A PUBLICATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Forensics of Legal Fraud

volume 1 (release 4*)

Gedaljahu Ebert

Brad Meyer

Edited by Sabine K McNeill

*release date: 13th March 2011

“A forged document is a forgery forever - no matter how many decisions are based upon it” G. Ebert

2

During 2009 / 2010, “abuse of process” for personal gain by people in financial and public offices was a highly publicised topic in the United Kingdom. It was the subject of heated public debate so ferocious that it forced numerous Members of Parliament and others to resign their office, with some facing criminal charges. Yet the focus of the public‟s attention and pressure has thus far been primarily on individual abuses of the system on a case-by-case basis.

This book examines ways in which individuals appear in fact to be working together across the civil, financial, legal, judicial and enforcement sectors - in an organised fashion, to commit fraud. White collar crimes (aka “fraud”) for personal and perhaps collective gain are leaving an increasing number of Her Majesty‟s subjects seriously oppressed in their wake. You may be next.

The opportunity gaps for abusing position and process for personal gain can be hazardous to your well-being. These gaps must be closed.

DISCLAIMER

The authors of this volume are expressing their honestly held opinions based on the facts that were known to them at the time of writing. The facts that are referenced and analysed in this publication are from documents previously filed with the Court and copied within this publication for the reader‟s reference.

The authors‟ interpretations regarding the points made within these public records focus on what seems to have been done using public positions and process – not the individuals themselves. While the reader might choose to take notice of the individuals referenced within these public records, it is the authors‟ intention in this volume to focus entirely on the opportunity gaps for abusing public position and process.

Further, all names (other than the authors‟) mentioned in this publication are ONLY mentioned within copies of documents that are already a matter of public record, as they are already filed with the Court and are therefore available to public enquiry.

We want to thank those who have provided expert

insights, advice and refinements regarding this publication.

You know who you are.

3

Contents

Prologue by Brad Meyer ......................................................................................................................... 8

Pushed off the Cliff ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

A reluctant discovery in the House of Commons ..................................................................................................... 8

Feeling compelled to advise ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Finding myself actively helping.......................................................................................................................................... 9

In the event of my untimely demise .................................................................................................................................. 10

Meeting Mr. Ebert ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Making sense of it all .................................................................................................................................................... 11

Early Day Motion 1297................................................................................................................................................ 11

Early Day Motion 597 – to keep the Flame Burning ................................................................................................... 11

Getting Specific with Mr. Ebert ................................................................................................................................. 11

The three documents used to bankrupt Mr. Ebert .............................................................................. 13

The Bankruptcy Order ................................................................................................................................................. 14

The Bankruptcy Petition regarding a Debt that Appeared to Exist on Falsified Documents ......................... 15

The False Affidavit by the Opponent‟s Solicitor ..................................................................................................... 17

Mr. Ebert’s Applications to the Court .................................................................................................. 19

Application to Annul a Bankruptcy Order ............................................................................................................... 20

Witness Statement announcing the Grounds for Applying for Annulment ....................................................... 21

Statement of Truth spelling out the Grounds that existed at the Time of the Bankruptcy Petition............... 22

The First Five of Ten Relevant Rules of Law ................................................................................................................ 23

The Second Five of Ten Relevant Rules of Law ............................................................................................................. 24

Point 1 of the Bankruptcy Order: Mr Ebert was Mr Wolff‟s Creditor, not Debtor .......................................... 25

The Existence of the Debtor / Creditor relationship was Maliciously Concealed at the Time the Order was Made.......... 25

No Supporting Evidence of a Debt was filed with the Bankruptcy Petition ..................................................................... 27

Point 2 of the Bankruptcy Order: Ralph Wolff is not Mr Ebert‟s Creditor ........................................................ 27

The Claim presented was based on a Judgement Debt relating to other Litigants, not Wolff v Ebert ............................... 27

The Court did not Spot or Correct the Mistake .............................................................................................................. 27

Point 3 of the Bankruptcy Order: “upon reading WHICH evidence?” ............................................................... 29

The Referenced Judgement was not attached as Evidence ................................................................................................. 29

Mr Justice Lloyd did not have access to the List of Evidence ........................................................................................... 29

Considering the Eight Points of the Bankruptcy Petition...................................................................................... 30

One: misleading address of the petitioner......................................................................................................................... 30

Two: Mr Ebert has a monthly income of £60,000 while Ralph Wolff did not have any legal justification for a Petition . 31

Three: Action 1994-M No. 1568 has nothing to do with either Mr Ebert or Mr Wolff ................................................ 31

Four: Midland Bank is claimed to be a Debtor which is neither true nor proven by Evidence .......................................... 32

Five: Midland Bank is supposed to have given Notice of an Assignment of a Debt ......................................................... 32

Six: The Debtor is supposedly Unable to Pay ................................................................................................................ 33

Seven: A Statutory Demand was supposed to have been Served on Mr Ebert’s Wife ...................................................... 33

Eight: a) No Security for the Payment of the Debt? ....................................................................................................... 34

Eight: b) Sorry, the Court said: Mr Ebert is not the Judgment Debtor as claimed by Ralph Wolff ................................. 35

4

The Three Points in the Affidavit by Mr Wolff‟s Solicitor .................................................................................... 37

One: I am not duly authorised by the Petitioner at all. I apologise to this Court. ............................................................. 37

Two: I have the requisite Knowledge referred to??? .......................................................................................................... 37

Three: The Statements in the Petition are true to the best of my knowledge. No!.............................................................. 38

Primary messages and their implications............................................................................................. 41

What Happened Next .................................................................................................................................................. 41

All Rights of Appeal have been Exhausted or Expired. There is no Merit in the Application. ...................................... 42

It is Ordered that Permission to make the Application to Annul the Bankruptcy is Refused........................................... 43

Some Red Flags of Fraud ............................................................................................................................................ 45

An Invitation to You, the Reader ............................................................................................................................... 46

The Exhibits as referenced in the Applications to the Court ............................................................... 47

Exhibits 1 – 15: The Petitioner‟s Solicitors............................................................................................................... 47

Exhibits 16 – 24: Bankruptcy Petition and its Verification .................................................................................... 48

Exhibits 25 – 38: Intentional Falsehoods to defraud Mr Ebert ............................................................................ 49

Exhibits 39 – 47: Intentional white collar crimes and Negligence by the Official Receiver ............................. 50

Exhibits 48 – 64: A Doctored Bank Statement and other Irregularities .............................................................. 51

Exhibits 65 – 80: Rules of Law ................................................................................................................................... 52

The Bankruptcy Order by Mr Justice Lloyd, upon the Petition of Ralph Wolff .................................. 53

Exhibit A: G. Ebert a Debtor – R. Wolff a Creditor (22 July 1997) – contrary to Exhibit 15 ........................ 53

Exhibit B: Endorsement on Order ............................................................................................................................ 55

Malicious Bankruptcy Petitioner + Criminal Solicitors + Negligence of HMCS ................................ 56

Exhibit 1: “Notice of Assignment” and “Demand of Payment” of a “Judgment Debt” ................................. 56

Exhibit 2: Different Legal Action, different Adversaries ....................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 3: Partners in Deed: Midland Bank plc and Ralph Wolff......................................................................... 59

Exhibit 4: Ralph Wolff‟s application to intervene with Midland Bank: dismissed with costs .......................... 60

Exhibit 5: Spooky Assignment of Judgment Debt – attached to Exhibit 4 ........................................................ 61

Exhibit 6: Eversheds – an “innovative international law firm” on behalf of their client Midland Bank........ 62

Exhibit 7: Eversheds – submitting payment of debt to Midland Bank on behalf of Ralph Wolff.................. 63

Exhibit 8: Judgment of Midland Bank v Morris (not Ralph) Wolff (Action 1995 M No. 906) ....................... 64

Exhibit 9: Copy of Midland Bank Statement of Morris (Maurice) Wolff ............................................................ 65

False Affidavit sworn by a Clerk of Teacher Stern and Selby solicitors ............................................... 66

Exhibit 10: An application for a “garnishee order” against Mr Ebert by Ralph Wolff‟s solicitor (page 1) .... 66

Exhibit 11: False Affidavit claiming that Mr Ebert owns that miraculous Debt (page 2) ................................ 67

Exhibit 12: Ralph Wolff listed as Judgment Creditor and Gedaljahu Ebert as Judgment Debtor .................. 68

Exhibit 13: Judgment in Action 1995 M No. 906 Midland Bank v Morris Wolff (not G Ebert) .................... 69

Exhibit 14: Master Eyre affirming that Mr Ebert is not a judgment debtor ....................................................... 70

Exhibit 15: Order: G Ebert is NOT the judgment debtor as claimed by R Wolff - contrary to Exhibit A .. 71

The Bankruptcy Petition with Ralph Wolff as Appellant and Gedaljahu Ebert as Respondent.......... 72

Exhibit 16: Claiming a Judgement Debt of £50,876.89 in Action 1994 M No 1568 ........................................ 72

Exhibit 17: Page 2 of Bankruptcy Petition ................................................................................................................... 73

Exhibit 18: Affidavit by solicitor in Teacher Stern and Selby ................................................................................ 74

5

Exhibit 19: page 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 75

Exhibit 20: Solicitor had been unable to produce a Client Care Letter ............................................................... 76

Exhibit 21: Reason for Objection to award Costs to Ralph Wolff or his solicitor ............................................ 77

Exhibit 22: Reason for Objection continued (page 3) ............................................................................................ 78

Rules that are Relevant for Petitions .................................................................................................... 79

Exhibit 23: 6.12 Verification of Petition ................................................................................................................... 79

Exhibit 24: 6.14 Service of Petition ........................................................................................................................... 81

Exhibit 25: Confirmation of Parties in Legal Action 1994 M No. 1568 .............................................................. 82

Insolvency Act 1986 .............................................................................................................................. 83

Exhibit 26: Section 271 about the Court being satisfied that the debt presented is a valid debt..................... 83

Affirmation by the Highest Court in the Country ................................................................................ 85

Exhibit 27: The Times: Non-compliance with Procedure ..................................................................................... 85

Exhibit 28: Relevant Case Law: The Secretary of State v Ateiroobasingham Ravichandran ........................... 86

Exhibit 29: “without jurisdiction and of no effect”... ............................................................................................. 87

Exhibit 30: Proceedings a nullity where the plaintiff does not exist as a legal entity ......................................... 88

Affidavit by Petitioner’s Solicitor affirming Mr Ebert’s position ......................................................... 89

Exhibit 31: Page 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 89

Exhibit 32: ...”typographical errors were not noticed by anyone”... ..................................................................... 91

Exhibit 33: Solicitor for Mr Ralph Wolff and for his brother Morris Wolff ...................................................... 92

Exhibit 34: Financial background to the supposed Judgment Debt .................................................................... 93

Exhibit 35: Assignment of Debt by Midland Bank to Petitioning Creditor!? ..................................................... 94

Exhibit 36: the typographical error misled no one and went wholly unnoticed................................................. 95

Exhibit 37: last page ..................................................................................................................................................... 96

Exhibit 38: Eversheds: Midland Bank plc v Ebert .................................................................................................. 97

HM Court Services confirm.................................................................................................................. 98

Exhibit 39: Confirmation that no judgment had been entered in Action 2 ........................................................ 98

Exhibit 40: Confirmation about the two Legal Actions that have been mixed up .......................................... 100

Meeting Notes Typed by Official Receiver ......................................................................................... 101

Exhibit 41: Minimum surplus: £1,667,084 ............................................................................................................. 101

Exhibit 42: page 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 103

Proof of Debt – General Form ............................................................................................................ 104

Exhibit 43: No judgement debt exists ..................................................................................................................... 104

Exhibit 44: there was never a taxation cost order ................................................................................................. 106

Affidavit by Solicitor of the Bankruptcy Petitioner Wolff ................................................................... 107

Exhibit 45: Admission that the affidavit sworn on 9 October 1997 was false ................................................. 107

Exhibit 46: two paragraphs in the affidavit were false .......................................................................................... 109

Exhibit 47: I apologise to this court ........................................................................................................................ 110

Ebert v. Official Referee, Ralph Wolff ................................................................................................. 111

Exhibit 48: Judgment (page 1) .................................................................................................................................. 111

6

Exhibit 49: The history is unusually long and complex... (page 2) ...................................................................... 113

Exhibit 50: It appears clear... (page 3)...................................................................................................................... 114

Exhibit 51: Doctored bank statement (page 4) ...................................................................................................... 115

Exhibit 52: Expert Witness on suspicious Bank Statement (page 5) .................................................................. 116

Exhibit 53: ... worthy of suspicion (Associate of Chartered Institute of Bankers – ACIB) ............................ 117

Exhibit 54: Adjournment ........................................................................................................................................... 118

Exhibit 55: Hearing on Wednesday 12th January 2000 ......................................................................................... 119

Exhibit 56: ...dirty work assigning the debt so as to seriously disadvantage you .............................................. 120

Authoritative Rules of Law ................................................................................................................. 121

Exhibit 57: Abuse of the process of the court ....................................................................................................... 121

Exhibit 58: Mistake means decision is not binding ............................................................................................... 123

Exhibit 59: Damages for misrepresentation ........................................................................................................... 124

Exhibit 60: Misrepresentation Act 1967 .................................................................................................................. 125

Court Orders in Favour of Mr Ebert ................................................................................................... 126

Exhibit 61: Ralph Wolff‟s application dismissed ................................................................................................... 126

Exhibit 62: Costs to be paid by Ralph Wolff ......................................................................................................... 128

The Court Service confirms ................................................................................................................ 129

Exhibit 63: Mr Justice Lloyd has stated that he did not have access to the list of evidence........................... 129

Exhibit 64: Court Service apologises ....................................................................................................................... 131

Sandler Solicitors seeking monies due to the judgement of 14 November 1995 ................................ 132

Exhibit 65: Letter to Mr Ebert .................................................................................................................................. 132

Exhibit 66: Costs to be paid by the Defendant ...................................................................................................... 134

Exhibit 67: Interim Certificate about £105,000 costs ........................................................................................... 135

Exhibit 68: The cheque of £105,000 ....................................................................................................................... 136

Exhibit 69: Common Law: ... evidence adduced... ................................................................................................ 137

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 .................................................................................................. 138

Exhibit 70: Forgery ..................................................................................................................................................... 138

Exhibit 71: Press clipping: Document false if circumstances absent.................................................................. 140

European Court of Appeal Judgment ................................................................................................. 141

Exhibit 72: Article 6.1: Fair Trial .............................................................................................................................. 141

Exhibit 73: Deprivation of a Fair-Trial.................................................................................................................... 143

Lord Justice Denning: Fraud unravels everything ............................................................................. 144

Exhibit 74: Case law Lazarus Estates, Ltd. V Beasley ........................................................................................... 144

Exhibit 75: Court of Appeal Judgment ................................................................................................................... 146

Country Court Act 1984 Section 134 - 135 ............................................................................................ 147

Exhibit 76: County courts and districts ................................................................................................................... 147

Exhibit 77: Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court ........................................................ 149

Civil Procedure Rules ......................................................................................................................... 150

Exhibit 78: Court documents to be sealed .............................................................................................................. 150

7

Exhibit 79: Sealed documents as evidence ............................................................................................................. 152

Exhibit 80: Law of Property Act .............................................................................................................................. 153

Judgment in Mr Ebert’s Appeal ......................................................................................................... 154

Exhibit 81: Page 1 - .................................................................................................................................................... 154

Exhibit 82: Page 2 - .................................................................................................................................................... 156

Exhibit 83: Page 3 – No chance of success for an appeal. ................................................................................... 157

Learning from Personal Experience................................................................................................... 160

Mr. Ebert speaks on Parliament‟s intent regarding bankruptcy proceedings.................................................... 160

Mr. Ebert speaks on the quasi-criminal nature of insolvency proceedings ....................................................... 163

On Bankruptcy Proceedings .............................................................................................................. 168

Exhibit 84: Case law - not “civil proceedings”....................................................................................................... 168

Exhibit 85: Further quotations from case law: Court of Bankruptcy is “quasi-criminal” in character ......... 169

Exhibit 86: No other court has similar powers ...................................................................................................... 170

Exhibit 87: Further case law...................................................................................................................................... 171

Background context regarding Brad Meyer ....................................................................................... 172

Our objectives now ............................................................................................................................. 173

8

Prologue by Brad Meyer

Pushed off the Cliff

Imagine that someone has pushed you off a cliff. You and your family are falling down the side of the precipice, gaining speed every second as you all plummet towards the ground below. You‟re bouncing hard off the cliff side and each other as you continue falling faster and faster. Your clothes tearing, your bones breaking, your skin is ripping apart. You hear the screams, the cries, the gasps coming from your family as you continue falling down the cliff side. You‟re trying to grab onto shrubs and branches to stop your fall onto the rocky ground below. While you are falling, you‟re not thinking about how you could have averted this disaster, how you might have saved your family from going over the edge with you. No. You‟re thinking about how to save your family from the hard landing. But no matter what you do, all you can do is hit the rocky bottom. And then you do.

For an unimaginable amount of time, you and your family lie silently on the rocks. Some are silent because they have died. You begin to feel the coldness of the rocks, the warmth of your own blood flowing, the high-pitched screaming that continues silently in your head. You remember catching glimpses of the terrified glance of your family members as they fell along side you. The immensity of those images stays with you, burning deep into your heart. If you live, your life‟s work will be to help your family recover – and then go after the perpetrators who defrauded you and pushed you and your family over the edge.

A reluctant discovery in the House of Commons

This wasn‟t on my top-ten list of desirable topics to learn about, let alone get involved in - far from it. 1 In fact, I happily ignored virtually all realms of normal societal / civic awareness and involvement that I could. I was focused on my business endeavours and they were absorbing virtually all of my time and interest. But gradually – almost imperceptibly – a more participatory life drew me back into its fold and I found myself in a meeting in the House of Commons that was to re-shape much of my thinking in the coming months. Slowly, reluctantly, I began to realise that I was now witness to something that I simply had to respond to.

What draws someone out of their personal comfort zone into a stormy sea of uncertainty and possible danger? For me, it was seeing, hearing and feeling (in-person) the mental and emotional anguish of otherwise intelligent, perceptive, high-performing individuals. The puzzle about how they came to be as they were when I met them captured my curiosity and my compassion.

The morning session in the Grand Committee Room was a pretty „normal‟ session in which a Lord, a Princess, a couple of MPs, a mathematician, and a financial journalist shared their individual insights regarding the economy and the relative instability of the British Pound. It was when we adjourned to Committee Room 14 for the next session that the atmosphere changed dramatically.

We were no longer thinking or talking from lofty intellectual assessments of life and our philosophies around fair trade. What surfaced that afternoon was rather more gripping. An ominous undercurrent to the morning‟s discussion revealed itself to my astonished ears. The session began with someone saying “Perhaps I can spend a few minutes sharing some of my story with you.” And as there was no objection from the rest of us, he began to tell a tale of how he had been intentionally and meticulously defrauded during a commercial transaction.

This was followed by others‟ stories of similar fates. Some mentioned the actual procedures and parties involved – naming specific solicitors, law firms, judges, high court judges and politicians. And sometimes, as a specific name was mentioned, someone from across the room would raise their hand and say “same solicitor in my case” or “same process used against me” or “same high court judge” or “same chambers”…

1 The context regarding my background can be found on the last page of this volume.

9

I was in the midst of what felt like a live detective thriller. You know the type I mean - where the team goes out on the hunt for clues, comes back to base and starts writing names and observations up on the board and then draws circles around some of the discoveries and lines to other things that were observed that might be related. They were piecing together a puzzle based on everyone‟s input. Only this was real life in the UK, in the House of Commons.

If you are a relatively high net-worth individual, then this is a heads-up for you, as your financial portfolio may attract the interests of those who would enjoy stripping you of it. Perhaps you are reading this book because you already hold a piece of the puzzle in your own experiences. If so, do get in touch. For me, it was all pretty new stuff - and I found myself on the edge of my seat for almost six hours, as the names of well-known and well-respected public figures began to surface again and again around the room. What some of them did is the subject of this volume.

Feeling compelled to advise

What do you say to someone who has faced the wall, both financially and personally? Indeed, what can you say to them when it‟s clear that they have decidedly turned towards tackling the intentional architects of their un-doing, that they have fought to maintain their dignity despite having almost everything that they had built, known and loved taken from them? Do you tell them how it would feel if it happened to you? Do you wonder what advice or assistance you could provide to them? Do you worry about how to do this without increasing your own discomfort or vulnerability in relation to your own life and family circumstances?

As the meeting moved towards a close for the day, I felt compelled to say something. I agreed that there was a collective understanding and power to be gained by identifying the primary patterns across the different cases. I said that the patterns would only fully surface through the thorough sharing of each person‟s story in-turn. I said they needed the strength of the whole group, if they were to go for the heart of the machine that they had each come up against in their own separate lives. I encouraged them to find a way to share their stories in a more organised fashion. I wanted them to be able to collect the evidence necessary to transcend individual issues – and identify the opportunity gaps for fraudulent abuse of our society‟s processes. Once identified, the gaps could be closed.

My advice was embarrassingly naïve. Not knowing this, I offered to meet at a later date, to tell them what I had in-mind with more specificity. Some took me up on my offer. They probably did so more in response to the strong emotion and sincerity of my offer, rather than to the plausible substance of any ideas I could proffer. I think they felt that they had perhaps found in me a new ear, a fresh mind and possibly a capable collaborator. So they took me up on my offer to explore the possibilities further.

My advice, in a nutshell, was to video record each other telling their stories. I suggested that they tell their stories based solely on the hard evidence, rounded out with the emotional impact that each piece of each story provoked. This suite of recordings could then be used in a multitude of ways. They could be made available in ways virtually beyond the censorship / control of anyone in the UK who might want to prevent or distort their telling. I felt the idea was worth sharing with them, so I did. Never give advice you wouldn‟t take yourself.

Finding myself actively helping

So here I am and here you are. In the end, a few people asked me to help them video record what happened to them in full detail. I agreed, realising it was time to take my own advice. During the recordings, they named each and every individual, firm and process involved. The recordings themselves are intense. They are compact, with concentrated information and vibrant with the emotional impact of what happened. Every assertion made was backed up with documentation being referenced by the interviewee.

Recording these cases has already cost me. This has not been a stable time for my own business endeavours, given the global economy. Yet, I‟ve devoted 400 hours of my time in the last 6 months to “active listening” and engaging with these extraordinary individuals. It‟s safe to say that tens of thousands of hours of research and discovery (by those who were defrauded) were distilled into smaller chunks for me to get to grips with over those 400 hours. These chunks have now been further processed for presentation to you via this book.

10

Each story told filled 8 to 10 hours of video footage. For each interview, we went step-by-step through their experience, covering each and every documented piece of evidence that backed up what they told me. Recounting the stories required re-living the experiences to some extent. This was not a comfortable task – and one fraught with the difficulties of staying composed and focused on our task. We had to take breaks to capture our breath and re-capture our composure. Our intention was to convey in simple, common-sense terms what was done to them at the commercial, legal and judicial levels – and what the resultant financial and emotional impact was.

In the event of my untimely demise

The content of these video recordings capture the insights gleaned from tens of thousands of hours of research time devoted to uncovering and documenting ways in which people in public positions have defrauded the unsuspecting. The aggressors who pushed their targets over the financial and personal edge have been spotlighted in these videos, along with their highly efficient methods for doing so.

What I learned during these recording sessions intrigued and informed me - and inspired my caution. It would do the same for you, if you were to see them. So they are dangerous to those named in them.

Therefore, all of the video recordings have been burned to disc, copied and distributed world-wide to a handful of disconnected third parties. The full recordings will be released to the press in every major developed country simultaneously in the event of my untimely demise or upon my request.

In the past, this would have seemed to me the drastic measure of a person living off the adrenalin rush of paranoia. It probably is, to some extent. But I generally think of it instead as the closed circuit TV camera output from the cliff‟s edge where the aggressors made their moves and pushed these individuals over that edge. I‟ve not examined it all yet. I was there, recording it – yes. But that‟s different from properly considering the contents in-detail. So it would be irresponsible of me to release the raw footage at this time.

This book is based on an extremely small portion of the video footage and the documented evidence related to it that I have examined with some care. With this material, we will be highlighting some of the opportunity gaps that unscrupulous solicitors and judges can use to take away the foundation and fabric of your life when they wish to do so. This information is primarily presented by one of the individuals interviewed about his particular experiences. Indeed, it is a very small subset of his overall experience. Having said this, you will find that it is enough to alert you to some of the ways that you are yourself vulnerable to abuse – especially if you are a high net-worth individual.

Meeting Mr. Ebert

Gedaljahu Ebert was such a high net-worth individual. His ability to build businesses and generate millions in profit per annum was evidenced by his UK-based property investment portfolio. As his wife tells it, Mr. Ebert‟s Achilles‟ heel was his choice of business partners. If only he could discern the deciding factors in an individual human‟s behaviour as well as he could analyse and leverage the behaviour of the market place at-large.

Mr. Ebert was not in the House of Commons meetings that I mentioned earlier. His reputation however, reached me anyway through those who were. His ability to pursue and catalogue the document trail of negligent and mal-intentioned behaviour across the commercial, legal and judicial systems is legendary amongst those already concerned with the topic of this book.

We‟ll leave an elaboration on such details for another time though. For now, suffice it to say that his earnest and energetic demeanour over the last 15 years has generated more documented evidence than perhaps any other researcher in his position. Others have indeed established their documentary evidence to a high degree. The difference, in my limited experience so far, is that Gedaljahu pursues his case every day.

He is therefore constantly, week-in and week-out, developing his ability to dissect, to interpret and to actually take advantage of the process and organisational barriers to uncovering the full body of evidence regarding what happened. Where others sometimes decide to walk away, Mr. Ebert decidedly

11

steps forward. The result is that he is gathering new forensic evidence and insights almost weekly – evidence that you will find alarming.

Making sense of it all

In the cold light of day, a cordoned-off murder scene becomes the stage on which a detective team begins to recreate, from the evidence on the ground, what may have transpired. It‟s not yet considered the „truth‟ of the matter. It‟s the developing, plausible explanation for how what can be observed in the area came to be there. The story of what happened changes as related discoveries are made. Finally, at some point, the detectives become convinced that they have the story correctly assessed and the judicial process begins. If they begin the legal process prematurely, without enough evidence, the team runs the distinct danger of losing their case. So they take their time to gather the evidence.

Mr. Ebert couldn‟t take his time. Nor could the others I interviewed. They were drawn – pushed, really - into the legal process completely unprepared. During the process – and you will see evidence of this in the documents featured in this publication - some critically relevant information was concealed. Other information was contrived. Yet the decision to push him over the edge and bankrupt him and his family was made. The decision was not based on “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

In fact, at each stage of the process, the decision to proceed was made with virtually no supporting evidence being available. In fact, contradictory information was in plain sight. One has to wonder then how it happened. What convinced his aggressors that they were safe to make the moves they did? One also has to wonder how they decided it was worth taking the obvious risks of doing so. What was their projected „return on their investment‟ and how did they mitigate their risks?

Our conclusion is that the more financially successful you become, the more you qualify as a prime target for learning the answers to these questions first-hand. With a little luck, this book will help you mitigate your own risks of being enrolled in this particular „school of hard knocks‟. There‟s a saying; “luck is preparation meeting opportunity”. This publication should help you prepare.

Early Day Motion 1297

In the first half of 2009, a dozen Members of Parliament indicated their interest in exploring the potential opportunity of invoking the Bank of England Act of 1694. One of a string of Early Day Motions aimed at addressing rampant financial fraud, this one drew the additional interest of those that I met in the House of Commons. They were, however, broadly unprepared to take advantage of the opportunity as presented. My hope is that this book will encourage you to take an “early day notion” (pardon the pun) to attend to the subtle motivators of those you deal with and on whom you depend for your financial affairs.

Early Day Motion 597 – to keep the Flame Burning

After the election, the new Parliament was presented with the same text which was tabled as Early Day Motion 597 and signed by 14 MPs.2

We turn now to the financial affairs of Mr. Ebert – and the astoundingly simple ways in which his attackers pushed him and his family over the edge. After Mr. Ebert presents his own case, we will review the implications of what this could mean for you should the wolves come knocking.

Getting Specific with Mr. Ebert

Until now, we have floated along in my relatively easy-to-read reflections on how I came to meet Mr. Ebert. We‟ve peaked briefly over the cliff‟s edge, while remaining fairly distant from the reality of what actually happened to him. In a moment, we are going to find ourselves down on the hard rocks, picking up some of the pieces with him.

What breaks when you hit rock bottom is more than meets the eye. The internal damage is what can kill you. If fortune is with you (so to speak), you live to tell the tale. But before you can tell that tale,

2 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41554&SESSION=905

12

you must understand it. And to understand it, you must accept, embrace and enter a multi-faceted journey of discovery – however fractionated it at first appears to be.

Mr. Ebert‟s journey of discovery has been filled with circuitous paths leading deeper and deeper into a labyrinth of layered deceptions. As some of the critical evidence he has uncovered was intentionally concealed from him as well as from the court for many years, the piecing together of this puzzle has taken a rather long time. But time is something that Gedaljahu has had plenty of, since the Order to bankrupt him was put into effect.

So in a reversal of fortunes (so to speak), those who had and took their time to push him over the edge for their own purposes, now face the certain and continuous onslaught of someone who has both the vision and the time to pursue and publish the truth of what they did. This publication concentrates on what they did – not why they did it. That story is for another time. For now, we will look deeply into what was done. This is the basis upon which Mr. Ebert is presenting his case to the courts and consequently to you, the reader. 3

As you begin reading his assessment and account of what was done, you will be joining him in his pursuit of truth and of vindication. From time to time, you may be scrambling to keep the pieces of information he presents in your head. When you experience this, have a second, slower read through the confusing bits again. And give Gedaljahu a nod of understanding for what the last 15 years of his life have been like. Looking deeply into documents retrieved for inspection in drips and drabs completely out of chronological order and contextual reference over a period of years requires an immense and immersive effort to reconstruct their relevance to each other.

You can breathe a sigh of relief though. He will only be sharing the tip of the iceberg in this volume. What you are about to read should be enough though, to alert you to your own vulnerability. Your concerns, observations, questions and suggestions will be most welcome. Feel free to contact Mr. Ebert using the following email address: de8765@hotmail.co.uk

3 Mr. Ebert‟s developing perspective and insights on bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings in general may be useful to you. You can find them in the Appendix to this volume.

13

The three documents used to bankrupt Mr. Ebert

For your reference, while reading his applications for annulment, have a look first at;

The Order (by Mr Justice Lloyd that made him bankrupt), so that you can see in context the

three points (annotated with numbered diamonds) Mr. Ebert is referring to in his application.

The Petition (by Mr Ralph Wolff upon which the Order was based), so that you can see in

context the eight points (annotated with numbered diamonds) Mr. Ebert is referring to in his

application.

The Affidavit (by the petitioner‟s solicitor) filed in support of the Petition, so that you can see

in context the three points (annotated with numbered diamonds) Mr. Ebert is referring to in

his application.

14

The Bankruptcy Order

15

The Bankruptcy Petition regarding a Debt that Appeared to Exist on Falsified Documents

16

17

The False Affidavit by the Opponent’s Solicitor

18

19

Mr. Ebert’s Applications to the Court

In the public records that follow, Mr. Ebert presents;

A case for the annulling of the Order that made him personally bankrupt

A case for the dismissal of the Petition submitted to lay the foundation for that Order

The two cases as published here are copies of applications Mr. Ebert filed with the courts in the United Kingdom on 22nd October 2009. While you are reading through the applications themselves, take note of how someone could easily do something similar to you. We will come back to this point later.

Once you have read through the applications, we can reflect on a few of the primary messages you can take away from what Mr. Ebert has discovered and presented. You can then of course choose to go on and delve deeply into the Exhibits that Mr. Ebert attached in support of his applications to the court. The Exhibits as referenced in the applications can be found towards the back of this volume, so that you can concentrate first on the applications‟ primary messages (and their implications for you).

While you are reading what follows, you may notice that English is not Mr. Ebert‟s first language. His grammar, tense and temperament reflect a culture different from that of a native English speaker in Britain. Additionally, he has adopted a rather litigious style over the years of interacting with the courts. You may recall reading how kidnap victims tend to reflect their kidnapper‟s personality in various ways. This appears to also be true for fraud victims.

There are numerous additional lessons to be learned from reading the Exhibits – lessons that you may find worth noting down as you read each document. If you do note them down, you may compare your notes with Mr. Ebert‟s (on request).

Subsequent correspondence with the court regarding Mr. Ebert‟s applications can be found later in this book. You can learn in more detail about what has happened since this publication by emailing Mr. Ebert using the following email address: de8765@hotmail.co.uk .

20

Application to Annul a Bankruptcy Order

21

Witness Statement announcing the Grounds for Applying for Annulment

22

Statement of Truth spelling out the Grounds that existed at the Time of the Bankruptcy Petition

23

The First Five of Ten Relevant Rules of Law

24

The Second Five of Ten Relevant Rules of Law

25

Point 1 of the Bankruptcy Order: Mr Ebert was Mr Wolff’s Creditor, not Debtor

The Existence of the Debtor / Creditor relationship was Maliciously Concealed at the Time the Order was Made

26

27

No Supporting Evidence of a Debt was filed with the Bankruptcy Petition

Point 2 of the Bankruptcy Order: Ralph Wolff is not Mr Ebert’s Creditor

The Claim presented was based on a Judgement Debt relating to other Litigants, not Wolff v Ebert

The Court did not Spot or Correct the Mistake

28

29

Point 3 of the Bankruptcy Order: “upon reading WHICH evidence?”

The Referenced Judgement was not attached as Evidence

Mr Justice Lloyd did not have access to the List of Evidence

30

Considering the Eight Points of the Bankruptcy Petition

One: misleading address of the petitioner

31

Two: Mr Ebert has a monthly income of £60,000 while Ralph Wolff did not have any legal justification for a Petition

Three: Action 1994-M No. 1568 has nothing to do with either Mr Ebert or Mr Wolff

32

Four: Midland Bank is claimed to be a Debtor which is neither true nor proven by Evidence

Five: Midland Bank is supposed to have given Notice of an Assignment of a Debt

33

Six: The Debtor is supposedly Unable to Pay

Seven: A Statutory Demand was supposed to have been Served on Mr Ebert’s Wife

34

Eight: a) No Security for the Payment of the Debt?

35

Eight: b) Sorry, the Court said: Mr Ebert is not the Judgment Debtor as claimed by Ralph Wolff

36

37

The Three Points in the Affidavit by Mr Wolff’s Solicitor

One: I am not duly authorised by the Petitioner at all. I apologise to this Court.

Two: I have the requisite Knowledge referred to???

38

Three: The Statements in the Petition are true to the best of my knowledge. No!

39

40

41

Primary messages and their implications

The foundation for making someone (e.g. you) bankrupt can be established using a combination of concealed, contrived, converted and controlled use or non-use of critical documents and information available at the time. A clear diversion from following proper procedure by a solicitor, a court clerk and a judge - and with the judge‟s acknowledged, conscious, intentional setting aside of these admitted diversions – can push you over the edge. Perhaps we can more deeply reflect on and understand what “the Rule of Law” means by its absence or its abuse.

In his applications, Mr. Ebert is focusing hard on the specific details regarding “abuse of process” – as well he should. As readers of his work, observing and thinking alongside him while he labours to clarify what happened, we are privileged to be able to step back slightly for an overview of the situation. Let us consider for a moment just one of the numerous abuse of process points made by Mr. Ebert in his application. Specifically, let us look at point 3 regarding the Order to bankrupt him.

The factual absence of relevant and legally required / mandatory evidence could only have “slipped” through the proceedings if one of the following scenarios were true;

a) the case reference number on the judgement (that was attached as evidence to support the petition when

filed) had the same case reference number as a different judgement that was meant to be referenced in the

petition (e.g. an earlier administrative error when assigning case numbers)

b) the incorrect case reference number on the judgement (that was attached as evidence to support the petition

when filed) had a different case reference number than the one that was meant to be referenced – but this

was missed by the solicitor, the court clerk and later the judge as well (e.g. professional negligence regarding

information critical to (and legally required for) the decision process)

c) the judgement bearing the incorrect case reference number used in the petition was not attached as evidence to

the petition at all when the petition was filed – hence the (in)validity of the case reference number used in

the petition was not open to scrutiny – and neither the solicitor, the clerk nor the judge stopped the

proceedings due to the lack of legally required / mandatory essential evidence (e.g. contrived or complicit

intent to defraud via an abuse of process)

Scenario “c” is in fact the only possible conclusion regarding the reality of the situation, as there was no evidence filed in court for the judge to base the bankruptcy order on. And yet, the Judge - without the required / mandatory evidence - made the Bankruptcy Order against Mr. Ebert.

Ask yourself – was this an error, professional negligence or intentional fraud? Regardless of your answer, proceeding without evidence being available at the time must be considered an abuse of the established legal process - the same process that you would rely on in court.

Vulnerability in a „developing‟ country might be expected. To discover that the United Kingdom harbours financial, legal and judicial malpractices enabling an adversary to disable and disarm members of the public so simply and fatally without the required evidence, is unnerving. You probably hold few illusions about the capacity of human beings to want to „do each other in‟, but you may have been surprised to realise how easily financial, legal and judicial professionals appear to be able to work together in order to do so.

What Happened Next

So as you can imagine, there was indeed a response to Mr. Ebert‟s applications. You‟ll see it in a minute. First, give yourself a moment to reflect. Ask yourself how you responded to what you read in Mr. Ebert‟s applications. Given your personal response, what would you have done if you were in a position to officially review and respond to his applications? Mr. Ebert would be interested in knowing your answer to this question! Please feel free to send him an email using: de8765@hotmail.co.uk

What follows is the court‟s response.

42

All Rights of Appeal have been Exhausted or Expired. There is no Merit in the Application.

43

It is Ordered that Permission to make the Application to Annul the Bankruptcy is Refused

44

So the official response is that: “There‟s no merit in the application.” You may have noticed something else too. Mr. Ebert is referred to as a “vexatious litigant”. At the time of this publication going to press, we googled “what does vexatious mean” and the first definition presented said “annoying: causing irritation or annoyance”. Then we googled “what does vexatious litigant mean” and the first definition presented said “Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an

45

adversary”. Is that what Mr. Ebert has been doing? Is he harassing an adversary regardless of / without merit?

Consider the following scenario. You‟re at home, enjoying time with your family. There‟s a knock at your door. You get up and go see who it is. They identify themselves as “the gas men” wanting to inspect your boiler. You say you didn‟t call anyone. They say they were called by someone else saying your boiler is faulty and needs to be dealt with. You ask who called. No response. You ask for identification. They cannot produce any. Then they push their way into your home. While one tinkers with the boiler, the other lifts your valuables. Then they leave.

How is that any different from a solicitor claiming (without evidence) to represent someone else who claims (without evidence) that you owe them money? And then when a judge (without evidence) allows them to go ahead and bankrupt you by securing their claim (without evidence) against your property, what would you do?

Naturally, you call the police and the gas board in the first instance. The gas board has never heard of them of course and know nothing about it. The police take down some details but eventually say that they have no evidence of any wrong-doing. And when the judge decides that there is no merit to your claim regarding what transpired, what would you do next? Would you stick your hands in your pockets, shrug your shoulders, and turn around on your heels and walk away - settling for one person‟s decision on this? Mr. Ebert wouldn‟t do that either. In fact, he didn‟t. He requested a trial by jury.

To find out what happened next, please email Mr. Ebert using the following email address: de8765@hotmail.co.uk. Beyond finding the drama of someone else‟s experience an interesting read though, there are some things you should be considering about your own situation.

Some Red Flags of Fraud

A practical next step for you just now is to reflect on what you have read and to ask yourself, “What applies to me?” The following compilation of circumstances will help you do this. The compilation highlights some of the „red flags‟ of fraud that you may have experienced. Any one of these may seem (and be) innocuous on its own. Taken together however, they form the foundation for an „elegant‟ abuse of process that can land you in both civil and financial arrest.

Use this check list to review your own financial, legal and judicial proceedings. Use this list to alert yourself to the potential of „white lies‟ that in unison with each other can establish the foundation for people to intentionally poison your life with the „black death‟ of „white collar‟ fraud.

RED FLAG POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

In your correspondence and transactions with others

Someone‟s failure to provide documentation that is completely accurate, comprehensive and fully backed up with all required supporting documents

Intentional inaccuracies and / or withholding required information in relevant documents can be used to weaken / invalidate your position or ruin you

Supporting documents that contain inaccurate references and / or gaps in required content – including content of an informational nature and / or authenticating signatures and court seals

Damaging impressions can be created this way with less personal risk for the perpetrator

Do not presume that authorised personnel will not act against you using such documents

Someone‟s failure to meet commitments or court orders regarding turn around time for document / content provision or disclosure

Time delays or non compliance can leave you rushed and unprepared or without critical evidence at critical junctures

Last minute changes in the venue and / or parties involved in a transaction or event – be it for the exchange of documents, the discussion of ideas or the determination of the way forward on something

These disruptive behaviours can throw you off-guard, distracting you from content-critical thinking

Additionally, they can leave you without counsel at critical moments

46

In the courtroom

Last minute change of courtroom

This disruptive behaviour can throw you off-guard and make you and / or those supporting you miss the hearing; distracting you from content-critical and process-essential attention

Last minute change of presiding judge Often in association with a change of court room, this tactic is used to secure an unfavourable judge

Last minute change of solicitor and / or barrister A sense of ambush can create surprise and fear - destabilising you and thereby distracting you from content-critical and process-specific attention

Last minute changes to suggested approach by your solicitor / barrister

Once you have become reliant on them, this can destabilise you and thereby distract you from content-critical and process-essential issues

Being directed to a position in the court room „close‟ to the judge where recording microphones are available for everyone else but not for the you, the litigant in person

Being positioned „close‟ to the judges creates a physiological (and so psychological) impairment when having to cyclically look high up to address the judge and low down to refer to your notes

The „missing‟ microphone can result in your critical commentary being replaced with “inaudible” in the court transcripts

Prolonged and irrelevant discourse, discussion or diversions resulting in premature adjournments to the next day or later

This tactic buys your adversaries time to „chat‟ behind you, the litigant in person‟s back

If you can help us refine and improve on this list, please send an email to Mr. Ebert using the following email address: de8765@hotmail.co.uk.

An Invitation to You, the Reader

If you suspect that others may be working together to defraud you, then you may be able to confer with Mr. Ebert. Try sending an email to: de8765@hotmail.co.uk As a result of the experience, insights and skills that he has developed over time – and his determination to right the wrongs being done where-ever possible – Gedaljahu Ebert may be able to help you in a fashion that is most appropriate and practical for your circumstances.

47

The Exhibits as referenced in the Applications to the Court

Exhibits 1 – 15: The Petitioner’s Solicitors

48

Exhibits 16 – 24: Bankruptcy Petition and its Verification

49

Exhibits 25 – 38: Intentional Falsehoods to defraud Mr Ebert

50

Exhibits 39 – 47: Intentional white collar crimes and Negligence by the Official Receiver

51

Exhibits 48 – 64: A Doctored Bank Statement and other Irregularities

52

Exhibits 65 – 80: Rules of Law

53

The Bankruptcy Order by Mr Justice Lloyd, upon the Petition of Ralph Wolff

Exhibit A: G. Ebert a Debtor – R. Wolff a Creditor (22 July 1997) – contrary to Exhibit 15

54

55

Exhibit B: Endorsement on Order

56

Malicious Bankruptcy Petitioner + Criminal Solicitors + Negligence of HMCS

Exhibit 1: “Notice of Assignment” and “Demand of Payment” of a “Judgment Debt”

57

58

Exhibit 2: Different Legal Action, different Adversaries

59

Exhibit 3: Partners in Deed: Midland Bank plc and Ralph Wolff

60

Exhibit 4: Ralph Wolff’s application to intervene with Midland Bank: dismissed with costs

61

Exhibit 5: Spooky Assignment of Judgment Debt – attached to Exhibit 4

62

Exhibit 6: Eversheds – an “innovative international law firm” on behalf of their client Midland Bank

63

Exhibit 7: Eversheds – submitting payment of debt to Midland Bank on behalf of Ralph Wolff

64

Exhibit 8: Judgment of Midland Bank v Morris (not Ralph) Wolff (Action 1995 M No. 906)

65

Exhibit 9: Copy of Midland Bank Statement of Morris (Maurice) Wolff

66

False Affidavit sworn by a Clerk of Teacher Stern and Selby solicitors

Exhibit 10: An application for a “garnishee order” against Mr Ebert by Ralph Wolff’s solicitor (page 1)

67

Exhibit 11: False Affidavit claiming that Mr Ebert owns that miraculous Debt (page 2)

68

Exhibit 12: Ralph Wolff listed as Judgment Creditor and Gedaljahu Ebert as Judgment Debtor

69

Exhibit 13: Judgment in Action 1995 M No. 906 Midland Bank v Morris Wolff (not G Ebert)

70

Exhibit 14: Master Eyre affirming that Mr Ebert is not a judgment debtor

71

Exhibit 15: Order: G Ebert is NOT the judgment debtor as claimed by R Wolff - contrary to Exhibit A

72

The Bankruptcy Petition with Ralph Wolff as Appellant and Gedaljahu Ebert as Respondent

Exhibit 16: Claiming a Judgement Debt of £50,876.89 in Action 1994 M No 1568

73

Exhibit 17: Page 2 of Bankruptcy Petition

74

Exhibit 18: Affidavit by solicitor in Teacher Stern and Selby

75

Exhibit 19: page 2

76

Exhibit 20: Solicitor had been unable to produce a Client Care Letter

77

Exhibit 21: Reason for Objection to award Costs to Ralph Wolff or his solicitor

78

Exhibit 22: Reason for Objection continued (page 3)

79

Rules that are Relevant for Petitions

Exhibit 23: 6.12 Verification of Petition

80

81

Exhibit 24: 6.14 Service of Petition

82

Exhibit 25: Confirmation of Parties in Legal Action 1994 M No. 1568

83

Insolvency Act 1986

Exhibit 26: Section 271 about the Court being satisfied that the debt presented is a valid debt

84

85

Affirmation by the Highest Court in the Country

Exhibit 27: The Times: Non-compliance with Procedure

86

Exhibit 28: Relevant Case Law: The Secretary of State v Ateiroobasingham Ravichandran

87

Exhibit 29: “without jurisdiction and of no effect”...

88

Exhibit 30: Proceedings a nullity where the plaintiff does not exist as a legal entity

89

Affidavit by Petitioner’s Solicitor affirming Mr Ebert’s position

Exhibit 31: Page 1

90

91

Exhibit 32: ...”typographical errors were not noticed by anyone”...

92

Exhibit 33: Solicitor for Mr Ralph Wolff and for his brother Morris Wolff

93

Exhibit 34: Financial background to the supposed Judgment Debt

94

Exhibit 35: Assignment of Debt by Midland Bank to Petitioning Creditor!?

95

Exhibit 36: the typographical error misled no one and went wholly unnoticed...

96

Exhibit 37: last page

97

Exhibit 38: Eversheds: Midland Bank plc v Ebert

98

HM Court Services confirm

Exhibit 39: Confirmation that no judgment had been entered in Action 2

99

100

Exhibit 40: Confirmation about the two Legal Actions that have been mixed up

101

Meeting Notes Typed by Official Receiver

Exhibit 41: Minimum surplus: £1,667,084

102

103

Exhibit 42: page 2

104

Proof of Debt – General Form

Exhibit 43: No judgement debt exists

105

106

Exhibit 44: there was never a taxation cost order

107

Affidavit by Solicitor of the Bankruptcy Petitioner Wolff

Exhibit 45: Admission that the affidavit sworn on 9 October 1997 was false

108

109

Exhibit 46: two paragraphs in the affidavit were false

110

Exhibit 47: I apologise to this court

111

Ebert v. Official Referee, Ralph Wolff

Exhibit 48: Judgment (page 1)

112

113

Exhibit 49: The history is unusually long and complex... (page 2)

114

Exhibit 50: It appears clear... (page 3)

115

Exhibit 51: Doctored bank statement (page 4)

116

Exhibit 52: Expert Witness on suspicious Bank Statement (page 5)

117

Exhibit 53: ... worthy of suspicion (Associate of Chartered Institute of Bankers – ACIB)

118

Exhibit 54: Adjournment

119

Exhibit 55: Hearing on Wednesday 12th January 2000

120

Exhibit 56: ...dirty work assigning the debt so as to seriously disadvantage you

121

Authoritative Rules of Law

Exhibit 57: Abuse of the process of the court

122

123

Exhibit 58: Mistake means decision is not binding

124

Exhibit 59: Damages for misrepresentation

125

Exhibit 60: Misrepresentation Act 1967

126

Court Orders in Favour of Mr Ebert

Exhibit 61: Ralph Wolff’s application dismissed

127

128

Exhibit 62: Costs to be paid by Ralph Wolff

129

The Court Service confirms

Exhibit 63: Mr Justice Lloyd has stated that he did not have access to the list of evidence

130

131

Exhibit 64: Court Service apologises

132

Sandler Solicitors seeking monies due to the judgement of 14 November 1995

Exhibit 65: Letter to Mr Ebert

133

134

Exhibit 66: Costs to be paid by the Defendant

135

Exhibit 67: Interim Certificate about £105,000 costs

136

Exhibit 68: The cheque of £105,000

137

Exhibit 69: Common Law: ... evidence adduced...

138

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Exhibit 70: Forgery

139

140

Exhibit 71: Press clipping: Document false if circumstances absent

141

European Court of Appeal Judgment

Exhibit 72: Article 6.1: Fair Trial

142

143

Exhibit 73: Deprivation of a Fair-Trial

144

Lord Justice Denning: Fraud unravels everything

Exhibit 74: Case law Lazarus Estates, Ltd. V Beasley

145

146

Exhibit 75: Court of Appeal Judgment

147

Country Court Act 1984 Section 134 - 135

Exhibit 76: County courts and districts

148

149

Exhibit 77: Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court

150

Civil Procedure Rules

Exhibit 78: Court documents to be sealed

151

152

Exhibit 79: Sealed documents as evidence

153

Exhibit 80: Law of Property Act

154

Judgment in Mr Ebert’s Appeal

Exhibit 81: Page 1 -

155

156

Exhibit 82: Page 2 -

157

Exhibit 83: Page 3 – No chance of success for an appeal.

158

159

160

Learning from Personal Experience

Mr. Ebert speaks on Parliament’s intent regarding bankruptcy proceedings

IT WAS NOT PARLIAMENT’S INTENTION FOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO BE ABUSED

AS DEBT RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL (VICTIM) FROM THE HARASSMENT OF CREDITORS

1) The Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”), was passed for the protection of the individual (victim) from harassment by creditors.

2) The Act and the Insolvency Rules 1986 (“the Rules”) clearly set out the legal requirements and the procedure by which statutory force the Bankruptcy Court is bound:

a) To seal a Bankruptcy petition filed in Court; b) The Adjudicator (a Registrar and/or a Judge) must ensure the legal and procedural requirements are

complied with to enable him/her to make a finding and adjudication on the validity of the Bankruptcy petition in accordance with the law.

The fundamental requirements under the Act and the Rules are:

“264. Who may present a bankruptcy petition

(1) A petition for a bankruptcy order to be made against an individual may be presented to the court in accordance with the following provisions of this Part”

“267. Grounds of creditor’s petition

(1) A creditor’s petition must be in respect of one or more debts owed by the debtor, and the petitioning creditor or each of the petitioning creditors must be a person to whom the debt or (as the case may be) at least one of the debts is owed.

(2) Subject to the next three sections, a creditor’s petition may be presented to the court in respect of a debt or debts ONLY IF at the time the petition is presented- (b) The debt, or each of the debts, is for a liquidated sum payable to the petitioning creditor,

or one or more of the petitioning creditors, whether immediately or at some certain, future time, and is unsecured,

(c) The debt, or each of the debts, is a debt which the debtor appears either to be unable to pay or to have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay, and

(d) There is no outstanding application to set aside a statutory demand served (under section 268 below) in respect of the debt or any of the debts.”

“268. Definition of “inability to pay”, etc; the statutory demand

(1) For the purpose of section 267(2)(c), the debtor appears to be unable to pay a debt if, but only if, the debt is payable immediately and either- (a) The petitioning creditor to whom the debt is owed has served on the debtor a demand

(known as “the statutory demand”) in the prescribed form requiring him to pay the debt or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor, at least 3 weeks have

161

elapsed since the demand was served and the demand has been neither complied with nor set aside in accordance with the rules, or

(b) Execution or other process issued in respect of the debt on judgment or order of any court in favour of the petitioning creditor, or one or more of the petitioning creditors to whom the debt is owed, has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.”

“271. Proceedings on creditor’s petition

(1) The court shall not make a bankruptcy order on a creditor’s petition unless it is satisfied that the debt, or one of the debts, in respect of which the petition was presented is either- (a) A debt which, having been payable at the date of the petition or having since become

payable, has been neither paid nor secured or compounded for, or (b) A debt which the debtor has no reasonable prospect of being able to pay when it falls due.

(3) The court may dismiss the petition if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts or is satisfied- (a) that the debtor has made an offer to secure or compound for a debt in respect of which

the petition is presented, (c) that the offer has been unreasonably refused.”

“282. Court’s power to annul bankruptcy order

(1) The court may annul a bankruptcy order if it at any time appears to the court- (a) that, on any grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have

been made, or (b) that, to the extent required by the rules, the bankruptcy debts and the expenses of the

bankruptcy have all, since the making of the order, been either paid or secured for to the satisfaction of the court.”

Rule “6.1 Form and content of statutory demand

(1) A statutory demand under section 268 must be dated, and be signed either by the creditor himself or by a person stating himself to be authorised to make the demand on the creditor’s behalf.

(3) The demand must state the amount of the debt, and the consideration for it, (or, if there is no consideration, the way in which it arises) and- (a) If made under section 268(1) and founded on a judgment or order of a court, it must give

details of the judgment or order, and (b) If made under section 268(2), it must state the grounds on which it is alleged that the

debtor appears to have no reasonable prospect of paying the debt. In either case the amount claimed must be limited to that which has accrued due at the date of demand.”

Rule “6.2 Information to be given in statutory demand

(1) The statutory demand must include an explanation to the debtor of the following matters- (a) The purpose of the demand, and the fact that, if the debtor does not comply with the

demand, bankruptcy proceedings may be commenced against him;

Rule “6.3 Requirements as to service

(3) Where the statutory demand is for payment of a sum due under a judgment or order of any court and the creditor knows, or believes with reasonable cause- (b) There is no real prospect of the sum due being recovered by execution or other process.”

Rule “6.6 Preliminary

The Rules in this Chapter relate to a creditor’s petition, and the making of a bankruptcy order thereon; and in those Rules “the debt” means, except where the context otherwise requires, the debt (or debts) in respect of which the petition is presented.”

162

Rule “6.8 Identification of debt

(1) There shall be stated in the petition, with reference to every debt in respect of which it is presented- (a) The amount of the debt, the consideration for it (or, if there is no consideration , the way

in which it arises) and the fact that it is owed to the petitioner; (b) When the debt was incurred or became due; (d) Either-

(i) That the debt is for a liquidated sum payable immediately, and the debtor appears to be unable to pay it, or

(ii) That the debt is for a liquidated sum payable at some certain, future time (that time to be specified), and the debtor appears to have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay it.”

(2) Where the debt is one for which, under section 268, a statutory demand must have been served on the debtor- (a) It shall be specified the date and manner of service of the statutory demand”

Rule “6.10 Procedure for presentation and filing

(1) The petition, verified by affidavit in accordance with Rule 6.12(1) below, shall be filed in court. (3) The following copies of the petition shall also be delivered to the court with the petition-

(a) one for service on the debtor, ... (b) one to be exhibited to the affidavit verifying that service [, and...

Each of these copies shall have applied to it the seal of the court, and shall be issued to the petitioner.”

Rule “6.12 Verification of petition

(1) The petition shall be verified by an affidavit that the statements in the petition are true, or are true to the best of the deponent’s knowledge, information and belief.

(3) The petition shall be exhibited to the affidavit verifying it. (4) The affidavit shall be made-

(a) by the petitioner (or if there are two or more petitioners, any one of them), or... (5) Where the maker of the affidavit is not the petitioner himself, or one of the petitioners, he must

in the affidavit identify himself and state- (a) the capacity in which, and the authority by which, he makes it, and...

(6) The affidavit is prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements in the petition to which it relates.

(7) If the petition is based upon a statutory demand, and more than 4 months have elapsed between the service of the demand and the presentation of the petition, the affidavit must also state the reasons for the delay.”

Rule “6.25 Decision on the hearing

(1) On the hearing of the petition, the court may make a bankruptcy order if satisfied that the statements in the petition are true, and that the debt on which it is founded has not been paid, or secured or compounded for.

(2) If the petition is brought in respect of a judgment debt, or a sum ordered by any court to be paid, the court may stay or dismiss the petition on the ground that an appeal is pending from the judgment or order, or that execution of the judgment has been stayed.”

Rule “6.26 Non-appearance of creditor

If the petitioning creditor fails to appear in the hearing of the petition, no subsequent petition against the same debtor, either alone or jointly with any other person, shall be presented by the same creditor in respect of the same debt, without the leave of the court to which the previous petition was presented.”

163

SUMMARY OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAW

1) The debt must be an undisputed LIQUIDATED debt and 2) a debt which the debtor is “UNABLE” (not unwilling) to pay. 3) On any claim of a debt, it is a statutory requirement for the creditor to provide the court with, “stated in

his affidavit,” the evidence that the debtor is unable (not unwilling) to pay (Section 268(1) of the Act.) 4) Fundamental point ignored in at least the last 15 years by the court, namely:

Any claim on a judgment debt can only be presented in bankruptcy proceedings if the creditor had executed the debt or other process issued (not a statutory demand) had been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, and the evidence thereof is stated in the affidavit in support of the bankruptcy petition, and only if a copy of the judgment and of the evidence of the unsatisfied execution is attached as evidence to the bankruptcy petition and served on the (purported) debtor [Section 268 (1)(b) and Rule 6.3 (3)(b)].

Mr. Ebert speaks on the quasi-criminal nature of insolvency proceedings

INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING – QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

1) The legal term used that Insolvency Proceedings are Quasi Criminal Proceedings is wrong, inaccurate and misleading.

2) Insolvency Proceedings are de facto: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, which are self evident under the Insolvency Act, the Insolvency Act came into Law many centuries ago, and at material time the highest courts in the land affirmed the Bankruptcy Proceedings are Criminal Proceedings.

3) The Bankruptcy Court is the only Court in the regime and under the umbrella of the “Chancery Division” Civil Proceedings Court, which has the power by the “Instrument” is made that AFFECTS the civil liberty and finance of the “subject” person in the minute the Bankruptcy Petition is filed, sealed and registered by the Bankruptcy Court.

4) The making of the Bankruptcy Order “Instrument” put the “subject” under civil (liberty) and financial (properties) arrest.

5) The Insolvency Act gives the Bankruptcy Court the jurisdiction and power to arrest the “subject” physically and for life.

6) The Insolvency Proceedings are governed on strict compliance of Bankruptcy Petition under the Insolvency Act 1986 and Rules encompassed under the Act.

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING: UNDER SECTION 264 I.A. 1986

“264. Who may present a bankruptcy petition

(2) A petition for a bankruptcy order to be made against an individual may be presented to the court in accordance with the following provisions of this Part- (a) by one of the individual’s creditor or jointly by more than one of them, (b) by the individual himself”

“266. Other preliminary conditions

164

(1) Where a bankruptcy petition relating to an individual is presented by a person who is entitled to present a petition under two or more paragraphs of section 264(1), the petition is to be treated for the purposes of this Part as a petition under such one of those paragraphs as may be specified in the petition.

(2) A bankruptcy petition shall not be withdrawn without the leave of the court.”

“267. Grounds of creditor’s petition

(3) A creditor’s petition must be in respect of one or more debts owed by the debtor, and the petitioning creditor or each of the petitioning creditors must be a person to whom the debt or (as the case may be) at least one of the debts is owed.

(4) Subject to the next three sections, a creditor’s petition may be presented to the court in respect of a debt or debts ONLY IF, at the time the petition is presented- (a) The amount of the debt, or the aggregate amount if the debts, is equal to or exceeds the

bankruptcy level, (b) The debt, or each of the debts, is for a liquidated sum payable to the petitioning creditor, or

one or more of the petitioning creditors, wither immediately or at some certain, future time, and is unsecured,

(c) The debt, or each of the debts, is a debt which the debtor appears either to be unable to pay or to have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay, and

(d) There is no outstanding application to set aside a statutory demand served (under section 268 below) in respect of the debt or any of the debts.”

“268. Definition of “inability to pay”, etc; the statutory demand

(2) For the purpose of section 267(2)(c), the debtor appears to be unable to pay a debt if, but only if, the debt is payable immediately and either- (c) The petitioning creditor to whom the debt is owed has served on the debtor a demand

(known as “the statutory demand”) in the prescribed from requiring him to pay the debt or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor, at least 3 weeks have elapsed since the demand was served and the demand has been neither complied with nor ser aside in accordance with the rules, or

(d) Execution or other process issued in respect of the debt on judgment or order of any court in favour of the petitioning creditor, or one or more of the petitioning creditors to whom the debt is owed, has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.

“271. Proceedings on creditor’s petition

(2) The court shall not make a bankruptcy order on a creditor’s petition unless it is satisfied that the debt, or one of the debts, in respect of which the petition was presented is either- (c) A debt which, having been payable a the date of the petition or having since become

payable, has been neither paid nor secured or compounded for, or (d) A debt which the debtor has no reasonable prospect of being able to pay when it falls due.”

In addition to the above in the public interest and safety, there are strict rules under the regime of the Insolvency Act 1986, Part 6 of the Rules, governing the strict requirement of the proceeding of a creditor Bankruptcy Petition against an individual.

Rule “6.8 Identification of debt

(3) There shall be stated in the petition, with reference to every debt in respect of which it is presented- (c) The amount of the debt, the consideration for it (or, if there is no consideration , the way in

which it arise) and the fact that it is owed to the petitioner; (d) When the debt was incurred or became due;...

(3) If the case is within section 268 (1)(b) (debt arising under judgment or order of court; execution returned unsatisfied), the court from which the execution or other process issued shall be specified, and particulars shall be given relating to the return.”

165

7) As stated above that unless the strict Rules have been complied with, the Court Service, Chancery Division “Bankruptcy Court” has no jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order unless it is satisfied that all the provisions under the Act and the Rules are complied with. (Section 271 I.A. 1986)

8) The making of a Bankruptcy Order under the Act had created and established automatically in Law the following position, namely: a) The “subject” (debtor) is under Civil (liberty) and financial (properties) arrest in the meaning of Section

436 I.A. 1986 “Expressions used generally”. b) The Official Receiver becomes the Trustee of the “subject” (debtor) appointed by Law. c) The “subject” (debtor) becomes automatically by Law first and dominant “creditor” of the estate.

The Trustee does become only the manager of the estate in Law “not the owner”

9) The Trustee is under duty and obligation in Law to Act in the interest of the creditors, and the estate, which in Insolvency Act at the time of the appointment in Law the only valid creditor is the “subject” to investigate the validity of the Bankruptcy Proceedings.

10) Any other creditors become a creditor in Law under the Act only after the debt is admitted in Law.

11) The principle of the above is that the Official Receiver‟s duty and obligation to the sole (the only one) creditor of the estate, which is the subject to investigate and make a finding: a) The validity of the debt presented in the Bankruptcy Petition b) To investigate the validity of the Bankruptcy Order in accordance to Section 271 I.A. 1986 c) To admit the “proof of debts” filed in writing on the description form, signed by the Trustee (Official

Receiver) d) That the “subject” (debtor) is Insolvent in Law Failing to comply with the fundamental above obligations amounts to NEGLIGENCE by the Official Receiver “in the capacity of the Trustee appointed by Law”

12) Any delay by the Official Receiver “as Trustee” to comply with his duty and obligation amounts to unlawful arrest, torture and violation of fundamental individual human rights.

13) Any asset and/or realisation of assets prior making a full report required by Law stated above and must be filed in Court, amounts to theft and obtaining properties by deception.

14) The only rights which are in the Official Receiver‟s capacity (acting as Trustee) are to make all efforts, to

ensure that no asset shall disappear.

15) In case that the Official Receiver acting as Trustee had established any irregularity subject to making the Bankruptcy Order in accordance to the Court Service power stated in Section 271 I.A. 1986.

It is the Official Receiver‟s duty and obligation to:

a) File his report in Court b) Alert the Court of any irregularity that occurred in the Proceedings c) File forthwith an application in Court in the interest of the estate and the creditors to minimise the

damage to the estate under Section 282 I.A. 1986, namely: “282. Court’s power to annul bankruptcy order

(1) The court may annul a bankruptcy order if it at any time appears to the court- (a) That, on any grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to

have been made”

Failing to act as stated above amounts to “Misconduct in Public Office”, and is fully responsible for any “wrong doing”.

The above statements and facts are stated in many legal authorities‟ findings and affirmed by many of the highest Courts in the land in the past century.

166

SUMMARY: In the interest of Justice and the Public

The purpose of the true interpretation of the meaning of the Insolvency Proceedings and Parliament intention of the making of the Insolvency Act more than a century ago and all the following amendments express in the amendments was made in the interest of Justice, which was great concern to the public at all and especially of members of the Public affected by Insolvency Proceedings.

1) Affected Members of the Public The affected members of the public in connection of Insolvency Proceedings are:

i) The “subject” (debtor) ii) All members of the “subject‟s” family iii) The wider members of the “subject” (debtor) such as business partners, and any business

relationships

2) The purpose of this Publication The purpose of this publication is to alert the public, the public authorities who purported to act in the interest of Her Majesty under the constitution “Magna Carta”, namely:

i) Her Majesty Member of the Government ii) Her Majesty Parliament “Law Makers” iii) Her Majesty‟s members of House of Lords “Law Makers” iv) Her Majesty‟s Servants and Law enforcement:

1) D.T.I responsible of Insolvency Service 2) Bank of England “Proceed of Crime” 3) Bailiff and/or Sheriff 4) The Police Authorities 5) Legal professional authorities 6) The Institutions responsible of accountants and insolvency

To prevent the abuse of the system, by individuals “dressed up” in an official capacity.

SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE AND TO ENSURE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE OF ABUSE

1) To ensure that every Insolvency Proceeding should be conducted by a “jury trial”.

This will automatically reduce Insolvency Proceedings by more than 50% of Insolvency Proceedings filed in Court, which became an unlawful enforcement of a (purported) debts used mostly as privilege by criminals “dressed up” as professionals, and/or officers of the court.

2) To establish a statutory “ombudsman” under the F.S.A regime, for the public‟s direct access. The existing adjudicator for Insolvency is not worth the paper it is written on, as they do not have any power and remedy to look into and/or to investigate any matter that was an issue presented to the court.

As the above safe guards did not exist for the public, and as far as it exists was denied to the public, especially in the last 15 years which had brought the Insolvency Proceedings to an unreasonable and/or unacceptable level (quantity and quality), which would have not reached the court. In case the proposed safe guards have been in place.

The above would have:

a) saved the Court Service many hundreds and thousands of hours of court time and facilities. b) saved billions of pounds on the public purse. c) given many families the right to enjoy their private life (Article 8 Human Rights).

The author of this document is fully responsible for each and every statement made above in Fact and Law.

I would add on legal expression, which is used by the public.

1) IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA What is the meaning of a good solicitor and excellent solicitor?

a) Good Solicitor: Is a Solicitor who knows the law b) Excellent Solicitor: Is a Solicitor who knows the Judge

167

2) IN THE UNITED KINGDOM I have been told of a person who needed a Solicitor in a criminal matter, who phoned the Law Society and asked if they could advise him of a criminal solicitor, the answer he received was:

I DO NOT KNOW ANY SOLICITOR WHO IS NOT A CRIMINAL

168

On Bankruptcy Proceedings

Exhibit 84: Case law - not “civil proceedings”

169

Exhibit 85: Further quotations from case law: Court of Bankruptcy is “quasi-criminal” in character

170

Exhibit 86: No other court has similar powers

171

Exhibit 87: Further case law

172

Background context regarding Brad Meyer

I am myself in no way professionally or otherwise knowledgeable about law in general or indeed insolvency law specifically. Until now, I have had neither the interest nor a reason to delve deeply into this aspect of the society in which we live.

I do, however, have some capacity and commitments towards helping people communicate and collaborate more effectively than perhaps they were, prior to working with me. With these intentions, I have facilitated meetings in the House of Commons this year on behalf of the Forum for Stable Currencies – whose focus encompasses ‘the legal system’ as a systemically relevant process. You can view the Forum’s website at: http://forumforstablecurrencies.wordpress.com/

And it is through this activity and within this context that I met Mr. Ebert in May, 2009. Mr. Ebert’s experiences over the last 15 years have to my mind been extraordinary and, one would hope, unusual for someone residing in the United Kingdom. As with many complex cases, the discovery process for evidence regarding the details related to the case has taken many years. These are years that Mr. Ebert might well have chosen to spend in another capacity but instead felt driven to use in a manner intended to clear both his family’s name and recover his family’s position in society.

Indeed, Mr. Ebert has felt compelled to discover and convey the truth about what was done (and by whom) leading up to the experiences that befell him in the autumn of 1996. The discovery timeline in relation to his experience has not mirrored the actual event timeline. Thus the arduous process of joining up asynchronous discoveries back into chronological order has elapsed over a very prolonged period of time. This time lapse has greatly exacerbated the difficulties which Mr. Ebert has had in his attempts to piece together and then communicate to others what actually happened.

While what you will have read in this book reflects Mr. Ebert’s current interpretations regarding what happened - and his assertions about this - I have endeavoured to understand each point he makes, have come to generally agree with them and have hopefully helped Mr. Ebert present them here in a simple form, for the fresh eye and brain to understand and consider. I hope also that your own education and experience in such matters means that you are able to appraise the situation more quickly than I did. In the event that you wish to contact me, please send an email to bradmeyer2009@googlemail.com Thank you for your interest.

173

Our objectives now

We have several desired outcomes for this first volume;

1. to advance a workable format for apparent fraud victims to communicate the technical

complexities of their experience in a simple, coherent manner

2. to highlight weak points in the UK societal infrastructure where fraudulent abuse of process

can be leveraged for illicit gain

3. to provide a catalyst for law students, and legal and judicial practitioners to examine and discuss

practical ways to narrow (if not close) the gaps which currently span the boundaries between

the civil, financial, legal, judicial and enforcement branches of government

4. to provide an additional avenue for advancing the review and resolution of the particular cases

presented in the book.

If you believe that this volume has satisfied any of the above four objectives to some degree, please do tell us. Please also tell us what would improve its value and impact in a subsequent release. “Volume 1” has focused on a small subset the opportunity gaps for fraud. There is more to tell. If you want to learn about this, please tell us that you do. If you don‟t, a subsequent volume detailing related insights may not be published.

All that remains is to thank you for your interest in this topic and your willingness to give it a „look in‟. We look forward to your feedback and hope that your reading of this book will have proved very useful to you indeed. Feel free to contact Mr. Ebert using this email address: de8765@hotmail.co.uk

More stories on Room 14 – A Foundation for Change4, Enforcement of Bank of England Act 16945 and Victims Unite! 6

4 http://rm14.wordpress.com/april-23-2009/stories-cases/

5 http://edm1297.info/spiritual-advice-for-victims/our-complaints/

6 http://victims-unite.net/our-cases-as-stories/