This remarkable publication in the Public Interest comes in the spirit of Suzon Forscey-Moore RIP who examined UK law practices as an American lawyer. I also remember the video of one victim whose anger pushed him to damage the Law Society’s company sign, I think. I certainly remember him starting with “What would drive a law abiding citizen to…”
From Miss Anal Sheikh to
- Mr Barry Gardiner MP, Brent North,
- Vote Leave Campaign Committee Members,
- Supreme Court Justices
Dear Mr Nigel Farage and Mr Robert Neill MP
THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION INTO THE BREXIT CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS QUEEN ELIZABETH II AND TO THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH THE RT. HON THE LORD PHILLPS OF MATRAVERS WORTH, THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (3RD OCTOBER 2005-30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 ) (1) AND THE RT. HON. THE LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS, JUSTICE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT (2006 – SEPTEMBER 2013), LORD JUSTICE OF APPEAL AND MEMBER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL (2) INTER ALIA, FOR THE THEFT OF THE TITLE TO 37-47 STOKE NEWINGTON ROAD LONDON N16 8BJ, THE THEFT OF THE SHEIKH CHARGE AND FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (‘THE RED RIVER CONVEYANCING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD’)
My name is Miss Anal Sheikh. I am a solicitor of some twenty years standing. In the case of Anal Sheikh v Law Society HC 2005 Ch , I became the first solicitor in legal history to have succeeded in an application against the Law Society to set aside an intervention into a solicitor’s practice under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974 (or what everyone mistakenly believed was an intervention under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974) . I assert I am a still a solicitor. The UK Government in the case of Anal Sheikh v UK Government  ECHR 649 (23 April 2010) 51144/07 and Ref 28863/11 agreed with me. The Law Society disagrees with me, disagrees with Parliament and disagrees with the UK Government.
My conflict with the Law Society has given me a unique experience of the workings of the Establishment; and the true extent of the unfettered power and influence it wields in the UK.
Attached are two documents which I have lodged in the Supreme Court, and which I believe will be of interest to Mr Farage as a Brexit supporter.
CL1, inter alia a request made to Lord Justice Briggs and to Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers to appear before Parliament to account for their involvement in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud.
CL5, my Third Party Intervention to the Supreme Court in the Brexit Case, which is made ex debito justiciae. An index of my submissions is at Page 8-9 of this letter and a flowchart showing the link between cases is at Page 10.
Mr Neill MP is the Chair of the Justice Committee. He and the other Members of the Justice Committee have been sent the entirety of CL1 and CL3 together with documents in support.
This is copied to my own MP, Mr Barry Gardiner, who after raising the issue of whether judges can now do conveyancing from the Bench with the then Minister of Justice, Mr Kenneth Clarke MP in 2011, has for the past five years refused to acknowledge not only me, but the conveyancing client in question, who is a 90 year old woman and my mother, as his constituents.
First, I show that in their judgment in R (on the application of Miller & Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales made a statement which they knew was false and misleading:
- That legislation enacted by the Crown of both Houses of Parliament is Supreme.
- Parliament can by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses.
- There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen.
As they know very well, Parliament is not the sovereign law making body under the UK’s Constitution – in the UK, judges make the law :
- Parliament has enacted about 40-50 statutory provisions which have been assimilated into the administrative process of conveyancing.
- In the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, Lord Justice Briggs disapplied all 40-50 existing laws or broke the law or made up his own law, eschewing conveyancing practices which have evolved over the course of its 400 year history; 30-40 other judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, agree that what he did was lawful.
- In the so called interventions of solicitors’ practices by the Law Society, which are no more than raids and burglaries of the law firms, the judiciary have disapplied the Solicitors. Act 1974 for over 50 years .
- In the Theft of Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and Half Acres of Land the judiciary have disapplied the Legal Aid Act 1988.
- In the case of Grace Mekarska, the judiciary have disapplied the Protection of Eviction Act 1977.
- In the case of Tariq Rehman v The Bar Council, the judiciary have disapplied the Legal Services Act 2007.
The second point I make is that
1) if the Lord Chief Justice and a Lord Justice of Appeal could use their judicial function to steal the title to a development site from a conveyancing solicitor and her client (The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud)
2) if a County Court Judge could steal an unencumbered title from a member of the public appearing in court in a small claims dispute, leaving her homeless and destitute, unable to obtain a remedy for over a quarter of a century (The Theft Margaret Gomm’s Home and Three and Half Acres of Land)
3) if a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Henderson (who was also involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud), could steal an unencumbered title from single woman who, four years later, is still sleeping in the streets or couch surfing (The case of Grace Mekarska)
4) if over 50 judges can commit a transparent insurance fraud protecting an insurance company in which they all have shares (The Bar Mutual Fraud), how can the public be certain that the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales was not governed by private financial incentives or considerations, or that the Supreme Court judgment will not be similarly governed.
The problem is more pernicious than it would be if this were simple judicial bribery and corruption for personal gain.
In EC UN CORE I show that in the UK, judgments are not made to do justice between the parties, but are made with a political and financial agenda:
- Solicitors’ firms have been closed down to deprive the public of access to justice (Law Society cases)
- Legal aid has been withdrawn to deprive the public of access to justice
- Insurance companies are protected
- Money which could be used for schools, hospitals, legal aid and for other social welfare is wasted on sham or non existent hearings. The cost of the application for registration in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud would have been about £25.00 (twenty five pounds) in a solicitor’s office. I have estimated the cost to the taxpayer of the 9 ‘hearings’ which took place in September and October 2007 to commit the fraud, was £100,000.00. The total cost to the taxpayer of all 200 ‘hearings’ is about £10m. The Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud is only one fraud committed in the civil justice system. Extrapolating from the above statistics, the cost of all of the sham proceedings taken over a 10 year period is £100,108.45 billion.
- The fact that development sites are targeted for theft may suggest that there is a policy of enlarging the renting market and reducing owner occupied properties.
- Victims of property theft are converted from solvent, employed, wealthy individuals into unemployed, dispossessed, asset less people who are destined to be dependent on State benefits for the remainder of their lives.
On 16th November, I sent CL1 and CL3 to each Member of the Justice Committee, together with about 1,500 pages of evidence and legal arguments. The material was sent at 7.11am.
Later on the same day, at 2.16pm , I received the following response from the Clerk to the Committee:
Dear Miss Sheikh
Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, has asked me to let you know that the Committee will be taking no action in response to your request.
Mr Neill had apparently prioritised the matter before all other Committee work and (assuming he had started work at 10am) within about 4 hours, had read all 1500 pages, mastered all the relevant disciplines which, to name a few, would have included commercial conveyancing law and practice, development law and practice, company law and practice, High Court civil litigation, criminal law and money laundering; and had concluded there was nothing for the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Briggs to answer.
My thesis in CL1 and CL5 is that the constitutional principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and judicial independence exist in the UK only in the realms of constitutional theory.
In reality there is no separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary in the UK. Judges bring about the enacting of laws which are specifically designed to make it easier for them to steal land and property from ordinary people, while Parliament sits by and does nothing.
To prove or disprove my thesis, would Mr Neill please respond to the following questions:
1. Does he consider himself to be conflicted by the following facts and matters
He was one of MPs who condemned the newspaper attacks on judges after the Brexit ruling. His publicly stated position is that
Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse.
He can see from my materials that judicial corruption permeates the entire judicial system from Magistrates Courts right up to the Privy Council.
About £1m worth of property is processed every minute at the Land Registry and there is one property transaction every 9 seconds. There are hundreds of millions of transactions transacted every year.
For so long the Fraudulent Instrument of 2nd, which was the vehicle of theft used in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud, is capable of being made and is capable being treated by the Land Registry as a court order, these are the consequences:
- 5 million people will be displaced every day. Assuming 25% can pay for hotel accommodation for a single night or have alternative accommodation or can stay with friends, 4 million people will have to sleep rough. The temperatures in April 2013 when I wrote a letter to Lord Judge, were as low as -5 degrees at night . How many people will have died in the time it took for Lord Judge to have read my letter? How many people will have died in the time it took for Lord Judge to have opened the envelope?
