter into any contract in reference thereto in like 1manner as if the land or charge had not been reO'istered, Iand, subject to any diSposition for valuable consi~eratlOnwhich ma.y be registered or protected on the registerbefore the contract is completed or protected on theregister, the contract may be enforced as a. minor interestagainst any succeeding proprietor in like manner andto the same extent as if the land or charge had not beenregistered.

(2) A contract entered into for the benefit of anyregistered land or charge may (if the same would havebeen enforceable by the owner for the time being ofthe land or charge, if not registerei4 or by a. personderiving title under the party contracting for the benefit)be enforced by the proprietor for the time being of thela.nd or charge.

c

Acquisitionof ease·menta a.ndotherbenefits.

Restrictionon exerciseof powersoff theregister.

108. The-proprietor of registered land ma.y acceptfor the benefit· thereof the grant of any easement, right, orprivilege or the benefit of any restrictive covenant orprovision (a.ff~cting other land, whether registered or not)in like manner and to the same extent as if he were legallyand beneficially entitled to the fee simple in possession, orto the term c:reated by the registered lease, for his ownbenefit free from incumbrances.

109. Subject to the express provisions relating toleases and mortgages, nothing in this Part of thisAct shall be construed as authorising any disposition ofany estate, interest, or right 01' other dealing with landto be effected under this Part of this Act if the dispositionor dealing is one which could. be effected. under anotherPart of this Act, and any such disposition or dealing8ha11be effected upder and in the manner required bysuch other Part of this Act, and when so required shallbe registered or'protected as provided by this Act or therules. .

78

GEbert23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS

Bmail: de8765@hotmaiI.co.ukTellFax: 0208 905 5209Mobile: 07984 248 536

(Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NWll 9TN)

To Inspector Corbet DavidDirector of Professional StandardsColindale Police StationGraham Park WayHendonLondon NW9 5TQ

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

c

''''

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 aLegal Notice that in case I will be arrested on my Property and/or any issue connected to theproperty, 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 propertywithout any Lawful excuse.

In the case that the Met has any clarification and/or investigation of any issue, I am availablefor a meeting and/or interview at any time. Any arrest is a violation of the guidance and myfreedom.

Please ensure that this Legal Notice shall be transmitted to and placed on record with theMetropolitan Police.

In case you do not accept and/or agree to any of the statements above, please give the reasonsupported with documentary evidence no later than in 7 days from today

Implied admission by absence of response.

Please acknowledge safe receipt.

/MrG.Enc.

I) Copy of Land Registry, Title of ownership2) Land Registry Act 1925, section 107 & 116

QL)

Freedoms

...bI

Article 6. Right to liberty and security

> Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

Article 7. Respect for private and family life

> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life,

home and communications.

Article 8. Protection of personal data

> Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

> Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and

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.

> Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

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, conscience and religion

> Everyone hus the righl lo freedom of thought. conscience <Jndreligion.

This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom.

either alone or in community with others and in public or in private,

to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

> The right to conscientious objection is recognised. in accordance with the national

laws governing the exercise of this right.

iI

!.

j

Citizens· rights l,_ J

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

to the European Parliament

> 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 suffragein a free and secret ballot.

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

> 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 residesunder the same conditions as nationals of that State.

1- Article 41. Right to good administration

t > Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially,

fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.

> This right includes:

- the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would

affect him or her adversely is taken;

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

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

Where do YOll see yourself in tenyears? Where 1am now. I have thechance to do the sort of work I want todo in a supportive environment andamong friends, I can't imagine wantingto do alJything else.

UndaTsangCtsang@hotmail.com

What was your worst day as alawyel'? Going bust in my own legalaid practice after 17years, halfwaythrough this case, The margins in legalaid work are so narrow that one baddecision 01' piece of bad luck can putyou under.

Who has been the most intluentialperson in your lite and why? lainRobertson, a great actor (under thename lain Anders) and criminalpractitioner, who was my businesspartner and best friend un til his deathin 1997.

Why did you become a lawyer? Itisnot that the law is necessarily a forcefor good, but it can afford a place to

~--:i,::> .-r -, ,.....(""("" ~ 1 ( Ie- ,( 1-)

t\ C S So ~-; ~ ~ ( () 1"J tr.;~·C\-h---

'. :1' to MUcle 8 in this resl eel. The stand for those who wish to fig,iltfor

I,ISupreme Court is considering the socialjustice.judgment's implications even now in: Manchester City Council v Pinnock, in What would your advice be to

. , which its ruling is expected shortly. anyone wanting a career in law? Inmy area ofthe law, these are difficulttimes. But I would not wish to

discourage people who felt strongly jthat that was what they wanted to do. II

If you had not become a lawyel', what:would you have chosen and why? To \be a teacher, an academic, a computerprogrammer OJ' a tap dancer. I wouldhave enjoyed an)' ofthose.

extreme form of interference with theright to respect for one's private andfamily life and home under Article 8.[n principle, everyone should be ableto have a court decide whether it isnecessary and proportionate for them,to be evicted. The Strasbourg court hasnow said several times that our UK

courts are n~! giving sufficient regard

t2lwYEJr «)Jfi: ~b-uewee~; David Thomas

David Thomas, a solicitor at Hartnells, Ia South London firm, acted tor tenantsof Lambeth Borough Council after itbrought possession proceedingsagainst them, The leases of theproperties they occupied, provided bya charitable housing trust, had beenterminated in 1999.

The House of Lords ruled in 2006

against the tenants, saying that theycould not use the right to respect for aprivate and family life under Article 8of the European Convention onlluman Rights as their defence againstthe propcrties being repossessed. Butthe European Court of Human Rightsin Strasbourg has now ruled that thelaw lords' ruling volated the tenants'right to respect for their private andfamily life and homes. They wereawarded E2,000 each.

What were the main challenges inthis case ami possible implications?The loss of one's home is the most

: IGM '(- •

--1?nnter .Fnendly

TIMESFrom The Times

May 21,2009

Ingrained arrogance in the police leads tomiscarriages of justiceJohn Bromley-Davenport, QC

Page 1 of2

Police attitudes have progressed by light years since the bad days of the 1980s and highly publicisedmiscarriages 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-seatedcorruption in policing still prevails.

It reared its head after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and stems from a self-righteousarrogance 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 includeColin Stagg and Barry George. '

I)' The history of the criminal courts is littered with false convictions caused by overzealous and dishonest fpolicing. More than 30 years ago police procedures made it easy to concoct and manipulate. Thesewere epitomised by the ubiquitous "verbal".

Until 1984 interviews with suspects were conducted in the absence of a defence solicitor and withoutnotes 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 casesin which police officers concocted confessions. Verballing was endemic in every force, includingLancashire, where the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner cut his investigative teeth - although Ido not suggest that he was involved.

The practice was obvious to those of us who defended in the criminal courts. A 25-minute interviewwould, when reduced to writing, consist of a couple of pages of handwritten notes. When it wassuggested 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 dishonestyand, although juries tended to be more sceptical, there were numerous cases that resulted inconvictions based on lies.

Judicial myopia reached the very top. In the appeal of the Birmingham Six, Lord Denning said: "If the sixmen win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, thatthe confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions wereerroneous ... this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that itcannot 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 wasinconvenient for the police. It had been all too easy to threaten or mistreat a defendant into a confessionor, if that failed, to invent one. Now officers had to write down the conversation as it happened. Everresourceful, however, new methods were found to overcome the difficulty.

Notes were doctored with omissions or additions; in 1989 it was discovered that interview notes withPatrick Armstrong, one of the Guildford Four, had been heavily edited and rewritten before trial. Thefour 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 asolicitor. As a result of threats, which were not alluded to in the notes or evidence of the police officers.

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 2002it was established that their confession notes had been fabricated.

The introduction of tape-recording prevented the doctoring of interviews. But the culture of falsity, ofdeciding on guilt and fitting evidence to the decision, had become ingrained. Its tentacles spread intoother spheres of police investigation.

In recent years, I can attest that officers from Lancashire, Liverpool and Northumbria have used avariety of ingenious methods in attempting to secure the convictions of innocent men. These casesresulted in acquittals: they were "carriages of justice" that could so easily have become miscarriages torank with Kiszko, the Birmingham Six and many others.

The police have a difficult job and many officers are fair. I pay tribute to the thousands who would notdream of lying or of manipulating evidence, who are capable of being objective, who are not blinkered intheir approach to an investigation. Nor do I suggest that any police officer sets out to secure theconviction of people he or she believes to be innocent. The danger to liberty and to the rule of law lies inthe 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. Itis this tendency that can and does lead to the conviction of the innocent. And it stems from the samemalaise that causes the overreaction and brutality we saw at the G20.

The author is at Deans Court Chambers, Manchester, and 3Paper Buildings

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or placeyour advertisement.

Times Online Services: Dating I Jobs' Property Search I Used Cars I Holidays' Births, Marriages, Deaths I Subscriptions IE-paperNews International associated websites: Globrix Property Search I Property Finder' Milkround

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy To inquireabout a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website ispublished by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is theholding company for the News International group and is 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 throughconcealing

information

'1'ls.~..l![

~-:"

AdalTIS vThe Queen

A ~~:son could b~ guilty of fr~udwhe:~ he. dishon~~r ly con~e:lleriIniufm:1tiol1 frUln :lrIOlh(::'" wniL::-t

ht \...·a~ unt.i~:" J dULY to Ji~d(J~L;luchar orh~r or which that ocher w;::.s

e:ui;ld tu n:quire him (0 disciuse.

Tn~ Judicb.l Commirrt:"": of In\.:

Privy Cuum:il {Lon.! Tt:moit:man.Lord Jaun~y of TulliL:ht:rtl~ LordBrowne-Wilkinson, L)rd \Vcotr

~d Lord Uoyd Dr BerNl~) ~osralt:d on Oerober 31 in di$mi$sino ~

Jl1 ~ppe:1 by the ~ppdt.m[.Grant

Adarn::i,.irom the disI11issal by m~Caun at Appd of Nt:="vZ~bnd ofhis apPe:.:llagninst his conviction ofconspi~cy to defraud_

LO RO JA UN CEY said that rhe

appell~t had be~:1 charot:d with• • • • l:;;l

consplnng wnh hIS co-a.CC'u.s~ todefraud anyone or more ofEquiticorp Holding~ Ltd. its$ubsic:ibry companie; :lnd othe:-s

by i.lgr~eing to U$c l.1ishono(!y :.l~)'stt:m of disguising tht:: ~ourL:;:lnu utilisation of rnlm:.:y~ f::!l:~!L~[tim~le ~nJ~uiry hy tlh':. ~~i: .:;uii~hurc:: "':OInpanil.·~~n~ han\... ..;.vCDum:; :.lnd ;.l Nt;"' •.•.Z:::.l!~ntiIc~:.dfirm.', ir~ .

Si m~~:~\..:nn1pany W:.l:: ~n[ it1t:d illf(..•,,:l.)V<.:r ;':'tHIl t.lirt..'t.'~(jr:( .~C"...:n:1pruI­

il~ m~u.h.:by t11t::n at lhL' cumpal1;( ....\.:.:'\pt::nsc. :.Iny di~honc:it :J.gre:::mt.:.."1:

by c.iin.••..:turs w impede :.l L1Jrnp:l~Yin ·thl· ,~xl'rci:ic of it" righl ut

I1.w.:t)vl..:ry wuuld con~tituh,' .~L1m::;pirJcy to def f::.lUt.L

in th~ else of four of the tiv~

trans~lt..:!ions in question the appd ..Ia.n! had 'ocen parry to the use ofth~ overseas struclure for thenur-~se of di$hone-sI conee:llmenraiinformiltion which. as a direc!or.he was under a dury to disciose toth~ company. and so he h::ld

properly re.:n convided of conspir ..-:'C'j to ddraud .

.r-

i

"\

.,' ....

,~

I,1'

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

ITN, \tn.co.uk, Updated: 12/02/2011 12:0Ll

Arrest warrant for Musharraf over Bhuttomurder

42

Page 1 or 4

.....:~~ .

A Pakistan court has issued an arrest warrant for exiled former

president Pervez Musharraf over the assassination of BenazirBhutto.

Mrs Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an

election rally in the city of Rawalpindi in December 2007, weeksafter she returned to Pakistan after years in self-imposed exile.

Warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder Her assassination was one of the most shocking events in

Pakistan's turbulent 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 producedbefore 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 hisold 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 notrule 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 initialinvestigation blamed a Pakistani Taliban leader and al-Qaeda ally, Baitullah Mehsud, for Bhutto's murder.

42

Join the discussion!

Sort by: Oldest first1-8 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 031713/02/2011

.,i

Director of Planning, Housing and RegenerationNorth London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,Oakleigh Road SouthLondon N11 1NP

GEbert66 Woodville RoadLondonNW119TN

Dear Mr Ebert,

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

your reference:

Neil Goldberg020 8359 4763neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk0870 889682123/07/200823CranbourneGdns

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS

Please find the letter sent to the agent (Mr Baruch) enclosed.

Director of Planning, Housing and RegenerationNorth London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,

Oakleigh Road SouthLondon N11 1NP

Mr R BaruchEnterprise Ltd208 Acton LaneLondonNW107NH

Dear Mr R Baruch,

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

your reference:

Neil Goldberg02083594763

neil. gOldberg@barnet.gov.uk0870 889682123/07/200823CranbourneGdns

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 youwere the owner of the land to which the application relates. Certificate Bshould have been signed andnotice 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 beunlawful 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 RegenerationNorth London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,Oakleigh Road SouthLondon N111NP

Mr. GEbert66 Woodville RoadLondonNW119TN

Mr. Ebert,

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

Neil Goldberg020 8359 4763

neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk0870 889682127.08.0823CranbourneGdns

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS Application Reference C05707E/01

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, Ithe council will not be pursuing the claim that flie declaration, signed by the applicant on applicationC05707E/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 tocarry out the building operations since other legislation requirement including land ownership need to besatisfied. Issues of land ownership are civil matters and should be explored through the courts. Thecouncil take the view that there is no justification in the interests of the public to revoke the grant ofplanning permission.

The council do not consider they have made any error in their processes and therefore there is no furtheraction to take.

Cc.

Karina SissmanMr P. Oaks