Gedaljahu Ebert (no. 4)

This fraudulent bankruptcy has been documented extensively in The Forensics of Legal Fraud by Brad Meyer and Gedaljahu Ebert.

How his bankruptcy has forced him to take the law into his own hands by means of a citizens arrest, is the subject of this 34-minute presentation of videos referring to this document of invitation and evidence.

His case is listed as no. 4 under Grouping Cases to Enforce the Bank of England Act 1694 and introduces himself on video to our meeting at the House of Lords in March 2010.

The Citizens Arrest that he attempted on 22 February 2011 was recorded on video here.

Here’s the news release that I produced for the occasion.

And here’s the website focussing on his dilemma.

12 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Nicholas Lalvani
    Feb 23, 2011 @ 10:02:12

    Please send my best wishes to Mr Ebert in his fight for justice. I find it heartbreaking when people in Public Service use their positions to further their own wealth and power. I think everyone needs to be aware of the sedimentation of power and how it can act in an unlawful way.

    Reply

  2. Sabine Kurjo McNeill
    Feb 14, 2012 @ 17:43:10

    You are invited to look at the fact in Volume 1 of The Forensics of Legal Fraud. It teaches you a LOT about what banks, court staff and solicitors get up to!

    Reply

  3. peter oakes
    Feb 15, 2012 @ 11:07:55

    Who is this Anonymous idiot ? ???.

    I personaly obtained a reply from the Land Registry that clearly states
    Baruch enterprises- Baruch family never ! owned Eberts house.

    I have copies of letters by Rudi Viz MP to Irvine of Lairge ( another scottish
    traitor) clearly stating ” there are serious allegations of fraud by Lord Justice
    Nueberger ” To. David Blunkett Home secretary ” these issues are fundamental to our democracy etc ” these are facts out of many facts !

    And My case is genuine and I have the proof ! of state kidnapping by
    Butler-Sloss, Malicious Bankruptcy to destroy citizens that expose the
    legal mafia. google: Gorsey Hey Masonic Home re: Hansard debate
    House of Commons: These are facts anonymous, not your usual drivel.

    Are You a Mafia member Anonymous ?? trying to discredit Victims Unite with
    your obvious dishonest clap-trap.

    And as for jews stealing from Jews the biggest thief exposed on Public Record
    Court Documents is Master of The Rolls & Rabbi Nueberger. Now arsehole
    Anonymous that should be libel if it is not true ! Why dont you send it to
    Rabbi Nueberger. so he can sue me !

    Reply

    • Sabine Kurjo McNeill
      Feb 15, 2012 @ 12:17:07

      Thanks, Peter, you know better than I do.

      Mr Anonymous is too keen to spread his lies too far and too often.

      Hence I deleted his comments after discussion with others thinking of Stephen Fry and his rules of engagement.

      Reply

  4. Anonymous
    Feb 15, 2012 @ 16:58:10

    Sabine.
    Lies ??

    Everything I have said is true. You hae deleted the facts and I guess that makes a joke of your whole campaign. Perhaps you are another one who lives in fantasy land and who fails to face the reality.

    Reply

    • Sabine Kurjo McNeill
      Feb 15, 2012 @ 17:34:09

      I have asked you whether you’d like to provide the evidence in private or in public. To claim ‘truth’ without evidence isn’t enough.

      A comment on my site isn’t enough ‘reality’ either, I’m afraid, to justify defamation – whether of myself or any of the victims I give space to.

      Reply

  5. Anonymous
    Feb 16, 2012 @ 17:56:55

    Sabine
    I am happy ready and willing to show you incriminating evidence against Mr. Ebert otherwise known here as Peter Oakes.

    I have the following conditions
    1. My name and details remain confidential and not shown at any point to Ebert.
    2. Once I show you the evidence both written and direct you in the right directions and you conclude what will be obvious in that Ebert has conned you , that you will make it known on this site and not allow Ebert any access to this site .

    If I am going to waste time on this I need to know that you are not one sided and will be happy to see and digest evidence against Ebert.

    The evidence will include
    1. His suspicion for fraud in Israel
    2. Details of his debts and creditors in Germany including selling merchandise he bought wholesale cheaper then wholesale price because he had no intention of ever paying wholesaler.
    3. Details of him defrauding his partner in Liverpool and fabricating expenses.
    4. Details of fabricated repair invoices produced to landlords in so called expenses and repairs.
    5. statements from builders against invoices who confirm that they either never carried out the work or inflated the invoices as requested by Mr. Ebert in order to give Ebert a kick back. This was to hide from his partner the true cost of expenses.
    6. Copy of Liverpool city council letter confirming that Ebert defrauded in rents.
    7. Contacts in the business community and in Jewish community who will back up with stories about Ebert and different type of fraud he has committed. He owes considerable amount of people considerable money.