- In 10 days, the entire population of the UK will be made homeless.
- In 1 year, the entire asset base of UK will have disappeared.
Is he saying they should all lodge appeals?
2) Mr Neill was a former member of the barristers chambers, 2 Bedford Row. At EC UN CORE PAGE 678-679 I show that barristers’ chambers which are involved in serious organised fraud are structured like criminal cells, affording their members complete immunity from claims, prosecutions and regulation. There appears to be a link between certain chambers and certain types of economic frauds, which raises the question of whether chambers acquire monopolies to commit crime through the courts. Does Mr Neill consider himself to be compromised by the fact that Mr Philip Newman, a current member of 2 Bedford Row, was involved in the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and in the Bar Mutual Fraud ?
3) The General Council of the Bar (and the Law Society of England and Wales) are at the heart of serious organised fraud in the UK and any barrister who challenges them does so at his professional and personal peril. That is why no barrister dares speak out. Is Mr Neill too frightened to speak out?
The Justice Committee have been given the opportunity to dismantle the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud in its entirety. Mr Neill’s refusal to examine Lord Philips and Lord Justice Briggs means that it will continue unchecked. Can it be said that Mr Neill is now also guilty of the criminal offences committed by Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Briggs?
Finally, as a barrister, Mr Neill should have no difficulty in seeing that the judiciary were instrumental in the River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and in the SRA Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. and if that is not apparent to him, there should be real concern about his Chairmanship of the Justice Committee, not to mention the conduct of his barristerial work.
 The Vote Leave Board
- Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Chairman)
- Martin Bellamy
- Harriet Bridgeman
- Peter Cruddas
- Nigel Dodds MP
- Suzanne Evans
- Lord Forsyth
- Alan Halsall
- Daniel Hodson
- Bernard Jenkin MP
- Christopher Montgomery
- Jon Moynihan
- Graham Stringer MP
- Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP
- Victoria Woodcock Committee
- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener)
- Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive)
- Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director)
- Steve Baker MP
- Ian Davidson
- Nigel Dodds MP
- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP,
- Rt Hon Frank Field MP
- Lord Forsyth
- Rt Hon Liam Fox MP
- Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
- Dan Hannan MEP
- Boris Johnson MP
- Paul Keetch
- Lord Lawson
- Andrea Leadsom MP
- John Longworth
- Lord Owen
- Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
- Dominic Raab MP
- Graham Stringer MP
- Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP
- Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP.
 Land Registration Act 2002
- s123 (suppression of information )
- s124 (improper alteration)
Law of Property Act 1925
- s 183 (fraudulent concealment)
The Solicitor’s Act 1974
- s22 (conveyancing other than by a solicitor)
Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889
- s.1 (Corruption in public office)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
- s.327 ( Concealing criminal property )
- s.328 ( Involvement in arrangements facilitating the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property)
- s.329 (Acquisition, use or possession of criminal property )
- s.330 (Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering: regulated sector
Theft Act 1968) 1968
- s.1 (Theft)
- s 17, False Accounting (making false entry) (omission of material particular) (furnishing false information)
- s.15 ( Obtaining property by deception )
- s.20(2) Procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception
- s.22 Handling stolen goods (receiving, undertaking or assisting the retention etc.
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
- s.1 (Forgery)
- s.2 (Copying false instrument with intent)
- s.3 ( Using a false instrument)
- s.4 (Using a copy of a false instrument)
- s.5 (Custody or control of false instruments etc.)
- s.175 ( Making, custody or control of counterfeiting materials etc.
The Fraud Act 2006
- s. 2 ( fraud by false representation )
- s.3 ( failure to disclose information )
- s 4 ( fraud by abuse of position )
- s 6 ( possession of articles for fraud )
- s 7 (making of articles used for fraud )
Common Law Offences
- Conspiracy to defraud
- Perverting the course of justice
- Fabrication of evidence with a view to misleading a tribunal.