JOIN the Community On Line and publish your Statement of Facts. Member's case at the European Court on Human Rights, paves the way relative to the facts of life and the imposed states through abuse of the courts facilities [*Link]. The evidence you have can and should be used in order to establish the rampant contempt for the evidence and the law by abusers of trust and the courts facilities. have. Use your rights in law (link) and ACT, as / or with others, against the offenders. Join them and chip in for the creation of the mass of evidence against the abductors and rapists of Justice. You can then benefit from THE FACTS and the evidence that you will help establish. It can all be used in any action, severally or jointly with others, as the case may be . Crimes against humanity are not ruled out when a large number of citizens can come up with evidence and as victims concur and or expand upon and on the FACTS STATED & The VIOLATIONS PLEADED as LODGED at the ECoHR, already. YOUR Rights ought not to have been ignored and it is for you, the citizens and victims of the TRIAD (Link) to take stock f the situation and to act as the law provides.

We invite you to take part in DATA collection in the areas covered by The CAMILA Project. Your own contributions are and will be of value to all victims who are active now & to all others who, like you we hope, will be challenging the offenders by using the rights we point to,   assured in law.

IMPORTANT Announcements
Announcement- July 2002
1. Court Proceedings ARE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR ACCESS TO BY THE PUBLIC. Justice to be seen to be done. NO SECRET SCAMS and theatrics behind closed doors. See OUR AIMS
2. Beware of Mischief Makers operating as and or for the Divide & Rule Brigade. Do not be misled by self- appointed 'gurus' such as we cover in the pages /2lipstalk.htm & /chaldep1.htm who aim to serve the Fraudsters Club as in /confraud.htm (the page) either from within or as guided (by the abductors and rapists of Justice) mischief making  recruits to and for  the 'fraudsters club'. Such persons come up with all sorts of poor excuses, as to why victims should not publish their statements of facts and their evidence in personal web-sites and use their rights as provided by Law. Such persons advise victims to ignore the only facility that provides TRULY OPEN COURTS FOR ALL TO NOTE / RECOGNISE. Facilities no one can obstruct as the abductors and rapists of Justice and their stooges seek to maintain for ever and in   perpetuity to carry on treating that citizens as serfs through their established practices. (Link)
3. READ the affidavit we publish in our pages, as was submitted some years ago in the course of challenging the fraudulent activities at and through the Local County Court, FOR & IN the Housing Benefit THEFTS and conversion to legal costs through similar indulgences and practices as covered in this page/file. 

Below proof relative to blunt SUPPRESSION of material facts which the author of the report was made very much aware of in the course of the hearing. Miss Henrietta Steinberg, the junior Barrister reported for the benefit of readers of 'The Solicitors Journal'.

Above the first art of the article from Vol 119, page 711, circulated on 17th October 1975. In the course of the Court of Appeal hearing, the Affidavit was handled and referred to. It had been forced on the court *by registered mail* after the clerk of the court refused to sign for it and place it on file. No mention of the Affidavit in the report 'created' by Miss Steinberg, who, as a junior, was learning the ropes at the time. The suppressed Affidavit had been settled by the victim of the abductors and rapists of Justice, who took steps to put on record the criminal activities of the legal circles, which activities, the clerk of the Court of Appeal bluntly endorsed through his adamant refusal to sign for the affidavit & the attached exhibits. Of such acts & wilful failures the service of Justice in an allegedly civilised state, a country arrogantly promoted as a civilised democracy resting and founded on principles of Law and Order.  
Part 2 of the offending article by the recklessly irresponsible Officer of the Supreme Court and Justice, Miss Steinberg

Notable indeed the lack of any reference to the affidavit and exhibits the victim had forced on the court / the abductors & rapists of Justice. Both Buckley LJ and Orr LJ contemptuous of the Law simply indulged at the expense of the targeted serf who, in accordance with 'the inherent [*Link] jurisdiction the judiciary created for themselves, as a serfs should have  no rights to Justice; all care of the elected who represent the suckers who have taxes levied and imposed on them for the maintenance of criminals in public office.

    Masonry is very powerful among solicitors in England and Wales. According to a survey in which I questioned all the solicitors in twenty selected towns, and a cross-section of London solicitors, it is less prevalent in the capital than it is in the provinces. This assessment of the situation from a Cambridgeshire lawyer who, although not a Mason, knows a great many Freemasons and receives regular unofficial briefings from members of the Brotherhood, rings true:
    In London there are plenty of other things to do. Life is much more impersonal and Freemasonry is not necessarily going to do a solicitor a great deal of good. What is more, good solicitors are so thin on the ground that if you are really good, you don’t need to be a Freemason to et your clients. And if you're not any good, being a Freemason is not going to impress your client.
    Solicitors, specially those outside London, have a particular incentive for becoming Freemasons. By the rules of their profession they are forbidden to advertise. They are therefore reliant upon passing trade, which is often sparse, and recommendation, which is hard to get. I have interviewed countless solicitors who joined Freemasonry purely to get on close terms with the businessmen and the worthies of their community, and to gain personal contact with police, JPs, magistrate’s clerks and any local or visiting members of the judiciary – men they could rely upon either to put business their way or whose good offices would be professionally valuable.
    One young ex-home Counties solicitor told me that after he began to practice in his own town he was regularly advised by local Freemasons to join the Brotherhood. He resisted because of his religious convictions – he was a practising Christian – and because he was repelled by the idea of being unable to succeed on his own merits alone. But business was so bad that he eventually relented to the continuing pressure of his colleagues in the firm and to their promises that by becoming a Mason he would get all the clients he needed. He said: ‘I was initiated and within days clients began to contact me out of the blue. Within a few weeks I had more that I could cope with. That went on for some months, but it troubled me, and I left Masonry before being made up to the second degree. Most of my clients melted away as fast as they had appeared. They were all Masons. So I moved to London. You don’t need Masonry or advertising if you’re good here – there’s more litigation than all the London solicitors can deal with.’ (*F4)
    The governing body of the 40,735 solicitors in England and Wales (in the mid 1970's : our italics) is the Law Society, which has its headquarters at 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2. The Society controls the admission of solicitors and the education trainee solicitors. Although no solicitor may practice without Certification by the Law Society, membership of the Society is not compulsory. At the end of March 1982 33,226 practising solicitors were members of the Society and 7,509 were not.
    The Law Society is one of the most Masonic institutions in the world. This has proved an almost insurmountable obstacle to certain ‘profane’ individuals involved either willingly or unwillingly in litigation with Masons, because it is the Law Society whose job it is – with Department of Health and Social Security – to decide who will be awarded legal aid and who will not. It also dictates the conditions on which legal aid is granted in each separate case. The difficulty is compounded if the subject of any proposed action by an applicant for legal aid is not only a Mason but a solicitor as well. There are cases where the decision whether or not an individual should be granted financial aid in order to pursue his case or defend himself against a case brought against him has been in the hands of close colleagues of the applicant’s counsel.
    A great many of the sixty-odd members of the Law Society as well as a high proportion of the Society’s staff and committees – one estimate puts it as high as ninety per cent of all male staff above the age of thirty – are Freemasons.
    I have thousands of papers on one case alone, a case so well documented it can be followed in minute detail. It involves one of the many Masonic members of the Law Society Council, who had personally committed an act of gross negligence which caused one of his clients to lose £100,000 inheritance. Deliberate action on the part of several other firms of Masonic solicitors – some of the biggest names in the legal profession – acting in collusion with the original solicitor and with each other to cover up the negligence, brought the client to the edge of financial ruin. Having mortgaged his home, spent £15,000 in legal fees to lawyers who deliberately ignored his instructions, wasted valuable time and generated hundreds and hundreds of expensive, unnecessary documents, he was forced to apply to the Law Society, of which his chief opponent was an influential member, for legal aid. Finally, in 1982, after a direct appeal to a senior and non-masonic official in the Department of Health and Social Security, which works in tandem with the Law Society on legal aid applications, he was granted a legal aid certificate – but on extremely onerous conditions. As this case is still not closed, and far from lost following recent unexpected developments in the client’s favour, no further details can be disclosed as yet.
    The term ‘masonic firm’ is used more often in the law than in any other profession. This is because there is a greater preponderance of companies which are exclusively run by members of the Brotherhood in this area of society than elsewhere. It refers to those firms of solicitors whose senior partners are, without exception and as part of a deliberate policy, Freemasons. In such firms, and this is equally true in London as in the provinces, most of the junior partners will also be ‘on the Square’. Some Masonic firms will not allow the possibility of a non-masonic partner. In these cases only existing brethren will be taken on. In some larger Masonic firms there will be one, perhaps two, of the junior partners who are not Masons. These non-Masons generally never even suspect the secret allegiance of their fellow partners. At a certain stage in their career they might receive an approach from one of the Brothers within the firm – not a blunt invitation to join, but a subtle implantation of an idea, a curtain twitched gently aside. Usually if this is passed over nothing further will occur. If it is recognised and rebuffed , the non-Mason will probably be looking for a partnership elsewhere shortly afterwards. As work becomes unaccountably more demanding and as he finds he no longer seems to measure up to the standard expected of him. Most will not realise that it is the standard which has moved in relation to them rather than vice versa. This does not often occur as the senior men in Masonic firms ‘have been taught to be cautious’, and do not make overtures to outsiders without having first established that the odds are in favour of a sympathetic response.
    Many of the largest and most prestigious firms of solicitors in London are Masonic firms. During my research for my book Jack the Ripper – The Final Solution, I was introduced to Ben K-------, an elderly Royal Arch Freemason who had been a partner of one of these firms for more than thirty years. An avid and jocular Mason, Ben told me often how appalled he was by the frequent misuse of masonic influence, especially in his own profession. He gave me a lot of help in my researches in the early seventies and we have kept in touch since. In 1980, the year before I was commissioned to write The Brotherhood, he mentioned a case which had been brought to his attention by one of his fiends at another top London (masonic) firm. This friend was likewise infuriated by the corruption of Masonry’s precepts. The case involved blatant misuse of Freemasonry to conceal criminal conduct on the part of a senior partner in another, even more prestigious, masonic firm. At that time I was in the middle of my second novel and was convalescing from a major operation, so I did not follow it up.
    In June 1981 I saw Ben again, and I asked if he could get further details. Meanwhile, I went to see the main casualty of the alleged Masonic conspiracy. He was visibly shocked at how much I knew of his case. He was also a very frightened man, and told me that he was thinking of joining the Brotherhood himself for his own protection. As a result of harrowing personal experiences, he had come to hate the power of Freemasonry, but believed that becoming part of it was his only hope of survival in the highly masonic world of the law. Whether or not he was right in this, it does indicate the tremendous power certain cliques of Masons can exert. It was clear that he wanted very much to speak about his experiences, that his conscience told him he should. But in the end his own sense of self-preservation triumphed and he told me regrettably that he could not help me to publicise the evils which had nearly ruined him.
    All was not lost. Ben, my Royal Arch companion, phoned me late in July and said he had ‘a little something’ for me. We met in the Freemasons Arms in Long Acre that evening. His ‘little something’ was a bundle of photocopies tied up in red tape: the complete file on the case.
    The story begins in 1980 at the offices of one of the most celebrated firms of solicitors in London. A fashionable yet long established company, it counts several members of the nobility among its clients. Only one partner of this firm whom I shall call Gamma Delta LLB, was not a Freemason. Delta, who had been with the company for seven years, handled general litigation.
    One of his senior colleagues had to take an unexpected period of leave. Delta was asked to handle the Mason’s work during his absence. As he worked through the documents, familiarising himself with the various cases, Delta became increasingly puzzled. Finally, to his horror, it dawned on him that his absent partner was engaged in corruption on a large scale. The papers made it clear that the solicitor, acting in case after case on behalf of clients seeking compensation from insurance companies, was in fact in league with the insurance companies. He would settled out of court for sums much lower than he and the insurers knew could be obtained, and he would then receive a rake-off from the insurance companies. Delta at first found it impossible to believe. ‘I had no idea such things could happen,’ he told another of my informants, a client of his colleague and a victim of his deliberate malpractice.
    Stunned by what he had found, Delta at first did not know what he should do. At last, having checked and rechecked the papers to make certain there was no other explanation, he approached the senior partner of the firm and showed him what he had found. The senior partner immediately called a partners’ meeting – and Delta was sacked on the spot. There was no explanation given, merely that his services had been dispensed with, and within two days he was on the street. Why the partners had not been as horrified as he by the conduct of his criminal colleague he could not imagine. It was only then, when he approached a barrister friend who was Mason, that he learned that the company he had worked for had, without giving it a moment’s consideration, been a Masonic firm. He had had the temerity to attempt to expose not a crooked and negligent lawyer, but a crooked and negligent Freemason lawyer. Having been found out, that Freemason was in distress. And his colleagues were all of the mould of Mason which takes it as read that, no matter what qualifying clauses appear in Masonic ritual, a fellow Mason must be extricated from distress at all costs. There was also, of course, the consideration that if the case came into the open, the inevitable publicity would harm the whole company.
    The manner in which Delta was dismissed was designed to give him no credence should he talk about the documents he found. When an instant dismissal of that kind occurs in the legal profession, there is usually only one inference: the person sacked has had his hand in the till.
    Delta’s first move was to approach another of the leading firms in London, another ‘big name’ company much involved in the world of international finance. The company agreed to act for Delta in his claim against his erstwhile employers for compensation for termination of partnership. But according to an informant within this second company, which also turned out to be a Masonic firm (this is also documented) dropped Delta like a hot potato. Not only did they drop him after they had agreed to act, they actually then agreed to defend the first firm in any case brought against them by Delta.
    Eventually, though, Delta found a solicitor who was not a Mason and, evidently fearing adverse publicity, the original firm settled out of court, paying Delta £50,000 compensation.
    But even after he got his money, and set himself up in his own practice elsewhere in the country, Delta was still aware of the potential power of Masonry to ruin him, and decided that the only safe place was within.
    This ‘if you can’t beat ‘em…. ‘ attitude is prevalent, especially among tradesmen and the proprietors of small business in all parts of the country.
…….