    There are many more issues to list but I would be going on forever as the eloits of this man go far and beyond.I believe my offer is reasonable and I look forward to hear from you.

    Reply

  6. David M Pidcock
    Mar 06, 2013 @ 11:48:56

    MR / MS OR MISS ANONYMOUS? IT’S CLEAR YOU DID NOT GO TO SPEC- SAVERS! I KNOW BOTH MR PETER OAKS, AND MR.GEDAJAHU EBERT, PERSONALLY AND HAVE REVIEWED AND INVESTIGATED THEIR CLAIMS, ALL OF WHICH ARE LEGITIMATE – AND REGRETTABLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TREATMENT STILL BEING HANDED OUT RIGHT ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN THE 21ST CENTURY – READ THE ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF CHARLES DICKENS – AND OR THE 3 TRIALS OF WILLIAM HONE, FROM WHICH YOU WILL SEE THAT THE BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS STILL “ROTTEN TO THE CORE” AND WITNESS WHAT HONE DESCRIBED AS:
    “THE WANTONNESS OF IMPUNITY” PLEASE BRING YOU EVIDENCE TO AN APPOINTED PLACE OF YOUR CHOOSING – THE PROOF OF WHAT YOU CLAIM – THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WOULD SUIT US ALL FINE.
    FOR WE HERE ARE AWARE THAT: “ANONYMITY IS THE FIRST REFUGE FOR LIARS SCOUNDRELS AND DISSEMBLERS.
    DAVID M. PIDCOCK
    LEADER OF THE ISLAMIC PARTY OF BRITAIN

    Reply

  7. David M Pidcock
    Mar 06, 2013 @ 11:56:24

    CORRECTION – SORRY MR/MS/MISS ANONYMOUS – MR PETER OAKES
    AND PLEASE BRING YOUR EVIDENCE – NOT YOU EVIDENCE –
    THANK YOU SPEC -SAVERS

    Reply

  8. David M Pidcock
    Mar 06, 2013 @ 11:59:32

    DEAR ANONYMOUS – IT WOULDN’T BE BARUCH BY ANY CHANCE?

    Reply

  9. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee
    Feb 06, 2014 @ 08:53:19

    THE SENIOR COURT ACT 1981 SCHEDULE 7:
    THIS SCHEDULE DID REPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF JURISDICTION AND CONSOLIDATION ACT 1925.

    HOW DOES THE CHANCERY DIVISION JUDGES & MASTERS MAKES ORDERS ON A REPEALED PARLIAMENT ACT STATUTE.

    THERE IS AN ORDER MADE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BEFORE MR JUSTICE EAST HAM WHO HAD VARIED THE ORDER MADE ON THE 26TH AUGUST 1988 BEFORE MR JUSTICE HOLLIS.

    THERE ARE TIME LIMITS UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 SECTION 9 AND 24 AS THERE IS A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

    SINCE THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS HAD EXPIRED FROM THE 26TH AUGUST 1988-

    THE LAWYERS-BARRISTERS WHO HAD APPLIED FOR THE GREEP & LOAM ORDER, THEY DID BREACH THEIR DUTY TO THE COURT AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, AS THEY ARE PETTI-FOGGERS PERSONS.

    THE MEANING OF THE WORDS:-
    ON AN APPLICATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR A SECTION 42 OF THE SCA 1981 ORDER-

    THIS DOES NOT STATE THAT A BARRISTER OR SOLICITOR SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER.

    THE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE SCA 1981 ARE MADE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT- DIVISIONAL COURT-
    ONCE AN ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THAN THE PERSON CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE ANY HIGH COURT JUDGE.

    THE TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 IS A STATUTORY ACT WHICH HAD BEEN ENACTED AFTER THE SENIOR COURT ACT 1981-
    THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IS A SENIOR COURT OF RECORD
    THE CROWN COURT IS A SENIOR COURT OF RECORD

    THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) SECTION 53 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 DOES ALSO APPLY-

    THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (HC BILL 169)
    IT DOES STATE THAT A PERSON DOESN’T COMMIT AN OFFENCE BY REPORTING THE CRIME-

    THE WORD OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT
    AS A PERSON DOESN’T BECOME A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BY REPORTING TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR AGAINST THE DEPUTY MASTER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR REFUSING TO HAVE SECOND APPEALS LISTED UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 1999.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

    Reply

  10. David (Daud Musa) Pidcock
    Feb 06, 2014 @ 10:16:40

    DEAR ISMAIL SAHIB, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIMELY INPUT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEND YOU THE LATEST CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THIS ISSUE – WHERE ARE YOU LOCATED? PLEASE CONTACT ME SO WE CAN MEET ON 01433-631348 OR 0750-3210363.
    YOURS SINCERELY
    DAVID PIDCOCK

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,678 other followers

%d bloggers like this: