Solitary Confinement for “having a big loud mouth”?

Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

English: Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For the attention of Crispin Blunt Esq, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

REF : MR GEDALJAHU EBERT PRISON NUMBER A7669CQ  AT PENTONVILLE LONDON 

Private Office to Crispin Blunt MP
Email:  abigail.culank@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
Telephone:  020 3334 3686 – Fax: 020 3334 3692

Dear Under-Secretary Blunt,

I am writing to you in your capacity as Minister of Prisons to ascertain on what provable grounds is Mr. Gedaljahu Ebert, being held in solitary confinement in London’s Pentonville prison? The Governor is either unable or unwilling to show him the “actual – factual” grounds for his incarceration – other than him overhearing “off the record discussions” that it is because of him “having a big loud mouth” or perhaps for blowing his whistle too loudly about Judicial Corruption at very High Levels [e.g. Lords Justice Neuberger and Patten]; Banking Malpractice and systemic fraud at Land Registry offices up and down the country?

With close to 40 years experience of personally dealing with similar cases/victims – now close to 600 – including fraudulent acts committed by three high street banks and accountants against me in 1971/72 and again in 1974, as the saying goes – the first time it’s happenstance, the second time it’s coincidence, but the third time you know it’s open warfare. Mr. Ebert’s cases follow this all-too familiar pattern. Below and attached is some background information relating to his case/s, proving that there is still something extremely wrong and rotten going on in the name of your Ministry.

As recommended by Nick Clegg and Alex Carlise, I am copying this to Mr Ebert’s Member of Parliament – Mike Freer. Mrs Ebert’s contact details are 0208-905-5209 / 07814-492229.

Thanking you in anticipation of a swift and meaningful response to this appeal in the name of CATCH 42, on behalf of Mr Gedaljahu Ebert, and his distraught family.

Yours sincerely

David M Pidcock
2 Fern Hollow,
Eyam,
Hope Valley,
S32 5PJ
Tel: 01433-631348 / 0750-3210363 / 0771-5678955
pidcockdavid8@gmail.com

Catch 42

 Thrice is he armed, that hath his quarrel just;
 And he but naked though lock’d in steel, where conscience with injustice is corrupted.   ws.

H & H FARM, UPPER HAYESDEN LANE,TONBRIDGE, KENT. TN11 8AA

To: The Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP

6^th August 2012

Attorney General’s Office,
20 Victoria Street,
London,  SW1H 0NF

Dear Mr Grieve,

Ref: Mr. G. Ebert

Catch 42 is a particular interest group and part of a much larger campaign for the preservation of civil liberties against encroachment upon them by the Corporate State we seem to have become.

A couple of years ago and some time before the last general election the writer listened to you speaking at an LSE event. Jack Straw MP had failed to turn up, but Nick Clegg was there, your good self, along with a former Solicitor General, and an eloquent Shami Chakrabati of Liberty. The lecture was about the relevance of Human Rights to this country and the belief in their applicability was pretty well unanimous. There were many fine words expressed that evening.

Reality is often quite different, but in the light of your given views   then and your role now as Attorney General we are writing  on behalf of our member Mr G. Ebert who has been subject to a forged  order under S42 of the supreme court act 1981 that has been  obtained by deception. (See Page 1 to 8)  This order has denied him his automatic right of access to court “indefinitely”, and you have inherited   responsibility for this along with a duty of care towards   him and his family. He has been blamed, as the victim, for the shortcomings of a deeply flawed and fraudulent system and we are asking you for a proper investigation into his case.

Mr Ebert claims that he has never been declared bankrupt by the court as requisite in section 271 of the insolvency act 1986 as no debt existed. (see Page 2 to 7), None the less he and his family have been deprived of their matrimonial home without a  possession  order or a writ of possession (Form 66) as required in law, and the whole matter has been covered up by a couple of senior judges using a string of orders made without  supporting evidence of any kind. Indeed such was their enthusiasm for this procedure, that at one point two contradictory orders were made for the same hearing. (See Page 1 to 8). At least one of them at Page 2 and 4 must be a forgery but nothing was ever done about it.   We have seen Mr. Ebert’s irrefutable evidence to this and other facts and it does not look at all good as far as the integrity of the legal process or the court service is concerned.

