When clicking on Poster 1, 3 pages of evidence open:
- the cover of an ‘approved judgement‘
- the discussion of the arguments where RW “ought to have disclosed”
- a newspaper clipping aboug “Fraud concealing information”.
I.e. the judge should not have permitted the non-disclosure of critical evidence.
When clicking on Poster 2, 8 pages of evidence become available:
- approved judgment
- p. 12: it is well established that refusal to pay a debt, even if one has the money to do it, can justify a bankruptcy order
- Section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986
- Section 269 of the Insolvency Act 1986
- Section 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986
- Decision on the hearing
- Creditor’s Bankruptcy Petition
- Form 6.9
When clicking on Poster 3, 4 pages of evidence become available:
- Judgment Ebert v Midland Bank
- There WAS proof of debt
- Laywers’ Duties
- Evidence in proceedings other than at trial
When clicking on Poster 4, 9 pages of evidence become available:
- Order: Ebert v Trustee in Bankruptcy
- No more actions allowed
- No more legal proceedings
- Order: Ebert v Trustee in Bankruptcy
- No judgment has been entered
- No record of judgment
- From Neuberger to Bankruptcy Trustee
- Letter page 2
- Ruling by Mr Justice Patten
When clicking on Poster 11, 34 pages of evidence open:
- Insolvency case details
- Insolvency case details p.2
- Letter by Insolvency Service
- 22 July 1997 Adjudged Bankrupt
- Endorsement on Order
- 22 July 1997 Order
- Bankruptcy Petition 11216/96
- Total debt allegedly owed
- Bankruptcy Petition 238 SD 96
- Case no 1994 M 1568
- Names of the parties in case 1995 M 1568
When clicking on Poster 12, 16 pages of evidence become accessible.
When clicking on Poster 13, 2 pages of evidence can be viewed.
Pingback: WANTED: Everybody who contributed to a fraudulent bankruptcy of a SOLVENT property company owner | Mr Gedaljahu Ebert – Bankrupted Fraudulently without Jurisdiction
THE SCHEDULE 7 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981-
THE Supreme Court of Jurisdiction & Consolidation Act 1925 was repealed.
There is an Order made in the High Court of Justice Family Division before Mr Justice East Ham in the Year 1989. Section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 does apply
Section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which has been repealed but has been continued under Schedule 3 Legal Services Act 2007 from the 1st January 2010.
The Lord Chancellor SS Ministry of Justice is liable and responsible Minister of the Crown.
I believe that the above is true.
Yours Faithfully
Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee