DIANE ABBOT, THE BLACK LABOUR MP FOR HACKNEY

We know her from her days at Labour's Paddington North Labour Constituency Party when she allowed a modest degree from Cambridge to go to her head. Her delusions of grandeur and ambition exceeded even that of Blair whom she apparently hopes to succeed as Prime Minister. We understand that, after giving birth to a child, she had an hour-long telephone call from Jonathan Aitken when he was staying at the Ritz in Paris. However let us be fair. She has done something worthwhile at last. She has let it be known that Government Whips are leaning on members of Parliamentary Select Committees. Are you listening Chris Mullin, MP, and Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? We think that your members have been got at!

-o-o-o-

HEARING IN THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE AT 10.30 A.M. ON THURSDAY 4 JUNE 1998

Following a series of miscarriages of justice Geoffrey Scriven has raised the stakes so that he now tackles the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls (Lord Woolf) and Lord Goff (Senior Law Lord) in the High Court. As explained in the last two issues Mr Scriven has been subjected to the most serious abuse of legal procedure apparently by people in the Lord Chancellor's Department. There is a determination to take Mr Scriven's cases in chambers and to find some way of silencing him. There follows a letter dated 26 May 1998 from Mr Scriven to the Chief Clerk of the Queen's Bench Division in the Royal Courts of Justice.

"Dear Sir, IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST

This matter was designated "public interest" by the President of the Court of Appeal and Her Majesty's Attorney General. Please ensure that it is in open court and a court of appropriate size, in line with Lord Woolf's Court of Appeal Ruling 12-2-98 Hodgson & others - v - Imperial Tobacco & others.

More Information on the Scriven Experience

Mr Scriven received a telephone call from Cheshire Constabulary - on Tuesday 26 May 1998, a few hours after faxing the above letter - asking him to call at Lymm police station. Some weeks earlier Mr Scriven had reported to the police that his former wife and her daughter were removing property from the marital home. Shortly after that a "For Sale" notice appeared in his garden. To protect his claim to ownership he wrote on his window that the ownership of the property was subject to fraud proceedings in the High Court. He quoted the case number.

Mr Scriven picked up his Mackenzie friend and went to Lymm police Station where he was arrested and charged with "that you between 23 April 1998 and 25 April 1998 at Warrington in the County of Cheshire without lawful excuse damaged a set of windows to the value of £5.00 belonging to Beryl Scriven intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged". Mr Scriven was released on police bail on condition that he did not go within 200 yards of the property and that neither he nor his servants nor his agents communicated with prosecution witnesses "to prevent interference with administration of justice by witnesses being interviewed". Mr Scriven's written reply to the charge was "I totally deny any criminal damage - my actions were solely to prevent the furtherance of fraud and the perversion of justice which is currently the subject of legal proceedings in the High Court (civil - criminal - public)."

The following has to be published in the public interest. We have warned Mr Scriven on numerous occasions. Only last week we published that the Lord Chancellor might use MI5/MI6 to silence Mr Scriven. So we have a prosecution over alleged criminal damage amounting to £5.00 - the cost of rubbing some paint off a window. The £5 figure means that there can be no trial by jury. The police took over a month to bring charges. Mr Scriven's Mackenzie friend, a quasi solicitor, was not allowed to witness the police interview. The interview room at Warrington Police station is more exclusive than chambers in the High Court! Mr Scriven states that the police produced a copy of a form transferring the house to Mr Scriven's former wife. The police stated that Mr Scriven had signed the transfer form. Mr Scriven stated that the signature was in the hand of his former wife who is accused of the initial fraud along with her solicitor. Mr Scriven has sworn a "Caution against First Registration" because ownership of his house was acquired by fraud. The caution is lodged with Birkenhead Land Registry. Further Mr Scriven did not go anywhere near a window in Warrington. His window was in Cheadle. Note that the police acknowledge that the witnesses they are interviewing could interfere with the administration of justice. Why not? They are police witnesses!

Cheshire Constabulary has also received a copy of a "Lord Denning judgement on fraud" and official definitions of "conspiracy to defraud", "dishonesty" and "fraud". If Mr Scriven had dealt in a £10 cannabis transaction the Home Secretary could have intervened to let him off with a caution.

What we have found, in cases where it appears that the police have deliberately fabricated a case, is that they have no choice (Home Secretary). When the magistrates support the police they too have no choice (Lord Chancellor). In our case we were simply people working seven days per week and getting our hands dirty. Our offence was that we were next to a Green Belt site that was eventually developed for the importation and distribution of cocaine. We had never owned a dog. Thames Valley police were able to have us convicted of owning a dangerous dog that we had not kept under control. The magistrates refused to state a case for the High Court. We applied for Judicial Review and went all the way to the Court of Appeal. Three High Court judges and three Appeal Court judges misdirected themselves. They were Simon Brown, Henry, Taylor, Russell, Butler-Sloss and Dillon. During the proceedings the Metropolitan Police continuously hounded us. Don't talk to us about the European Commission on Human Rights. Subsequently we were subjected to unbelievable persecution culminating recently in our being swindled out of £200,000 in a case in which a firm of solicitors represented our company. The firm is aware of the frauds behind the swindle As a company we had to pay the piper but were not allowed to call the tune. In a proper legal system we could have had about 40 judges impeached. P. Prankerd could indict many of the same judges as could B. Gough, G. Scriven and R. Leicester as well as hundreds of litigants who had to get rid of their bent solicitors.

YET MORE ON SCRIVEN

On 28 May 1998 the Campaign for A Fair Hearing wrote to the Treasury Solicitor as follows.

"Dear Mr Hammond, Mr John Evans recently wrote on your behalf to Mr Geoffrey Scriven, threatening to fine or imprison him for breaching the undertaking he made in court on 10 March 1997. I was present at that hearing. Evans LJ, having declined to disqualify himself on the grounds that he was one of the nine judges harshly criticised by Mr Scriven, refused Mr Scriven a trial by jury and ignored all the important issues raised by him, including fraud, free speech and the secret briefing of Appeal Court judges which constitutes the criminal offence of conspiracy to defraud (to which acting in the belief that some valid public purpose is being served is no defence). Mr Scriven made his undertaking under duress.

A few days after the hearing , Mr Scriven's wrongful committal order was the subject of an Early Day Motion in Parliament signed by 15 Labour MPs, led by Mr Scriven's then MP, Mr Mike Hall. The then Attorney General was urged to look into his own part in the scandal.

A hearing in which a judge turns a blind eye to wrongdoing by himself and his colleagues cannot be respected. An undertaking made under duress cannot be said to be breached. Any threat under these circumstances is improper. What principle of law could possibly authorise it? A decent government does not use bullyboy tactics to suppress awkward or inconvenient truths.

The Treasury Solicitor and everyone else in a position of public responsibility must face up to the fact that the Lord Chancellor's refusal to discipline judges for misconduct creates a legal morass worthy of a banana republic. Mr Scriven and many others have irrefutable evidence that hearings in the Court of Appeal are fraudulent, with rulings regularly drafted in advance. A complaint has been made to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that the secret briefings provided by the Lord Chancellor to the Court of Appeal prove violations of Articles 6, 10, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We cannot be forced to respect that which is not respectable and we cannot all be silenced.

I have continually made it clear to Mr Scriven that I do not agree with the strong language he uses in regard to the judiciary, but when judges betray their oaths of office and misuse their power, why should the victim go away satisfied? Mr Scriven is doing all he can to press judges to respect fundamental legal principles. However mistaken Mr Scriven may be regarding the motives and/or extent of the wrongdoing, he is absolutely correct to point out that judges freely misconduct themselves. Although I would not agree with what I consider to be inflated language, an unreliable judiciary and those who shield it deserve robust criticism.

The right of Mr Scriven and other of Her Majesty's subjects to criticise freely when they have been unable to obtain redress should be respected. I would be grateful to have your assurance that the unjustifiable threat to Mr Scriven will be officially rescinded.

Note:- By making out a cheque for £5.00 to "A Fair Hearing" you can obtain from the Campaign for A Fair Hearing (Address above) a booklet entitled "The Constitutional Machinery for Privilege and Injustice". Suzon, who has USA/British nationality, believes the American legal system to be superior to the British system. We would agree provided the Yanks introduce gun control and abolish the death penalty. We Brits should bring back the death penalty for the legal profession and politicians.

-o-o-o-

THE BILDERBERG COUNCIL

We are indebted to Pete Sawyer and Richard Creasy, two intrepid investigative journalists from Punch (see above), for an article (Issue 25, 23 May-5June 1988) that makes a good start to exposing yet another of the secret organisations whose existence poses a daily threat to world stability. Here is what the editorial says.

"On Friday May 15, the leaders of the world's superpowers met in the unlikely setting of Birmingham's International Conference Centre to discuss issues of global significance. And, while the G8 summit was taking place, another gathering of international financiers, industrialists, media moguls, trade unionists and politicians was taking place 250 miles to the north in the golf resort of Turnberry on Scotland's west coast.

The newspapers and broadcasters duly devoted acres of newsprint and hours of airtime to the Birmingham get-together but there was only the scantiest of references to the events at Turnberry.

And yet there are signs that the "leading citizens" who met at the Turnberry Hotel may well have as much a say in the world's future as the elected representatives who attracted so much media attention to the south.

For the Bilderberg Council, which meets yearly in the utmost secrecy and forbids its participants from talking to the press, has a reputation as a forum where world rulers are anointed and global strategies discussed and promoted. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair both attended meetings of the council when they were relative unknowns.

Naturally, the organisers claim there is nothing sinister in such a gathering. But anyone who witnessed the high levels of security surrounding the Bilderberg conference cannot fail to have been impressed. Police vans and bomb disposal units surrounded the complex and tradesmen delivering food found that even packets of frozen peas were searched for explosives."

Note:- Large numbers of policemen were involved at considerable cost to the taxpayers. Blair and company must have sponsored the conference. Another example of Blair's open government?

There is no space in this issue to reproduce the whole article. We will publish more later. You can find the information in the current issue of Punch priced at £1.

-o-o-o-

<ALEXANDER BARON

Mr Baron has been released on bail with instructions that he must not talk about his case!>

<LEGAL AID FRAUD AND THE POW TRUST (See above for address)

Peter Sainsbury has four A4 sheets with information. Contact him directly for copies. Do try to meet the cost of faxes or postage. Thank you.>

Published by J M Todd, Misbourne Farmhouse, Amersham Road, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks. HP8 4RU