As a result of the above Mr Ebert had enforced his statutory right, as the owner of the property in both fact and law, by painting his name on what he believes to be his property.  He was promptly arrested and charged with Criminal Damage in spite of the Police evidence shown to be clearly wrong and made up.

After an initial “hearing” in the Magistrates Court the case came up for an appeal and re trial on 6^th   & 7^th June 2012 and was heard by Wood Green Crown Court (Judge Ader).   It was a travesty.  The public consisted of several individuals, some acting as observers who went on to witness what can only be described as an outcome driven hearing  with the said  Judge  being in contempt of his own court.  He excluded Mr Ebert’s evidential bundle by refusing to allow an adjourned application from May 23^rd   2012 bringing it in.  However he accepted the CPS barrister’s evidential papers, whose word was taken over and above   that, of Mr Ebert regarding the supposed service of these documents on him (Ebert) on 14 March 2012.  This “service” was later shown not to have happened, and the Judge was found colluding with the CPS via a secret   note passed up during the hearing.  He was then forced to read it out by the intervention from one of the public observer’s.  Its contents were reluctantly revealed, but the Judge left undisclosed   the fact that the CPS was really asking for the return of their said “served papers” as they rather inconveniently had the date 30^th May 2012 (Jubilee Weekend) on them and not March 14^th.2012

In fact Mr Ebert had only received these very relevant papers on the evening of the 6 June 2012 after he had returned home from the first days hearing, halfway through the case. This was delivered only then  in spite of the fact that these papers and this service had been  subject to two different Court Order’s one  that it be served on the 14^th March 2012 within the  hour, and then again in default by another court order to serve on 23^rd May 2012 in the afternoon.  Neither order was complied with, with no ramifications for anyone except Mr Ebert (see Page 9 to 10) In any  event many of the documents supplied on the 6 June were missing including The Police CRIS  Report, Land Registry Letter of 27 March 2001 and letter of 31 May 2012. It was quite clear that this Judge (Ader) was intent on skewing this case with his own  ulterior motive in mind.  Perhaps to curry favour and protect his higher Brethren.

In his summing up Judge Ader, who had refused to state a case, made several dishonest observations to come to his conclusion to dismiss the appeal.  At the time he had to make a decision regarding the ownership of the property.  This was “the only material fact in issue is who owns 23 Cranbourne Gardens” to take the Judges own words from the transcript (see Transcript Page 8 at B) However he singularly failed to explore this as did the CPS  who also failed to provide any evidence to justify their charges and contentions.  Instead they  declined  to do the obvious which was to ask for the documentary evidence still held by the solicitors acting in the purchase.  E.g.  Any  evidence of lawful registration of the property at the Land Registry i.e.  Application for Change of Ownership (AP1) Signed Transfer (TR1) and any supporting evidence to justify a valid change of ownership including any evidence of payment, signed sale contract etc. In its place and not wishing to be confronted with the truth the Judge claimed to be convinced by the verbal evidence of the present occupier of the property who was witness and could remember little of the transaction insisting that it all happened too long ago.

Of course the reason none of these documents were filed in court and served on Mr Ebert as required under the rule of law was that they would have exposed criminal activity from within the system and that would never do.  Hence the Judges reluctance, even to the point of perverting the cause of Justice..

This conduct of the  Court is I am afraid part of a  culture that now envelops  the  Judiciary, Legal profession, Police, Land Registry and the Financial  Institutions all acting together in one  lucrative conspiracy with  many  thousand  members  of  the public their unfortunate victims,

We would be grateful for your investigation into Mr Ebert’s case.  It is in the public interest to ensure that the rule of law prevails and that justice is seen to be done.

Mr Ebert is currently awaiting sentencing

Yours sincerely,

For and on behalf

Of catch 42

Cc  Mr  G Ebert

Enc:

supporting documentation

Transcript of summary dated 18^th June 2012

SEE ALSO ATTACHED TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

Related articles

• What is worse: getting your home or your children stolen? (victims-unite.net)
• Twelve weeks imprisonment: how victims are being criminalised, while criminals occupy the moral high ground (mrebert.wordpress.com)