SHETREET v SHARP ELECTRONICS GROUP AND HOGAN LOVELLS, AND THE WORST STATE AND CORPORATE CORRUPTION IN UK, US AND EU HISTORY

THE ORIGINAL ECtHR DOCUMENT BELOW WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL PASTED DOCUMENTS BELOW IT INCLUDES 69 PAGES, PARAGRAPHS 7 - 9 AND A FEW WORDS IN OTHER PARAGRAPHS WERE REDACTED IN ORDER TO PREVENT CENSORSHIP, NOT DUE TO ANY FEAR OF PROSECUTION OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN EITHER US AND/OR UK.  THE FULL UNEXPURGATED DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE BY REQUEST FROM ITS AUTHOR, EMAIL REQUESTS FOR FULL DOCUMENT TO elad.shetreet@googlemail.com OR TELEPHONE 0044 (0) 7847362920. 

WEBSITE SURFERS TO THIS SITE ARE REQUESTED TO PUBLICISE THIS IMPORTANT WEBSITE TO AS MANY OTHER WEB USERS AS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE CENSORSHIP OF THIS CASE BY THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA

BELOW THE ECtHR DOCUMENTS IS THE LIST OF CASE EXHIBITS AVAILABLE IN THE FOLDERS BELOW, AND BELOW THE LIST OF EXHIBITS IS EXHIBIT 8.1, THE FORENSIC TRANSLATION OF SHARP AND HOGAN LOVELLS ADVERTORIAL AGAINST SHETREET THAT WAS ADDED TO CASE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT WAS  TOTALLY NULLIFIED BY ALL CASE JUDGES DUE TO JUDICIAL BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OFFENCES _____________________________________________________________________

20 December 2010

European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France

Mr Elad Shetreet
95 Malvern Rd
London NW6 5PU
UK

Email elad.shetreet@googlemail.com
Tel 0044 (0) 7847 362920

Application no. 7369/08
Shetreet v UK

SHETREET v UK CASE UPDATE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLEADING DISPLACING ALL THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT PLEADINGS ONLY, NOT EXHIBITS, AND RELEVANT TO THE PENDING ECtHR EXTRADITION APPLICATIONS v UK OF ABU HAMZA, ABU QUATADA AKA OTHMAN, POTENTIALLY OF JULIAN ASSANGE, FOUNDER OF WIKILIEAKS, RESISTING EXTRADITION TO US DIRECTLY OR VIA SWEDEN, AND BY ALL OTHER MUSLIMS AND POLITICAL DISSIDENTS APPLYING AGAINST UK AT ECtHR, AND BY ALL APPLICATIONS FROM EUROPE OVERALL RESISTING DIRECT AND/OR INDIRECT EXTRADITION TO ROGUE USA, PER CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE, AND/OR ECtHR APPLICATIONS RESISTING EXTRADITION TO AND/OR FROM ROGUE UK, GIVEN THE TOTAL ABROGATION OF THE RULE OF LAW, JUDICIAL AND POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND RENUNCIATION OF ECHR ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 AND 14 AND OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF ANY LAWFUL JUDICIAL CIVIL AND/OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WHATEVER COMPELLINGLY DEMONSTRATED BY THIS MACABRE INTERNATIONAL US AND UK CASE

1. Substantive and general case summary:

1.1. This entire document is under statement of truth and written oath and thereby under UK law is under penalty of perjury prosecution if anything stated by me is disputed.  I hereby publicly challenge Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge and the US and UK Attorneys General, SHARP and Hogan Lovells to prosecute me before a jury for alleged ‘perjury’ if they dispute anything stated in this document.

1.2. Below extraordinary situation of the total self-criminalisation and abrogation of the rule of law by US and UK regimes and of ECHR by UK regime by direct instructions and criminal perpetration of the US and UK Attorneys General was caused by the multinational corporate fraud and bribery, injurious and violent offences against Shetreet since age 13 by Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd, SHARP group of companies overall and their Washington DC headquartered American and international law firm and co-defendant in case since 2004/5 Hogan Lovells and managing partners Warren Gorrell and David Harris who are also the worst offenders in case.

1.3. The additional leading offenders in case are the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary who since the admitted by UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints and not denied by any judge or any other party, judicial bribery offence against me in Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd (hence “SHARP”) and Hogan Lovells (for multiannual corporate fraud and bribery in case in Israel, case started in Israel originally about my catastrophic chronic toxic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by a defective SHARP product that caused the publication of two peer reviewed journal articles about my above injury by SHARP and likewise were relied upon by the EU and caused the enactment of EU RoHS Directive, acronym of Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment, and SHARP admitted injury causation but refused to accept service of the proceedings of my case against Sharp Corporation and its two dummy company local importers that traded as “SHARP” in Israel by fraud and bribery) after he judged in my favour (see Exhibit 6.1) at UK court case outset in 2005 and attempted to extort from me a kickback outside of the courtroom but in the court building in London and then irrationally reversed his judgement in my favour in ‘revenge’ for my naive noncompliance, as I thought judicial bribery was unlawful.  Master Miller was forced to prematurely ‘retire’ from the judiciary and in order to cover-up Miller’s crime and their embarrassment and murder me in the process all the subsequent UK judges to deal with me, even in NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, censorship injunction to cover-up the crimes against me by US and UK regimes, where I was the defendant, maliciously declared that I was vermin and that all crimes are legal against me, and even issued an unlawful and unlawfully extended twice Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) injunction baring me all right to go to law for any reason since 2005 to date that was never discharged upon my applications to do so even when I was unlawfully detained and tortured during multiple periods from 2006 to 2010 and my medical privacy violated in the Mail on Sunday and beyond in 2006 and in the Observer and Guardian online by the NHS, FTAC et al from 2007- 2010, and which unlawful ECRO was judicially abused to prohibit me from going to law overall on the basis that all past, present and future crimes are legal against me forever and that I was officially judicially declared to be vermin and that all UK courts officially state ‘no entrance for Elad Shetreet and other vermin’, which was more than a judicial declaration of war against me and the rule of law and the renunciation by UK of ECHR, it is a de facto Nuremberg Laws and Final Solution regime against me and a Nazi style judicial boycott against all my legal rights and my livelihood, even though even Nazi judges were not as remotely as biased and unlawful against the Jews in Nazi Germany at any stage, and turned my life into a holocaust and strategic thermonuclear dust and ashes.  Once I was helpless, unable to go to law to protect myself with claims and applications for injunctions and monetary compensation, and under the unlawful and unlawfully abused ECRO that was never discharged, even when I was being repeatedly since 2006 unlawfully detained and tortured and falsely arrested without conviction, UK regime, also on behalf of US regime due to the Washington DC headquarters of Hogan Lovells and other political reasons, commenced to repeatedly unlawfully detain and torture me by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man and a number of false arrests by the Met Police and City of London Police and the KGB like psychiatric department of the Met Police, FTAC, without any conviction, including by making against me totally fraudulent sexual smear allegations, not to criminal courts but to rogue regime psychiatrists, that further prove that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is innocent (see Exhibits 22 – 2009 admissions at High Court in London by UK Attorney General and NHS of my total sanity by US and UK regime, and Exhibit 198 – 2010 judgement in my favour against the Met Police by the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission regarding the false sexual allegations and unlawful psychiatric detentions of a sane man and torture based on same), in order to divert and conceal me from the criminal justice system and a jury trial and the ensuing news coverage and corporate, judicial and political corruption scandal, in response to my very rational indeed deliberate provocations in order to gain access to a jury trial in order to publicise the corporate, political and judicial crimes against me since age 13 to date such as by declaring myself the Ambassador of and member of (redacted), violations of the UK ‘glorification of terrorism’ and US ‘support for terrorism’ laws, my protest at UK Parliament in 2006 that closed it down for an hour and for which I was arrested under the UK Terrorism Act but never prosecuted and much more, see paragraphs 7 – 9 regarding my previous and additional provocations, for which Muslims in US and UK, such as Abu Hamza, are routinely frivolously prosecuted for at the drop of a hat and even sent to Camp Guantanamo, yet US and UK regime refuse to prosecute me for these provocations before a jury or unlawfully detain me at Camp Guantanamo because they are so desperate to avoid any publicity whatever about this case.  This blatant discrimination against Muslims proves that all the terrorism and comparable offences in respect of which UK prosecutes and US seeks extradition from UK and rest of Europe, per case of Abu Hamza and soon probably Julian Assange, directly and already via Sweden by false sexual smear allegations comparable to those made against me, that were also made against me by US and UK regimes, are bogus, politically and maliciously motivated and in violation of ECHR Articles 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination, 5 – Prohibition of unlawful detention and 6 – Right to a fair hearing, which as this case proves is unavailable in both US and UK both civil and criminal justice systems.  This case also proves that no one can be extradited from Europe to US or UK due to the most blatant abrogation by US and UK regimes of ECHR Article 3 – Prohibition of torture, and the Statute of Rome Article 8 War Crimes, prohibition of forcible medical experimentation.  However and importantly, on 13 January 2010 Met Police arrested me for “bomb hoax” and alleged threat “to blow up the Royal Courts of Justice with a truck bomb” and also retroactively to November 2009 arrested me for blackmail against SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime to which I confessed to police during my above arrest and demanded they prosecute me for same, and UK regime did reluctantly subsequently charge me in April and prosecute me in September 2010 for the minor charge of malicious communication that does not require a jury and the Met Police and CPS advised Westminster Magistrates Court that I was totally sane and mentally fit and well to be a defendant, as did NHS itself and UK Attorney General in their civil actions against me at High Court in London.  The entire abuse of forcible psychiatry against me was based on nothing more than pseudo-psychiatric deliberately and knowingly fraudulent sadistic mockery and character assassination by UK regime rogue charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists (the only non-NHS independent psychiatrist who examined me, funded by legal aid, not by me, declared me totally sane, Exhibits 22, and this was the only psychiatric document about me that UK Attorney General and NHS relied on and exhibited when they civilly sued me at High Court as of 2009), there was never any diagnosis against me that would stand up in a court before a jury and was in blatant violation of the UN Torture Convention and UN Chemical Weapons Convention due to the forcible toxic injections by psychiatrists that severely injured me.  As of 2009, the UK public health service NHS and its body Westminster PCT issued a High Court censorship injunction against me in order to cover-up their crimes against me, and likewise as of a few weeks later in 2009, UK Attorney General also civilly sued me to permanently prohibit me forever from going to law for any reason by fraudulently alleging that I was “vexatious” against SHARP and Hogan Lovells in 2004/5 in order to thereby legalise all past, present and future crimes against me forever, (see Exhibits 216) yet he refused to comply with UK discovery and disclosure laws in respect of me and his legal action against me, as did of course SHARP and Hogan Lovells since global case outset to date, as did NHS Westminster PCT when they sued me, as did UK Ministry of Justice, UK Foreign Office, US Attorney General, US Dept of Justice, US Embassy in London and all other disclosure requested by me branches of US and UK regimes. As exhibited in Exhibits 216, UK Attorney General even paradoxically with his claim that I was “vexatious” against SHARP and Hogan Lovells in 2004/5 and that all my legal actions are of ‘no merit’, invited me to take legal action against him via the bogus UK Information Commissioner and thereby also invited me to take legal action against him directly in order to force him to comply with UK discovery and disclosure laws in respect of me and his legal action against me and thereby the UK Attorney General openly admitted foul play against me on behalf of and in complicity with SHARP and Hogan Lovells and others, that Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was lost only due to the misdirected judicial vendetta and judicial fraud and perjury against me due to the admitted and notorious in informed circles judicial bribery offences against me in 2005 by subsequently prematurely ‘retired’ High Court judge Master Miller, and that forcible psychiatry was abused against a sane man in order to torture and injure him to death and divert and conceal him away from the criminal justice system and a jury trial and the ensuing corporate, political and judicial corruption scandal. I note that senior US Attorney General and Dept of Justice officials and diplomats from Washington DC and the US Embassy in London encouraged and even coerced UK regime to unlawfully detain, forcibly inject me with toxins, injure and torture me by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane political dissident, against a political dissident who is sane even by their own definition and admissions when the NHS itself and then UK Attorney General civilly sued as of 2009 and relied on and exhibited to High Court of all NHS psychiatric documents about me only the independent non-NHS psychiatric report about me that proves that I am totally sane (Exhibits 22) and then criminally prosecuted me in 2010 for the minor charge of malicious communication by email that does not require a jury and informed the courts that I was always totally sane and am mentally fit and well to be a civil and criminal defendant, including before a jury in a criminal trial.  Under the Statue of Rome Article 8 War Crimes, forcible medical procedures not in the clinical best interest of the detainee are deemed forcible medical experiments, comparable to the forcible medical experiments that were conducted by Dr Mengele in Auschwitz.  Therefore, the entirety of US and UK regimes, including all their diplomats and judges should be declared war criminals and fugitives from international justice.  Since the outset of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London in 2004 all the most important and the following ECHR Articles were violated by UK judiciary and US and UK regimes against me, 1 – Obligation to respect human rights, 2 – Right to life (my unlawful pauperisation in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was a de facto deliberate death sentence), 3 – Prohibition of torture (my unlawful pauperisation in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells prevented me from obtaining access to only privately available medical treatment for my chronic toxic injury at age 13 by SHARP and this caused me easily medically preventable severe physical pain to date), 6 - Right to a fair hearing, 8 - Right to privacy (due to the libel, violation of medical confidentiality and invasion of privacy aspects of case v SHARP since their publication of their advertorial against me on 4 February 2005 and since 2007 also v UK regime and a few publications that quoted SHARP and Hogan Lovells and UK regime about me), 13 – Right to an effective remedy, 14 – Prohibition of discrimination (UK judges went even further than Nazi judges and declared that I was vermin), were most blatantly violated, and since the commencement of my unlawful detentions and torture and attempted murders by US and UK regimes in June 2006, 3 – Prohibition of torture, 5 – Prohibition of unlawful detention and right to go to domestic law for compensation for same, and 10 – Freedom of expression, were repeatedly since UK court case outset in 2004 in respect of 3, and  in respect of 5 and 10, as of 2006, violated.  Moreover, all UK judgements against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim and overall thereby are null and void under most of above ECHR Articles and also under the UK Fraud Act as judicial bribery offences by complicity with the original and most blatant judicial bribery offence in case of Master Miller against me in 2005.  This position is consistent with US and UK criminal law and the criminal charges of after the fact complicity and accessory and compounding offences.

2.1. European Convention on Human Rights legal case summary: Urgent and important for all v UK ECtHR applications especially by Abu Hamza, Abu Quatada aka Othman and Muslims and political dissidents such as Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in general and for all ECtHR applications overall resisting extradition to rogue USA and/or rogue UK and/or from rogue UK, per case of Julian Assange, under extradition request to UK by Sweden on behalf  of US, due to inexcusable barbaric corruption, fraud, fabrication of ‘forensic evidence’ (in this case emails sent with rogue UK judicial approval by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and complicit UK Attorney General in Shetreet’s name by hacking into Shetreet’s email account and for which Shetreet was given an economic, civil and de facto unlawful detentions, torture and death sentence), open reliance on perjury and fake emails obtained by hacking with UK judicial complicity and direct UK judicial perjury in judgements, nondisclosure, concealment and noncompliance with US and UK freedom of information act (FOIA) and UK Data Protection Act (DPA) disclosure and litigation related discovery laws (unlike us and UK FOIA, UK DPA is binding on commercial companies as well) in relation to civil defendants and claimants at High Court and Court of Appeal in London (thereby in violation of UK Fraud Act that defines concealment, nondisclosure and evasion of liability as legally actionable civil and criminal fraud thereby rendering null and void all judgements and orders against Shetreet in both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet under the UK Fraud Act, UK FOIA and UK DPA, and as of June 2006 and the first of many subsequent unlawful detentions and torture of Shetreet by UK regime overall, police and NHS, also on behalf of and due to direct unlawful instructions from US regime, all judgements and orders against Shetreet in above two cases and thereby overall are also null and void under ECHR Articles 3 - Prohibition of torture, and 5 - Prohibition of unlawful detentions and automatic right to go to domestic law for compensation for same, and all UK judicial orders against Shetreet overall are unlawful under ECHR Articles 1 – Obligation to respect  human rights, 2 – Right to life, 6 – Right to a fair hearing, 8 – Right to privacy, due to the libel and invasion of privacy and violation of medical confidentiality by SHARP, Hogan Lovells, Met Police, NHS, FTAC and others in Maariv in Israel, Mail on Sunday in UK, Yediot Aharonot in Israel and the Guardian and Guardian online since UK court case outset in 2005 to 2010 on the Guardian online that corrected only in 2010, yet even this most timely and meritorious part of all my High Court claims was unlawfully judicially nullified, 10 – Freedom of expression, 13 – Right to an effective remedy, and 14 – Prohibition of discrimination, all judgements and orders against Shetreet in both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet are further null and void as judicial bribery offences by after the fact complicity and compounding of an offence in respect of the original 2005 bribery offence against me of Master Miller) by SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster PCT and US and UK Attorneys General in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells (2004 to present, money claim for corporate fraud, libel etc and unlawful ECRO against Shetreet unlawfully baring Shetreet all right to go to law since 2005 to date ), NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet (2009/10 perjury committing censorship injunction to cover-up official crimes against Shetreet admitted during proceedings by NHS Westminster PCT and application by NHS Westminster PCT for the imprisonment of Shetreet for alleged violation of above censorship injunction to cover-up the ongoing crimes against Shetreet and thereby alleged contempt of UK court for which Court of Appeal Civil Division reduced Shetreet’s most unjust 2010 suspended sentence to 28 days suspended, and counterclaim by Shetreet for admitted by the claimant unlawful psychiatric detentions against a sane political dissident in order to divert and conceal him from the criminal justice system and the ensuing corporate, judicial and political bribery and corruption scandal of a jury trial, forcible toxic injections, injury, torture, forcible medical experimentation, attempted murders, libel and violation of medical confidentiality without permission of Shetreet by direct quotation about Shetreet by his full first and sir names by a Met Police, FTAC and NHS psychiatrist in the press in the Observer and Guardian online from 2007 to 2010, etc that High Court and Court of Appeal refused to hear for unlawful below mentioned reasons) and UK Attorney General v Shetreet (2009 pending to present, perjury committing vexatious litigant application to prohibit Shetreet from going to law forever to cover-up and escalate all the crimes against Shetreet since age 13 to date until he is ultimately murdered thereby), with complicity and co-perpetration by totally corrupt UK pseudo-judiciary who officially judicially declared in unlawful order after order in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet as of 2005 to 2010 and to date that Shetreet is vermin and that all past, present and future crimes, even violent crimes, even murder, even nuclear terrorism, if the collateral damage to the rest of London could be avoided, against Shetreet are ‘legalised’ forever and likewise most unlawfully pauperised Shetreet and thereby imposed against Shetreet a most unlawful de facto death sentence due to broad 100% London High Court and Court of Appeal UK judicial criminal complicity and co-perpetration to date with the original 2005 dated and admitted by UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints judicial bribery offence in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells against Shetreet by subsequently prematurely retired High Court judge Master Miller and entire UK judiciary’s subsequent to date mob mass violence like judicial compounding of Miller’s bribery offence against Shetreet in all subsequent judgements and orders against Shetreet in order to cover-up and compound Miller’s bribery offence against Shetreet and ‘punish’ and destroy Shetreet for this judicial offence and consequent subsequent to date judicial offences against Shetreet, unlawful psychiatric detentions of a sane political dissident, forcible toxic injections, injury, torture, forcible medical experimentation and attempted murders against Shetreet by direct instructions of US and UK Attorneys General in order to divert and conceal Shetreet from the criminal justice system and a jury trial and scandalous news coverage of the corporate, judicial and political offences against Shetreet since age 13 to date that evidently US and UK regimes deem too self-incriminating, humiliating and politically destabilising, and malicious denial by the UK public health service, NHS, of all medical treatment for the permanent improvement of the painful dermatological aspect of Shetreet’s chronic catastrophic clinically multiple whole body injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by a defective sharp product in order to cause Shetreet as much additional harm and pain as possible in conjunction to denial of access to said treatment privately by unlawful pauperisation and thereby additional torture and injury against Shetreet to date.

This case compellingly demonstrates and proves that the entire UK judiciary and body politic are depraved monsters and murderous paedophiles and more unlawful and cowardly than nuclear terrorists against US and UK regimes and their capitals, as such would at least be attacking nuclear powers and not say peaceful Switzerland or a defenceless man under an unlawful ECRO as in my case, and entire UK judicial and political system and regime is nothing more than a Salem witch trials holocaust, travesty and barbaric depravity, and same applies to the entire US legal and political system and regime due to the direct offences in case against Shetreet by the US Attorney General on behalf of and in complicity with Washington DC headquartered American and international law firm and worst offender in case Hogan Lovells and their client and co-defendant SHARP group.

2.2. Pasted below is Exhibit 56.1 in full, the 15 July 2009 Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells High Court in London transcript of the unlawful second extension of the unlawful ECRO against Shetreet by SHARP and Hogan Lovells et al since 2005 to date baring Shetreet all right to go to law for any reason, even for his multiple unlawful detentions and torture as of 2006, also on behalf of US and UK regimes, the total kangaroo nature of the proceeding, the judicial lawlessness, judicial criminal insanity, judicial worse than paedophile moral depravity in open court, overt judicial bribery offence (I challenge UK judiciary to sue me for libel before a jury if they deny bribery offences by Master Miller and subsequent judicial complicity and cover-up by misdirected judicial vendetta against Shetreet) judicial satanic, bloodthirsty and sadistic malice against Shetreet speak for themselves, the proceeding and order and all orders in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet whereby the UK judiciary officially declared me vermin against ‘which’/whom all past, present and future crimes including ultimately murder are legal could not have been more unlawful had the UK judges attacked Shetreet with an axe in open court since UK court case outset in 2004, as is shown below, the UK judge, Steel J, openly stated that against me past, present and future hacking, perjury, fraud, reliance on fake ‘forensic evidence’ (emails produced by hacking into my email account and sent falsely in my name by SHARP and Hogan Lovells) against me and thereby against all US and UK criminal and/or civil defendants (which means no one may be extradited from Europe with ECtHR consent to US and/or UK and/or from UK based on ECHR Articles 3, 5, 6 and others, see further paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 below) and even crimes of extreme violence, even in open court, even unlawful detentions, grievous bodily harm, assault and torture, as he clearly stated toward the end of below pasted transcript, are totally legal, this case is the most egregious case of human rights violations to be lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in its history, below UK judgement and order also declared all crimes, even nuclear terrorism legal in UK and complicit US by Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells common law, so ironically the US and UK regime judges and officials declared to all and sundry that it is legal and commendable for any party to kill all US and UK judges and officials with legal impunity and moral rectitude:

Exhibit 56.1 is pasted further below.

Quotation from Exhibit 6.1, the last page of 6 June 2005 Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovlls High Court hearing transcript, summary judgement of Master Miller in favour of Shetreet before Miller’s judicial bribery offences shortly thereafter:

Master Miller: Mr Shetreet, the case proceeds on the basis that you have been seriously injured. 

Pasted Exhibit 6.3, admission by UK Ministry of Justice as a whole and the Lord Chief Justice of judicial bribery offences against Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovelsl by the unlawful refusal to comply with Shetreet’s 2009 DPA and FOIA disclosure request and invitation to Shetreet to take legal action v MoJ via the Information Commissioner and thereby alternatively directly:

Dear Mr Shetreet

Request for information under Freedom of information Act 2000

Thank you for your email of 13/03/09, in which you asked for:

All information and documents about Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd aka Sharp UK, The Sharp group of companies, the dismissal from the judiciary of High Court judge Master Miller, Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells at High Court in London, involvement of UK and foreign intelligence services in case in violation of the rights of Elad Shetreet and the criminal file v Tony Blair et al at the International Criminal Court in The Hague as of September 2007 for the unlawful detentions and torture of Elad Shetreet, under both DPA and FOIA.

 The MOJ locations I would like you to search are the following.

 (2) The office of the Minister of Justice, including of the previous one, Lord Falconer

 (3) The personal office of the Lord Chief Justice, the so called Judicial Office.

 (4) The High Court

 (5) The Court of Appeal

 (6) The Administrative Court

 (7) The Mental Health Review Tribunal

 (8) The CPS

 (9) The Attorney General.

(10) "Private, secret" files individual judges, such as LCJ Igor Judge, Underhill J, Davis J, Ward LJ, Kay LJ, who dealt with my case may or may not have about me separately from the general, official filing and archive system, from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). 

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I am sorry to inform you that from my preliminary assessment of your request, it is clear that I will not be able to answer your request as the information you ask for is not held in a readily accessible format and would have to be compiled from various sources.

It may help if I explain that, as this information is not held centrally, in order to collate it, each of the establishments you listed within the Ministry of Justice would need to be contacted and it would then be necessary for each establishment to search through their entire record system  for this information.

Section 12 of the FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600.  This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

As your request is widely framed, I estimate that it will take us in excess of 3.5 working days to determine appropriate material within the scope of your request, and locate, retrieve and extract that information. 

Although we have a duty under Section 16 of the FOIA to advise you how you may narrow the scope of your request in order to try and bring it within the cost limit, in this particular case it is not possible to suggest ways in which you could do this.  This is because the only way we could deal with your request is under the DPA as it is personal information request between you and Sharp, and we can only supply personal information related to you.

Under DPA request

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), the MoJ must comply with the request within 40 calendar days of its receipt, or if later, within 40 calendar days of receipt of the necessary information such as proof of identity and the prescribed fee.

The MoJ charges a fee of £10 for this service in line with the provisions of the DPA.  The fee can be paid by either cheque or postal order and should be made payable to Her Majesty’s Paymaster General or HMPG.  Proof of identity can be confirmed by providing a copy of a recent utility bill or a copy of the photograph page of your passport or driving licence.

Due to the size of your request, it is not possible to conduct a search of each MoJ/Court location listed.  I would be grateful if you could let me know which particular Court dealt with your case and the date the case was heard.

As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the Ministry of Justice has an independent review process.  If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may write to request an internal review.  The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they will re-assess how the Department handled the original request. 

If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email to the Data Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the date of this letter, at the following address:

Data Access and Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice

1^st Floor, Zone 1C

Post point 1.41

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

e-mail: data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office under Section 50 of the FOIA.  You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Internet:  https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

Yours sincerely

Ms N Amadi

End of pasted email

See paragraph 5.2 for the pasted email (there is also a scanned letter from Treasury Solicitors on the same subject, Exhibit 216.1) from the UK Attorney General refusing to comply with DPA and FOIA in respect of his pending legal action against Shetreet and inviting Shetreet to take legal action against the UK Attorney General via the Information Commissioner and thereby alternatively directly.

Royal Courts of Justice

Wednesday, 15^th July 2009

Before:

MR. JUSTICE DAVID STEEL

B E T W E E N :

                                                                  ELAD SHETREET                                                Applicant

                 -  and  -

                                                                           SHARP                                                    Respondent

_________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO

Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers

Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP

Tel:  020 7831 5627    Fax:  020 7831 7737

_________

THE APPLICANT appeared in person.

MR. HILL appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

_________

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes, Mr. Hill? 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, this is my application to further extend the order which was first granted in 2005 and extended on 17th July 2007 by Mr. Justice Underhill for a period of two years.  It is my understanding that Mr. Shetreet who appears for himself may wish to make an application to adjourn, which of course we should deal with first if he is minded to proceed. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes.  Mr. Shetreet, is that right, you want an adjournment? 

MR. SHETREET:  Well, number one, I want to say how illegal this application is and how I am very, very surprised that this court is even willing to entertain such an application and not have them immediately arrested and prosecuted.  The Royal Correspondent for The Sun was jailed for three months in 2007 for doing something infinitely less serious.  He just hacked into sort of social telephone calls of members of the Royal Family and he was jailed for three months.  But they hacked into my legally privileged correspondence and how can this not occasion criminal proceedings against them?  I challenged Norton Rose...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am not really interested at the moment in the merits of this matter.  Do you want an adjournment and, if so, why? 

MR. SHETREET:  I need an adjournment as I was not able to submit the exhibits.  I did not have enough time.  My pleadings are not prepared.  It is just extraordinary.  Mr. Tipp told you that he was not able even to print out the stuff that I did e‑mail.  So this is why we must have an adjournment because my case is not ready.  Especially, you see, they got all the judgments like thieves in the night without production of any evidence, without disclosure of anything. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Let us stick to the point.  An adjournment can only be considered on the basis that one should come back on another day to deal with the issues. 

MR. SHETREET:  Yes, I need to prepare my pleadings.  Also I feel that because this case also involves libel, invasion of privacy, infringement of copyright, violation of medical confidentiality in the advertorial that I am relying on ‑‑ I believe that you received the original in Hebrew today, did you not? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  The original what? 

MR. SHETREET:  The original in Hebrew today? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes, I have it here. 

MR. SHETREET:  Can you see the stolen photos of me, the stolen medical photos of me?  Those were not published with my permission.  This is very serious and I added it in 2004, in 2005, two months after it was published, to the claim here in London and it was just ignored.  It was totally ignored and all the pleadings and all the judgments. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, I am going to interrupt because you have not identified any good ground for adjourning this application. 

MR. SHETREET:  Oh, okay.  So...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Just let me finish or you will not be allowed to finish.  There is no good ground for adjourning this application.  There is plenty of material on which it could be established, if it is right, that it is inappropriate to extend the ECRO.  The only issue before me is to whether it is appropriate to extend the ECRO, not to embark upon an analysis of the merits of the claim that you are seeking to make. 

MR. SHETREET:  I already made a claim but it was dismissed without ‑‑ I already made a claim but it was ignored. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes, you have made a lot of claims which are devoid of merit and that led to the fact or applications devoid of merit, and that led to the civil restraint order that was made. 

MR. SHETREET:  Just a moment, let me explain.  I sent the advertorial which is fresh evidence to the Court of Appeal.  I sent it to the Court of Appeal and Deputy Master Young sent me back a letter saying that I should apply to have my case reopened.  I did send it to her.  This is very serious.  You have to understand no evidence was produced in this case.  Nothing was disclosed.  There was never any trial.  They just got their orders like thieves in the night and everything is a miscarriage of justice.  Everything has to be set aside on the basis that it was fraud. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Thank you, Mr. Shetreet.  The only issue before me is to whether to extend the ECRO. 

MR. SHETREET:  But my pleadings are not ready.  My pleadings are not ready. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  You do not need to prepare any pleadings. 

MR. SHETREET:  I do not need to prepare any pleadings? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No, you do not. 

MR. SHETREET:  Why not? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Because the issue before the court is whether there should be a continuation of the civil restraint order.  All I have to say is that what you have said and done so far does much to support the proposition that it ought to be extended, but I am going to allow Mr. Hill to finish his submission...

MR. SHETREET:  Wait a minute. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am not adjourning this application.  Mr. Hill will pursue it and I will allow you to comment upon his submissions briefly in due course.  Yes, Mr. Hill. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, thank you.  Have you had the opportunity to read my skeleton argument? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes, I have done my homework.  I have read your skeleton. 

MR. SHETREET:  Did you read my things? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Will you not interrupt me, please, Mr. Shetreet?  I have read your skeleton argument.  I have read the fourth witness statement of Mr. Atkins.  I have read the ECRO, if I may call it that, and I have read of course the application to extend it.  That is the limit of my reading.  I am of course familiar with the decisions in Bangi and Kumar.  I am not so sure I know Connor and Supperstone.  That is my reading. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, I do not think it would be appropriate now to read a great deal of what appears in the exhibits to Mr. Atkins' statement.  They are almost exclusively Mr. Shetreet's statements of his position and there is a great deal of repetition in there.  Certainly, as you have had the opportunity to read my skeleton argument, I am going to be brief.

The issue that confronts us is that the standard imposed by paragraph 3.10 of the Practice Direction, Part 3, is that a civil restraint order, an ECRO, may be extended if it is appropriate to do so.  Notwithstanding our searches in both the rules and the case law, we have been unable to identify any guidance as to the criteria appropriate, even though it of course is a matter of the court's discretion.  Given that Mr. Shetreet is of course a litigant in person, in my skeleton argument I have tried to put the case against myself by reference to the idea that it would be in some circumstances appropriate for the court to look at whether an ECRO would be imposed ab initio, which would require both applications in more than one set of proceedings and the hallmarks of persistence.

Notwithstanding putting that test against myself, in my submission, we do have circumstances since the ECRO was extended in July 2007 where Mr. Shetreet has satisfied the criteria.  He has made a number of applications where, if one reads the orders of the court...

MR. SHETREET:  Not in 2009. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Do not interrupt again, Mr. Shetreet.  Mr. Hill will finish his submission. 

MR. HILL:  It is clear, in my submission, that on at least three occasions, in one case the decision of Maurice Kay LJ the application was stated to be totally without merit, and there are two further orders which, in my submission, the court's formulation clearly indicates that the court felt that the applications were totally without merit, in particular the order of Mrs. Justice Dobbs on 1st April 2008 and the order of Mr. Justice Davis on 23rd April 2008.

That said, in my submission, the appropriate test, if you will forgive the use of that word, in these particular circumstances is that mentioned in Supperstone, certainly as a guide.  Supperstone is a case where an ECRO was imposed, not extended. 

The test of whether there is a real risk that further proceedings would be brought would seem to me, my Lord, to be the touchstone of what we are considering today and to focus on whether it would be appropriate to extend the ECRO.  In my submission, even without the applications made since the ECRO was established, the court by imposing and extending an ECRO has shown that Mr. Shetreet satisfies the test of having made without merit

applications in more than one set of proceedings.  The question is:  Where are we now?

To highlight where we are now I think we only need to go to two pieces of evidence exhibited to Mr. Atkins' witness statement, and they appear, I think I only need to take you to one of them, at tab 34 of the second bundle of exhibits to Mr. Atkins' statement. 

MR. SHETREET:  Your Lordship, I do not understand.  They obtained the ground for this application by espionage.  How can you not address this crime? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, you will have a moment in a moment. 

MR. SHETREET:  I also want to ask you, your Lordship, why there are two security guards in here, not one, two?  Who directed this?  Did you do so?  

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I was informed that it was desirable that there be security staff. 

MR. SHETREET:  On what grounds? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Because we need security in this building.  Now, Mr. Shetreet...

MR. SHETREET:  But they are normally not in the hearing.  They are normally not in here. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  They can go where they like and they keep order within the courts. 

MR. SHETREET:  Are we on transcript?  Will I be having a transcript? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Everybody is on transcript. 

MR. SHETREET:  Is this on transcript? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes.  We are looking at divider 34, is that correct? 

MR. HILL:  Yes.  Divider 34 is Mr. Shetreet's e‑mail of 11th May to Norton Rose. 

MR. SHETREET:  That was obtained by espionage.  That was obtained by espionage.  Your Lordship...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, you must I am afraid, please, restrain yourself. 

MR. SHETREET:  That is sub judice.  They cannot rely on that.  That is sub judice. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  There cannot be any difficulty about looking at your e‑mail of 11th May. 

MR. SHETREET:  But it was not to them.  It was not to them.  It was a legally privileged e‑mail to a different law firm seeking legal representation. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  That is enough, Mr. Shetreet.  You tell me, Mr. Hill, which part of this you want me to look at. 

MR. HILL:  In my skeleton what I have described is that there are three essential features of Mr. Shetreet's complaint ever since they began, certainly since 2005.  The first is that he was the victim of an injury at the age of 13.  If one goes to page 559 one sees at paragraph 3 at the top of the page the statement again. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  This is the injury from the Sharp product? 

MR. HILL:  Yes. 

MR. SHETREET:  Look, this is very serious.  My injury is very serious.  In the case of two journal articles and it caused the enactment of EU RoHS directive and an ECJ judgment in my favour.  The EU RoHS directive was enacted based on my journal articles.  This is very serious.  He is just trivialising this. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  We are not trivialising it. 

MR. SHETREET:  He is calling me...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, will you please restrain yourself.  I have said "restrain".  That means, if I may respectfully say so, you keep quiet until Mr. Hill is finished.  Right, Mr. Hill. 

MR. HILL:  Mr. Shetreet's cause of action in the Israeli proceedings and the first and second English actions was based upon this alleged injury at the age of 13. 

MR. SHETREET:  And you admitted it.  You do not have the right to call that alleged.  You do not have the right to call it alleged.  You admitted it.  You did not even sue for libel. 

MR. HILL:  The second key theme of Mr. Shetreet's complaints which emerged towards the end of the second English action and were developed during the period between the imposition and extension of the ECRO was some suggestion of collusion and conspiracy between Sharp, Lovells and other entities.  If one goes to the first two sentences of paragraph 4 on page 559... 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  The first paragraph 4?

MR. HILL:  Yes, the first paragraph 4.  I am sorry, that is a typo. 

MR. SHETREET:  Your Lordship, when we talked about the adjournment I did not get to the fact that I am a person under a mental disability, a neurological, intellectual mental disability, and I do not have legal representation.  This is preposterous.  This is kangaroo and because of the ECRO I was not able to get legal representation because lawyers do not want to represent people on legal representation.  You have to let me zero, and this is why I think you want to extend it, you have to let me zero, ease off, and then I can get legal representation and then I can try and have the judgments and orders set aside because they were obtained by fraud.  I need legal representation.  I am a person under an intellectual disability and this is called kangaroo.  I do not have legal representation.  How can you let a person under an intellectual disability go to law in such a serious, very serious case without legal representation?  We need an adjournment so I can get legal representation. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I have made my order about the adjournment already, and I am not going to revisit it. 

MR. SHETREET:  But can you revisit it based on the fact that I need legal representation? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am going to continue with this hearing and I am not going to be diverted. 

MR. SHETREET:  I want to ask you a question.  Was there a political decision that was made to extend this ECRO outside of this courtroom and you already made up your minds?

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No. 

MR. SHETREET:  Answer me the question truthfully? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet...

MR. SHETREET:  Be honest.  Be honest. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet...

MR. SHETREET:  Yes. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  If you do not behave yourself I am going to continue this hearing in your absence. 

MR. SHETREET:  You mean ex parte? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes. 

MR. SHETREET:  So you are saying it is all kangaroo? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No.  If you would keep quiet we could deal with it perfectly sensibly.  Right, now Mr. Hill. 

MR. SHETREET:  Without legal representation? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, I am afraid I must invite you to please be quiet. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, the third and final key theme of Mr. Shetreet's complaints which in fact he himself has just been developing is evidenced at page 561 of the bundle, paragraph 10, and that theme is an element of judicial corruption in the decision against him. 

MR. SHETREET:  It is common law precedence under House of Lords Re Pinochet, 15th January 1999, the order of Lord Hoffman was set aside because he was a member of Amnesty International.  Michael Seymour is a member of the High Court judiciary, so I did not get a fair hearing because I myself did not have legal representation and people were biased against me.  They took advantage that I am disabled. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Thank you. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, this third theme is particularly important on the key question of whether this particular plaintiff will ever take no for an answer, and the simple reason is that he will not because he is incapable of accepting that any judicial finding against him is based upon anything other than fraud and corruption. 

MR. SHETREET:  But there was no production of evidence.  It was just based on their assertion.  It is the equivalent of convicting someone for murder when people know that the alleged murder victim is alive and well living under his own name.  For God's sake, I mean, the advertorial was not time barred.  I added two months after it was published in Israel and that was totally ignored in all the judgments and all the pleadings, for God's sake. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Thank you, Mr. Shetreet. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Shetreet has not in fact made an application since early last year, it seems to me...

MR. SHETREET:  That is right, I have not made a single application...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet. 

MR. HILL:  It is demonstrated by the items at tabs 34 and 35 in his approaches to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co. that two months ago he was actively seeking legal representation...

MR. SHETREET:  But that was outside of the UK for God's sake.  They have offices in Brussels and God knows where else.  I wanted legal representation outside of the UK.  This is why I approached them.  This cannot prejudice my legal situation in the UK, your Lordship.  You have to allow that.  I e‑mailed them for legal representation abroad of the UK. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord...

MR. SHETREET:  Do you accept that? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, will you please be quiet.  I cannot continue with this application in your presence if you persist in interrupting and shouting at me.  It is not helpful to anybody and I must warn it is certainly not helpful to your cause.  Yes, Mr. Hill. 

MR. HILL:  My Lord, as we are on page 561, if you are still there, paragraph 14 at the bottom of that page is I think the answer to the point that Mr. Shetreet was just making.  My Lord, my submission is perfectly simple.  Mr. Shetreet is still, for want of a better phrase, obsessed with the injuries done to him, which he alleges were done to him, both...

MR. SHETREET:  He does not have the right to say "alleges".  He never defended.  He never produced that list.  He never disclosed under ... 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Please, Mr. Shetreet. 

MR. HILL:  And also in the course of the proceedings he has commenced in England since 2004.  Less than two months ago he was showing every intention to continue with those...

MR. SHETREET:  Not in the UK. 

MR. HILL: ... and in my submission...

MR. SHETREET:  Not in the UK. 

MR. HILL: ... and in my submission the second ECRO lapses if it is not extended by your Lordship.  My clients will again be put to the expense of inconvenience of striking out yet another claim on the basis...

MR. SHETREET:  That is not true.  Your Lordship, you have to take my word...

[All speaking at once]

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Hill, I think that is probably all you need to say, thank you.  Now, Mr. Shetreet, any more from you which you want to add? 

MR. SHETREET:  What?  You mean anything I say is completely irrelevant? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No.  I am just interested to hear ‑‑ you have told me quite a lot about your position and your attitude to this application in your interventions.  I am just asking you whether you want to say any more? 

MR. SHETREET:  There are hours to say.  I did not even start. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  There are not hours to stay. 

MR. SHETREET:  To say. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  There are not hours available to you I am afraid.  I am just asking you whether you want to make any brief further submissions in addition to those you have already made. 

MR. SHETREET:  Okay.  Let us talk about the advertorial, the libel, invasion of privacy.  Let us talk about Mosley v. The Sun or News of the World, that was an infamous case.  He was able to go to law for the invasion of his privacy.  You have to allow that.  In this very courtroom, in this very courtroom, they published my nude medical legal photos.  By what rights?  They libelled me in a most vicious and violent way.  By what rights?  I added this by application notices to the claim and it was totally ignored, because they took advantage of the fact that I am a person under a mental disability.

I send this advertorial to the Court of Appeal by e‑mail, not an official application, and Deputy Master Young invited me, she thought it was so significant, it literally struck her as so significant that she realised a miscarriage of justice was done. 

Now if you do not extend the ECRO on me I will be able to attend with legal representation and go to the Court of Appeal and answer the invitation that they gave me, that Deputy Master Young gave me.  I urge you to telephone her, I urge you to telephone her and speak with her about this.  I urge you to do so.  They know all about me at the Court of Appeal.  They know it is a terrible miscarriage of justice.  They sent me a letter, I believe it is exhibited, on 1st April, instructing me to apply to reopen my case because it struck them that what was done completely ignored the advertorial part of the case.  It is equivalent, and I raised the similarity, to the Hodson case.  That was in the media.  You know about this, where a person was imprisoned for 25 years for something that he did not do.  In my case, it was so obvious that there was not. 

Look, they did not like the fact that I was suing them here in this country only for multinational corporate fraud and bribery in Israel and for invasion of service of proceedings in Israel.  They did evade service of proceedings.  They cannot say they did not.  In Israel there is no ‑‑ they never disclosed to the judges that they refused to accept domestic service of proceedings.  They never disclosed that and I did not realise the importance of that legal point.  They just said that service out of jurisdiction was not read to me, but service out of the jurisdiction is not available in Israel.  It is not available in Israel.  The situation in Israel is that you have to serve the importer and the importer is legally obligated, also under contract, to serve that same claim to the maker in Japan.  Because I was under a disability I could not explain to the judges:  "Look, this was fraud in Israel.  They rejected service of proceedings domestically by fraud, by bribery.  I am suing for fraud, not for personal injury."  I was not able to explain because I was under such a severe intellectual disability.

In addition, he is saying that I would, you know, continue to issue claims.  Oh, in addition to that the claim in 2007 ‑‑ I am making to you an application right now, I got them fair and square.  Also in the claim of 2007 against Yedioth, the largest circulation newspaper in Israel, against Sharp, and against the Mail on Sunday, those three, for libel, timely libel here in London by the Mail.  You cannot deny my right to go to law for this.  It is still frozen.  That case is still frozen.  It is on stay.

In the online, in English, article in Yedioth they said, "We deny the injury."  I have the right to go to law against them directly.  They are co‑defendants in that action.  They cannot say "We didn't injure you" and not expect me to sue for libel.  I have the right to sue for libel.  Also in a case downstairs they threatened to sue me for libel.  They threatened to sue me for libel.  That is exhibited to you.  I have the right to go to law in respect of that as well because ‑‑ you are looking at me as if you do not want to hear me. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am listening. 

MR. SHETREET:  You are looking at me in such a disdainful way. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am listening, Mr. Shetreet.  So get on with it, please. 

MR. SHETREET:  But you are so unsympathetic.  As soon as I came into the courtroom you sneered at me.  You sneered at me as soon as I came into the courtroom. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, please stick to the point, could you? 

MR. SHETREET:  I have a causative action.  I have the right to go to law.  This is very serious.  Injuring someone and then publishing his nude medical legal photos is a very serious.  The medical legal photos that they published about me in Israel I submitted, they got them from the particulars of claim in England in the 2004 case.  This is contempt of the UK court as well.  They have no right to publish that.  That was private, as you know.  In England papers filed in court are private.  In some cases any journalist can go in and say, "I want to see that file", but not in England.  Only the litigant can.  Only the litigants can see their own files.  They have the right to publish it in Israel.  And to say things about my parents, to gloat "his father is a former Cabinet Minister and look how we got him, we fixed it, we bribed", they as good as gloated about bribery, unfortunately in Israel it is very common.  They have these orders from Sharp Corporation. 

They never disclosed to the judges.  The judgments were obtained on total fraud.  They never disclosed to any judge in the case that they refused to accept domestic service of proceedings.  They never disclosed to any judge in case.  They even told their importer, importer No. 1, Prossman Limited, the one that was criminally convicted, to deregister itself after my claim was issued.  They never disclosed that and that is so relevant and you can not do that.  They never disclosed that they told importer No. 2, the one that was not criminally convicted, the one that is also a dummy company, they were convicted of tax fraud, money‑laundering, you name it, the one that is still operating.  They never disclosed that they also told him to reject service of proceedings and to say "I don't represent Sharp, on the basis that I don't represent Sharp..."

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, I am going to have to stop you. 

MR. SHETREET:  Just a minute, I have one more to add. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  You may do, but I am afraid I am not prepared to go beyond 1 o'clock.

MR. SHETREET:  Just a minute, one more important thing.  One more important thing. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Yes. 

MR. SHETREET:  You have to listen to this. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Quickly. 

MR. SHETREET:  Yes.  Are you going to judge against me? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am just telling you to finish your submissions.  It is coming to the midday adjournment and I have another case. 

MR. SHETREET:  But you can adjourn the hearing. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I have another case and I am not going to adjourn this one. 

MR. SHETREET:  Look, in 1994, this is very important, in 1994 they kidnapped me.  I did not know it was them until after what happened here in London.  They kidnapped me to somewhere called Heller Station which is in intelligence circles notorious in Israel as a chemical weapons storage facility, and agents of the State, it is a water‑pumping station officially but unofficially it is something else, agents of the State who then wore gas masks discharged chemical weapons, a nerve gas on me and I was catastrophically brain damaged in addition to my injury at aged 13.  I did not understand that they did this to me until after I came to ... in December 2007 and they called the police and they had me kidnapped without trial, without charge and taken to a psychiatric torture facility until the UK psychiatric tribunal said that he never had any mental illness and discharged me.  They are glad.  I mean, look what they did to me when they kidnapped me in London on false charges.  That is actually here in London. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, I am going to stop you, I am sorry.  Everything you have said in the last 10 minutes or so...

MR. SHETREET:  I have one more...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  You cannot have one more thing.  I have another case I have to go to. 

MR. SHETREET:  I have one more thing to say, please.  I have one more thing to say.  It is significant. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Right. 

MR. SHETREET:  Look, torture is very serious.  To abuse ... is very serious.  I have a right to go to law for that.  You cannot just say that I am an insect.  If you do that to me, if you do that to me I will consider that the West is waging against me. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, I have heard everything you need to say. 

MR. SHETREET:  No, wait a minute, you have not heard this. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No, I am going to stop you.  I have to say that everything you have said has persuaded me that the risk of you issuing proceedings...

MR. SHETREET:  No, I give you my word.  I give you my word I will not issue any proceedings. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  And issue proceedings...

MR. SHETREET:  But I give you my word.  I am good for my word. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL: ... that you will persist in... 

MR. SHETREET:  But I give you my word. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL: ... totally without...

MR. SHETREET:  Your Lordship, I give you my word.  I will only go to the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am not accepting your word I am afraid. 

MR. SHETREET:  Why not?  Why not? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am not prepared to accept an undertaking in this case.  I will extend this ECRO for two years.  I am absolutely satisfied that there is a serious risk of persistent issuance of claims and applications which are totally inappropriate. 

MR. SHETREET:  But what about the timely libel cause of action?  What about it? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I have made my order, Mr. Shetreet.  I am afraid that is the end of it.  I must move on to another case.  Thank you, Mr. Shetreet. 

MR. SHETREET:  Why are you telling me "thank you"? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am saying thank you very much for coming and giving me the benefit of your presence. 

MR. SHETREET:  But it was a political decision.  It was a political decision. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  Mr. Shetreet, that is it.  This case is over.  You must leave the court.  I have made my order and you must leave the court, Mr. Shetreet. 

MR. SHETREET:  The building or this room? 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  You must leave this room now and allow me to conduct the next case. 

MR. SHETREET:  But this was kangaroo. 

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  No, Mr. Shetreet, that is it.  Mr. Hill, you will need to fill in one or two blanks in the form of the order.  Thank you, Mr. Hill.

_________

End of pasted document

3. Message to ECtHR Registry: This document is under statement of truth ad under UK law is under penalty of perjury if anything stated by its author and thereby by me in this document is disputed by any interested party.  I refer to my case update to ECtHR by post, dated 16 November 20010 and express the hope that this was already received and read by ECtHR Registry.  I hereby rely on that and this case update as my case statement, my pre-November 2010 pleadings (not exhibits) therefore do not have to be read and I hereby request that they be ignored as irrelevant and outdated.  I sent the exhibits – valid to date - by post on 29 September 2009.  I hereby call upon ECtHR to expedite my application because it raises issues of extreme legal importance for all ECHR law and all ECtHR applications resisting extradition to US and UK and/or from UK, such as the Abu Hamza and Abu Quatada aka Othman due to the total abrogation by US and UK regimes of ECHR Articles 3 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, 5 - Prohibition of unlawful detention and right to domestic compensation for same, and 6 - Right to a fair hearing, as will be proven below and with the exhibits already sent by me to ECtHR in support of my application, and because I am at very high risk of additional unlawful detention and torture and ‘suicide’ induced by torture and thereby murder by the state.  I attempted to commit suicide on 2 September 2010 because of my unlawful pauperisation and then recent additional of multiple others as of 2006 unlawful detention and extreme torture and Auschwitz type medical forcible experimentation by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a legally proven sane man by US and UK regimes in order to divert and conceal me from the criminal justice system and a jury trial in order to avoid news coverage about my case and thus attempt to avoid the worst corporate, political and judicial corruption, bribery, torture and sadistic depravity scandal in US and UK history due to the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells due to the proven and admitted by the UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints judicial bribery offences against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the additional crimes that were committed against me to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells due to judicial bribery offences.  US and UK regimes have no legal basis that would stand up in a court of law before a jury to abuse forcible psychiatry against me, a legally proven sane man that any jury would also judge to be totally and perfectly sane if I was to be prosecuted before a jury as I demand of US and UK regimes to date.  One of the allegations against me to date by US and UK regimes and FTAC, the KGB-like psychiatric department of the Met Police that is part of both the NHS, Met Police and UK Home Office and is closely linked with the US and UK intelligence services, ‘based’ upon which they deployed forcible psychiatry against me as a torture and murder weapon against the persecuted sane political dissident since 2006 is that in 2006/7 I allegedly ‘sexually harassed’ and “stalked women and girls” that were given no names because they did not exist.  The allegations were made against me outside of the UK criminal courts and to regime charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists only because they would not stand up to a jury trial and a jury trial is required in UK for sexual allegations.  This is remarkably consistent with the sexual smear allegations now being directed against Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, by the puppet of US regime of Sweden that allowed US to conduct extraordinary rendition flights via its territory, and for which he is sought for extradition from UK to Sweden because a jury is not available in Sweden for sexual allegations as it is in US and UK and because puppet of US Sweden would extradite him to US for “espionage” charges.  No doubt, if Julian Assange had no news coverage, no supporters, no colleagues, no family, no money, no legal counsel and was consequently as vulnerable to official foul play as I, he too would be subject to the KGB-style abuses of forcible psychiatry by the terrorist US and UK regimes against the sane political dissident, as I am, and the same can be stated of Abu Hamza, Abu Quatada aka Othman and all other dissidents in US and UK.  The UK Independent Police Complaints Commission judged in my favour in March 2010 in relation to above false allegations and abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man in general, but the Met Police, FTAC, NHS and US and UK regimes overall still unlawfully psychiatrically detained me and tortured me again on and as of 8 June 2010 until the UK psychiatric tribunal discharged me later in 2010 based on the same discredited allegations and could do so again due to instructions to UK regime from the US Attorney General et al in Washington DC and the US Embassy in London that instructed my above unlawful detentions and torture and Auschwitz type forcible medical experimentation because one of the criminally corrupt co-defendants in case is Hogan Lovells, an American company headquartered in Washington DC.  In respect of above, I hereby request of ECtHR, the Council of Europe, the European Commission and all other law abiding officials who will obtain a copy of this document to issue international arrest warrants for torture and Auschwitz type medical experiments under Article 8 War Crimes of the Statute of Rome that as aforementioned in paragraph 1.3 defines forcible medical procedures not in the clinical best interest of the detainee as forcible medical experimentation, the UN Torture Convention, the UN Chemical Weapons Convention (due to the forcible injurious toxic injections against me by criminally insane psychiatrists) and the Nuremberg IMT medical prosecutions and death sentences against war criminal doctors, against the worst directly offending against me UK regime charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists and real terrorists, namely Dr David James of Met Police, FTAC and NHS, Dr Paul Mallet of Brent NHS and Dr Rizkar Amin of Brent NHS – wanted dead or alive.  Not one of these pseudo-medical criminals and the US and UK officials above them who so instructed them against me have any defence in law, as they all knew since outset to date that they were only unlawfully acting against me as they were outside of the criminal justice system because if I was prosecuted before a jury any jury would declare me totally sane and truthful if the prosecution attempted to dispute either my sanity or my credibility or the objective merits of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and that forcible psychiatry was being deployed as a torture and murder weapon against the sane paradoxically because I was totally sane and too credible to a jury and that if I was prosecuted before a jury, US and/or UK regime/s, SHARP and Hogan Lovells would be utterly humiliated and defeated about the judicial bribery offences against me and the judicial bribery offences and judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and all the additional crimes that were committed against me by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and US and UK regimes in order to cover this up – otherwise why not prosecute me including before a jury, UK regime already prosecuted me in 2010 without a jury for the minor charge of malicious communication and thereby admitted my mental fitness to stand trial including before a jury.  There can be no doubt that the offending pseudo-psychiatrists had a legal and professional-ethical duty to require US and UK regimes to prosecute me before a jury or leave me alone and to decline to abuse forcible psychiatry against a sane political dissident.  Moreover and most importantly, when UK prosecuted me for malicious communication without a jury yet unlawfully psychiatrically detained me again on 8 June 2010, barely more than a month after I was charged on 29 April 2010 and my first hearing took place at Westminster Magistrates Court a few days later, the Met Police and CPS still invited the court and the judge in writing and orally during the hearings to correctly understand that I was totally sane and that if convicted the custodial sentence would be in a prison for the sane, not a psychiatric prison hospital, the Met Police and CPS, the same rogue regime that was abusing psychiatry against me since 2006 to date, did not dare dispute my sanity by one word during the entire proceedings - the lawlessness of the whole situation is incomprehensible and as astounding as nuclear terrorism against London, New York and Washington DC by the terrorist US and UK regimes themselves in order to blame the Muslims and aggrandise themselves.  My case should also be expedited because I cannot go to domestic law at all for a protective injunction and/or monetary compensation, as I am being persecuted to cover-up the UK judicial corruption and bribery offences against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the UK judges are complicit in and directly perpetrating the crimes against me and have prohibited me from making any claims and applications by perpetrating against me an unlawful ECRO that was never discharged since 2005 to date, and thereby since my unlawful detentions and torture as of 2006 also in most blatant violation of ECHR Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 that also prohibit unlawful detentions and torture and give automatic right to go to domestic law for compensation for same and require a right to a fair hearing, that was also violated against me in UK since case outset in 2004 to date, even though a UK ECRO is supposed to be discharged upon meritorious application to do so and for a subsequent cause of action and is supposed to last for only two years, and was never discharged even when I was being unlawfully detained, tortured and medically experimented upon on multiple occasions as of 2006. My case is notorious amongst informed circles in US and UK regimes since 2006 and my protest against judicial corruption at UK Parliament that closed it for an hour and for which UK regime refused to prosecute me to date, but became even more infamous as of 7 May 2010 when I emailed the US Attorney General, the US Embassy in London and UK regime with my proclamation that I am the self-appointed Ambassador of (redacted) and stated “glorification of (redacted)” and other related verbal “terrorism” offences under US and UK law in order to gain access to a jury trial and news coverage that would expose all the corporate, political and judicial crimes against me including and in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, an American company based in Washington DC that the US Attorney General refused to prosecute for their crimes against me and is thereby personally complicit with these crimes.  Because numerous US and UK regimes officials up to the US and UK Attorneys General and the most senior English judiciary have incriminated themselves against me in complicity with SHARP and Hogan Lovells, all US and UK regimes, SHARP and Hogan Lovells files, data and communications about me are deemed top secret and therefore no one complied with the US and UK disclosure and discovery laws in respect of the civil legal actions by me and/or against me, including by UK Attorney General who is civilly suing me because this does not require a jury in UK law.  This is probably why the US diplomatic communications about me were not included as far as I am aware in those US diplomatic communications being published by WikeLeaks, as data about me is so top secret that it was “Restricted” and therefore was not included in the data bases that were made available to WikiLeaks, as any disclosure of official US and UK regimes data and documents about me would cause the worst corporate, political and judicial corruption, bribery, torture and sadistic depravity scandal in US and UK history.  I will copy this document and proof exhibits to the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner and the European Commission in Brussels and I propose to stay in touch with them by email and telephone for my own safety so that they can urgently update ECtHR if any drastic developments occur.  In addition, for the reasons mentioned in below paragraphs 4.2, 3 and 7 - 9, please link this application with the Abu Hamza and Abu Quatada aka Othman ECtHR applications and any prospective applications by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who US regime describe as a “spy and a terrorist” as this application proves that their applications must be successful as well.

4.1. Expanded case summary and open letter to Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge under statement of truth and written oath and thereby under UK law under penalty of perjury if anything stated by me in anywhere in this document is disputed by any interested party, and public challenge to US and UK Attorneys General and prosecutors and US and UK terrorist regimes overall and their rogue charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists to criminally prosecute me before a jury for my many criminally legally highly actionable and serious provocations since 2006 to date briefly referenced in the above paragraphs and further described below in paragraphs 7 - 9 in order to gain access to a jury and let the jury decide if Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is meritorious or no, if I am perfectly sane, as you already admitted multiply in and out of High Court including in NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, 2009/10, censorship injunction and application to have me imprisoned in a prison for the sane only for alleged breach of the injunction and alleged contempt of UK court thereby in response to which Mr Justice Simon on 23 April 2010 rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’, and UK Attorney General v Shetreet, pending to date as of 2009, in which you admitted my sanity explicitly by relying on and exhibiting of all psychiatric documents about me only below mentioned Exhibits 22, the non-NHS independent consultant level psychiatric report that proves my perfect sanity and you did not exhibit at High Court even one NHS charlatan pseudo-psychiatric pseudo-document about me fraudulently disputing my perfect sanity, and by the very fact that you civilly sued me and thereby you admitted I am mentally fit and well to be a civil defendant, more remarkably still without any civil legal representation in UK to date due to the unlawful ECRO against me as of 2005 that frightens off all civil lawyers, and thereby admitted that I am mentally fit and well to be a criminal defendant with or even without legal aid representation, and including by prosecuting me in 2010 for malicious communication only because it does not require a jury during which prosecution your Met Police and CPS invited the court and the judge to correctly understand that I am totally sane, or if I am allegedly ‘not’ perfectly sane and mentally fit and well to stand trial including before a jury, and quit abusing forcible psychiatry as a torture and murder weapon by the US and UK terrorist regimes against the persecuted sane political dissident in order to divert and conceal me from the criminal justice system, a jury trial and news coverage in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and thus attempt to avoid the worst corporate, political and judicial corruption, bribery, torture and sadistic depravity scandal in US and UK history (below paragraph references and relies on Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 6.1, 7, 8, 13, 22, 29, 52, 56.1, 198, 205, 210, 216 – there are hundreds of other proof exhibits too numerous to list in this document for reasons of brevity): See paragraph 6 below for additional information in relation to the below mentioned judicial bribery offences in this case against me and the consequent additional judicial offences against me to date in order to cover-up and compound the openly admitted by the UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints judicial bribery offence against me of High Court judge Master Miller. Will be copied to Igor Judge via email to the Judicial Communications Office, to the UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints, to the Court of Appeal Civil Division Registry and to the Admin Court division of High Court re the pending case there against me by the UK Attorney General, as a challenge to either have me prosecuted for my below (see below paragraphs 7 - 9), previous and other provocations or set aside the orders against me or be exposed along with the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal kangaroo pseudo-judiciary as the most lawless, psychopathic, morally cannibalistic and evil organised criminals and unelected law breaking dictators and tyrants in the history of the entire world by comparison to which even Hitler was law abiding and humane before the whole world if he does neither, because the above English pseudo-judiciary set out in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells to punish, declare vermin under an unlawful ECRO baring me all right to go to law in UK for any reason since 2005 to date and that was never discharged despite the many additional  crimes against him and against whom thereby all crimes are legalised, unlawfully pauperise, unlawfully detain, torture and set out to ultimately murder me thereby, the victim of all the crimes in case since age 13 and reward and act as the contract killers for the criminals in case and wage against me a total war because of the proven and officially admitted by UK Ministry of Justice Office of Judicial Complaints and never disputed or denied by any judge or any other party bribery offences in case against me of prematurely retired/dismissed High Court judge Master Miller – see attached Exhibit 6.1 – the judicial pre-bribery offence Shetreet v Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd High Court judgement transcript of 6 June 2005 in my favour by High Court judge Master Miller that he fraudulently and irrationally self-contradicted, set aside and most unlawfully dismissed my case without any trial, production of evidence, compliance with discovery or disclosure by the defence or permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division to date, a few weeks later on 23 June 2005 (the unlawful ECRO baring me all right to go to law to date was perpetrated on Miller’s say so a few weeks later by the next judge to deal with case at time, Mr Justice Davis, as Master level judges cannot impose ECROs) due to his bribery offences in case against me after he approached me outside of the courtroom in the court building and attempted to extort from me a kickback bribe from the forthcoming compensation order shortly after he judged in my favour, and thereby committed his bribery offences in case in favour of SHARP and Hogan Lovells, criminally complicit international lawyers acting for Sharp Corporation and its group of companies in case also in Israel since global case outset to date and co-defendants in my procedurally separate 2005 London High Court claim against them, and because the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal pseudo-judiciary are Mossad sayanim less humane than and as lawless and psychopathic as vicious insects and cannibalistic serial murderers.  This case started in Israel and was conducted there by contingent fee lawyers v Sharp Corporation and its two daughter and dummy companies and importers in Israel that traded as “SHARP”, as a case about my catastrophic chronic toxic personal injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 and SHARP product liability, and where SHARP group (hence “SHARP”) and their international law firm in case since its global outset Hogan Lovells in London and their additional lawyer in Israel Hanina Brandes who was also relied on in defence pleadings in 2004/5 at High Court in London.  SHARP conceded and never contested and thereby admitted injury causation but evaded, ultimately in 2004, service of proceedings by bribery and political reliance on the close business links between SHARP and the politically powerful in both Israel, US and UK Israel IT export industry, of which SHARP and Hogan Lovells’ lawyer in case in Israel is the de facto leader and is both a lawyer and IT entrepreneur in Israel and US in his own right, and further took advantage of the fact that the Israel IT export industry has lucrative and conditional on outcome of case export orders to SHARP, perjury and fraud and prohibited any trial and any disclosure by them and any production of evidence by bribery and fraud, and instructed their lawyer in Israel Hanina Brandes to fraudulently allege that he had only “limited power of attorney” and therefore did not have to accept service of proceedings, yet he unintentionally admitted in 2004 in London in the exhibited High Court pleadings on behalf of co-defendant Sharp UK “only” and “not” co-defendant Sharp Corporation that he did have full power of attorney and that Sharp Corporation was legally served with proceedings in reality in both Israel and UK but did not formally respond or defend these proceedings served on them and thereby default judgements in Israel and UK are merited (see Exhibits 29), instructed the co-defendant criminally convicted on its own plea-bargain admission to the Israel Supreme Court of tax and customs fraud and money laundering daughter and dummy company and importer of SHARP in Israel that traded as SHARP and was also registered as M Prossman Ltd and whose director was given a custodial sentence for the above admitted by him revenues and money laundering fraud by SHARP group and parent company to deregister and delete itself from the Israel Companies Registration Authority (equivalent to UK Companies House) after my proceedings commenced in Israel in order to further evade service of proceedings of my case, and likewise instructed the co-defendant additional subsequent and trading as SHARP daughter and dummy company and importer in Israel of SHARP that was also registered as Techno Ralco and was web addressed as www.sharp.co.il to simply refuse to accept service of proceedings on an entirely arbitrary and even more so unlawful basis, in violation of Israel product liability law and contract law between the maker and importer in Israel that forces the importer to accept service of product liability proceedings in Israel and then serve these proceedings on the maker abroad of Israel on behalf of the injured consumer.  The case was successful at outset and SHARP lost their appeal at Tel Aviv District Court but then resorted to fraud and bribery and continued to appeal and litigate in a vexatious manner and abused the system through political patronage and bribery of businessmen and politicians that is de facto legal in Israel.  Worse still, in order to intimidate politicians and judges about the outcome of Shetreet v SHARP, in 2000, SHARP and Hogan Lovells instructed Hanina Brandes to leak to the press the legally privileged file of his other client, then serving President of Israel Ezer Weizman, which unlawful disclosure implicated President Weizman in bribery offences that Brandes himself arranged and forced Weizman to resign in ignominy due to the bribery scandal.  Needless to say neither Weizman or Brandes were prosecuted for bribery because bribery is de facto legal in Israel as this case proves overall, and Brandes, SHARP and Hogan Lovells were not even prosecuted for leaking the legally privileged file of President Weizman, because the Israel IT export industry is above the law in Israel, as this case proves, and Brandes is the de facto leader of that industry and SHARP has lucrative export orders from them.  Shetreet v SHARP in Israel was never “dismissed”, as was falsely alleged by Lord Justice Ward in his fictional and therefore null and void 2005 pseudo-judgement, it simply could not be served and was therefore abandoned.  One of the most outrageous perjuries against me by the UK Attorney General in his vexatious litigant civil action against me, pending, is that I was “as vexatious against SHARP in Israel as in UK”, which in a nutshell and by his own words disproves his entire case against me, and in any case, proceedings in Israel were conducted by contingent fee lawyers and occurred in my total absence from the courts and all hearings in Israel and from the Israel overall as of 2001 when I moved to London, which makes further utter perjury, fraud, perversion of the course of justice, etc of the vexatious litigant case against me by the UK Attorney General.  Moreover, SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London committed legally actionable in London and beyond multinational corporate fraud and admission of injury causation that is legally binding.  (See Exhibit 7.)  At case outset, before court proceedings commenced in case in Israel or anywhere else in the world, Hogan Lovells in London issued and sent to me then still in Israel an official legal letter on behalf of Sharp Corporation and SHARP group threatening me with libel action should I publicly state that a defective SHARP product chronically catastrophically toxically injured, disabled and disfigured me at age 13.  Since then I made many public statements about my injury causation, including on Sky News and two peer reviewed journal articles were published about my above injury.  Yet SHARP and Hogan Lovells did not sue me for libel, even though I demanded they do so, nor did they sue Sky News of west London, the most pro-libel claimant jurisdiction in the world, or Elsevier Science who published one of the journal articles about my injury at age 13 by SHARP.  When a large and wealthy company with limitless resources for legal fees threatens libel action but refuses to carry out its threat and thereby carries out more fraud, this is and admission of the offence, in this case of my injury causation at age 13 by SHARP and fraud in and of itself, a fraud that was followed by many other frauds to date by SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  (See Exhibit 7.)  Worse still, at case outset, SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London also sent me an exhibited fraudulent “settlement offer” in order to attempt to obtain the injurious SHARP TV set by fraud so that it could not be forensically tested, as it later was, just as my body samples had already been forensically toxicologically analysed.  The case would never have been defended by SHARP and Hogan Lovells or brought against me by UK Attorney General if a jury was involved in such proceedings and needless to say the miscarriage of justice would not have occurred in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells overall if a jury was involved.  I moved to UK in 2001 for reasons not directly related to my case v SHARP and in 2004/5, after and because the case was unlawfully evaded in Israel in 2004, I continued as a litigant in person (because UK lawyers do not act on a contingency in relation to corporate fraud) in London High Court proceedings v Sharp Corporation, with Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd and Hogan Lovells as co-defendants, importantly primarily for timely multinational corporate bribery and fraud, and as of April 2005 also for libel, invasion of privacy and infringement of copyright in relation to the 4 February 2005 SHARP and Hogan Lovells gutter press advertorial against me that also proved the fraud and bribery offences by them against me due to unintentional admissions by SHARP in the advertorial in which they included my stolen by them partially nude medico-legal photos without my permission and were quoted verbatim in quotation marks “SHARP: ...” and admitted and gloated about chronically catastrophically injuring, disabling and disfiguring me at age 13, defrauding me and pauperising me and cutting off my “arms and legs”, and not for allegedly “time barred personal injury only”, as was falsely alleged by SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  In this respect Exhibits 8 and 13 are the most important exhibits in case because they prove that Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells in UK since its outset in 2004/5 was about multinational corporate fraud and libel and related causes of action and not about “time barred personal injury only” as fraudulently alleged by SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  Exhibits 8 include the procedurally separate Shetreet v Hogan Lovells claim form and particulars of claim of 11 July 2005 and the forensic translation of the SHARP and Hogan Lovells advertorial against me of 4 February 2005 that I added to case by applications in April 2005 and incorporated into my Shetreet v Hogan Lovells claim, the claim form of which stated as causes of action only “serious fraud”, not ‘personal injury’ or any other word to that effect, and the Shetreet v Hogan Lovells particulars of claim attached to the claim form clearly stated “libel” as one of the causes of action.  In addition, Exhibits 13 re Shetreet v SHARP at High Court in London 2004/5 are my disclosure and discovery requests to SHARP and Hogan Lovells since 2004 and before the first English judgement in case was made out in late 2004 that SHARP and Hogan Lovells refused to comply with to date, and further prove that my claim against SHARP since its outset in UK in 2004 as well was in respect of fraud and bribery, and as of April 2005 also libel, etc not “personal injury only”, as my Exhibits 13 include my 2004 disclosure and discovery request to SHARP that was clearly about fraud and bribery in case in Israel and not about my personal injury at all, least of all ‘only’. This further proves that my procedurally separate and most timely case at High Court in London v Hogan Lovells lodged on 11 July 2005 was indisputably for most timely multinational corporate fraud and bribery and libel, invasion of privacy and infringement of copyright, rather than for allegedly “time barred person injury” in addition or in any way.  Moreover, time limitation was not an arguable defence even in relation to the personal injury aspect of case in UK under UK Limitation Act s 32 – automatic postponement in the event of fraud by the defendant in civil cases, and the UK and international criminal common law and thereby civil common law involving civil cases where criminal fraud was committed whereby proceedings are frozen and no time limitation defence is available once they commence or even once an arrest warrant was issued even if the defendant absconded bail or escaped from prison and evaded detection and/or extradition past the date of the expiry of time limitation in the absconded to and/or previous and requesting jurisdiction of case even in respect of the original offence in the previous jurisdiction of case.  The US-UK Extradition Treaty, part of UK enacted and common law posted on the UK Foreign Office website, officially prohibits any time limitation defence for requested defendants for above reasons, as cases deemed timely in US law may not be still timely in UK law and the reverse and because defendants may evade detection and/or extradition past the expiry of time limitation if this was not suspended since the escape from prison and/or arrest warrant was issued and/or proceedings commenced.  I invoked and relied on this UK enacted and common law, but the judges simply nullified that and every other aspect of my claims v SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  Additionally, at case outset in Israel, SHARP and Hogan Lovells contracted an additional injury against me and deployed chemical weapons to do so, which additional injury left me with severe brain damage in addition to my injury at age 13 by SHARP.  This aspect of case was discussed at the 15 July 2009 ECRO extension hearing, see transcript of same, Exhibit 56.1, which transcript also shows the complicit and depraved response by the judge to this aspect of case.  This aspect of case has no jurisdiction or time limitation defence in UK under the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and UN international law and UK Attorney General v Zardad, 2004/5, in which UK relied on UN international law to prosecute Zardad for his war crimes in Afghanistan and ignore domestic UK jurisdiction or time limitation laws.  Jurisdiction was guaranteed for case in UK under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions incorporated into UK law and CPR, due to the then three West European stock exchange self-listings (Paris, Swiss, Luxembourg) and thereby West European business domicile of Sharp Corporation, the SHARP parent company, and the pan-West European jurisdiction together with local daughter companies provided for by above Conventions ratified by UK, due to the joint liability by contract, joint production with the same made and/or outsourced components, joint ownership, joint management of Sharp UK directly by Sharp Corporation and joint trading as “SHARP” in the same “SHARP” products with Sharp Corporation, and due to the case conduct for Sharp Corporation and Sharp UK by Hogan Lovells since global case outset in London and Israel.  Needless to add, SHARP and Hogan Lovells never defended the case in UK either, they simply committed fraud and perjury about all aspect of case, even jurisdiction, sadistically mocked in their 2004/5 pleadings my chronic injury at age 13 and overall calamity by them and begged and pleaded with the judiciary to nullify my case outside the rule of law and pauperise and murder me thereby in the process, out of ‘friendship’ to corrupt companies.  In UK as well Sharp Corporation evaded service of proceedings by fraud and Hogan Lovells fraudulently alleged at High Court in London that they were suddenly acting “only” for co-defendant Sharp UK that was forced to accept service of proceedings, but unintentionally admitted in their pleadings acting primarily for co-defendant Sharp Corporation, including by relying in their 2004/5 pleadings on documents about me from Sharp Corporation and by references to cooperation with Hanina Brandes in Israel who acted only for Sharp Corporation, not Sharp UK, but interestingly alleged in court in Israel that he had only “partial power of attorney” and therefore he could not be served with proceedings, yet in London he acted for both Sharp Corporation and Sharp UK, and thereby had full power of attorney in reality and was served in Israel in reality.  Therefore, default judgements are required, as Sharp Corporation never responded in UK to date either even though it was served at Hogan Lovells who are acting primarily for Sharp Corporation and only secondarily for Sharp UK by admission of above in their exhibited 2004/5 pleadings.  (See Exhibits 2, 4, 5.)  Based on my chronic catastrophic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by SHARP and the two peer reviewed journal article case studies about my chronic toxic injury at age 13 by SHARP, researched and authored by the leading toxicology and analytical chemistry professors in the world in the field, from universities in the US, Netherlands and Germany, and also published in Chemosphere, published by Elsevier Science, the most prestigious peer reviewed international academic toxicology journal in the world, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency issued its 1999 EU policy paper (see Exhibit 2.2) in English about brominated flame retardants in which my case and journal articles about me were relied on in page 48 and citation 28 as the sole source of confirmed juvenile human and human overall (as opposed to animal studies) toxicity data about brominated flame retardants and based on above Danish Environmental Protection Agency EU policy paper in 2003 the EU RoHS Directive (RoHS is the acronym for Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) was enacted and then judged in favour of by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg on 1 April 2008 in response to the legal action by Denmark and the European Parliament against the European Commission to strengthen the RoHS and the evidence relied on by ECJ was supplied by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, and consequently on the 1 April 2008 order of ECJ the brominated flame retardants toxins that were emitted from my defective SHARP TV set and that chronically poisoned me by normal inhalation of the toxic fumes and thereby chronically injured me at age 13, brominated flame retardants, also known as PBDEs, were banned from use in consumer electronics by order of ECJ in all of the EU Member States . This is why many new consumer electronics products in Europe and possibly beyond made since 2008 have stickers at the back that state “RoHS Compliant”.  RoHS also had a major impact globally because it forced the Asian exporters to the EU Member States to become “RoHS compliant” in relation to their consumer electronics exports to Europe and consequently the US retailers are increasingly asking Asian exporters to export to them RoHS compliant products and US officials are also increasingly reliant on RoHS as a standard applicable to their jurisdiction as well, and a number of US states have enacted laws in imitation of RoHS, and 9/11 emergency workers who suffered various chronic illnesses due to inhalation of air pollution during the weeks following 9/11, partly fumes of brominated flame retardants that were emitted from the incinerated PCs and other consumer and business electronics and electrical equipment in the office blocks that were destroyed, claimed and  were awarded by US federal courts billions of dollars in group compensation.  Therefore, since 1 April 2008 and the judgement in favour of RoHS by ECJ based on my case in terms of the human toxicity data it is legally actionable libel and contempt of ECJ to dispute my chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP.  It is ironic that my chronic toxic injury at age 13 by SHARP is the best scientifically and legally proven toxic injury in the world, yet was the subject of so much foul play against me by the officials of Israel, US and UK regimes in order to cover it up on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  Before ECtHR and the whole civilised world, I also publicly hold Igor Judge personally responsible for my safety from any further unlawful detentions and torture without charge and without trial by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man in order to torture, forcibly toxically inject me and injure me to death and ultimately murder me thereby by driving me to suicide in order thereby to divert me away from and conceal me from the criminal justice system and the legal light of day of a trial before a jury and news coverage of a trial in response to my many provocations since to 2006 to date to no avail to date except for my 2010 prosecution without a jury for the very minor charge of malicious communication by email in order to gain access to a criminal trial by jury in order to protest the judicial crimes against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, in order conceal me from a jury by all and any means in order to cover-up the English pseudo-judicial nullification and theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovell and unlawful ECRO, on behalf of and with the full permission and complicity of SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the English High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division judiciary who refused to discharge and/or give me right to appeal against the unlawful ECRO against me since 2005 to date and order for me an anti-torture injunction to date.  The same applies to extraordinary rendition, assassination and/or any other foul play in order to cover-up the English judicial nullification and theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells by whatever means.  (See Exhibit 198.)  I note that the abuse of forcible psychiatry is perpetrated against me by FTAC, the KGB-like psychiatric department of the Met Police that is part of both the NHS, Met Police and UK Home Office and is closely linked with the US and UK intelligence services, without any diagnosis or clinical basis or justification whatever that would stand up in a court of law in front of a jury, including by the fraudulent allegation by FTAC and Met Police that I supposedly “stalked women and girls” who were given by the Met Police no names because they never existed, without any proof and any criminal proceeding under the rules of evidence in respect of these allegations, which were rejected as perjury to the UK psychiatric tribunal by the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission and the UK psychiatric tribunal and the equally fraudulent allegation that Shetreet v SHARP is (supposedly based on) a “delusion” and is supposedly not a meritorious case and/or, more outrageously still, given that aforementioned RoHS was enacted and judged in favour of by ECJ based on the reports and peer reviewed published case studies about my injury at age 13 by SHARP, NHS charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists also alleged that my injury at age 13 by SHARP that SHARP itself admitted and conceded and refused to defend against in Israel by evasion of service of proceedings, was a “delusion”, even though NHS psychiatrists who are neither fraud specialist lawyers or toxicologists do not have the expertise or legal right to make such a judgement and have no right to interfere in political and/or politicised civil legal disputes, but in reality because Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is a politically inconvenient civil and political case precisely because it is so objectively meritorious and legally well proven and the English judges and then other US and UK officials all the way up to the US and UK Attorneys General in person committed such monstrous crimes against me in this case – otherwise why not prosecute me before a jury as I demanded and provoked since 2006 (see paragraphs 7 - 9 below for a list of my past and present provocations) to date and let the jury decide if I am sane or no, and if Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is objectively most meritorious or ‘delusional’ or no!?  After all, persons deemed to be truly and clinically mentally ill, not merely sane but politically inconvenient, are not immune in either objective US and UK law or prosecution practice from prosecution in US and UK and are prosecuted by US and UK literally every day and it is up to the defendant if he wishes to rely on a psychiatric defence that is usually rejected in any case and these mentally ill defendants are often sentenced after trial to a custodial sentence in a psychiatric prison hospital also known in UK law as a “treatment order”, which is provided for in UK law and there are even specialist psychiatric prison hospitals in UK, and US has comparable arrangements. The case of Gary McKinnon, the infamous internet hacker, who is fighting extradition to US since years based on a psychiatric defence that was rejected by both US and UK proves above point in the strongest terms possible.  Yet no US and/or UK official is willing for me to go anywhere near a jury precisely because I am so sane and the jury would support me and humiliate UK regime.  US and UK regimes are aware of the truth of my sanity and the truth of the objective merit of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and of the judicial corruption against me and anticipates that no jury will believe US and UK regimes that I am ‘not’ totally sane or that my case v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is ‘not’ totally meritorious or that SHARP did ‘not’ chronically injure me at age 13, and therefore the jury will proceed to counter-nullify all the charges against me on the grounds of self-defence just as US and UK regimes nullified all the crimes against me since age 13 to date by SHARP and Hogan Lovells and committed additional and worse judicial and official crimes against me to date in order to cover-up the crimes against me since age 13 to date of SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  Moreover, UK scandalously officially admitted most compellingly that I am mentally fit and well to be prosecuted because they did prosecute me for malicious communication in 2010 because it is a minor charge that does not require a jury (see Exhibits 205).  More shocking still, in 2010, the Met Police and CPS were willing to prosecute me for “bomb hoax” and “blackmail”, and even arrested me for same, yet FTAC and the other psychiatrists who abused psychiatry against me, had to beg and plead with the regime not to prosecute me before a jury for above charges, therefore I was prosecuted instead for the minor charge of malicious communication, yet even after this shocking admission they sectioned me again on 8 June 2010.  Ironically this is a most macabre situation in which I am being persecuted by abuse of forcible psychiatry against the sane political dissident precisely because I am too perfectly sane and totally lacking in any mental or personality illness, defect or disorder of the mind, too credible to a jury, too rational and too compellingly persuasive to any objective audience and thereby jury about the objective legal merits of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, of my unlawfully disputed sanity and of my case in relation to the official crimes that were committed against me in relation to Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells to be defeated in front of a jury, rather than lacking in perfect sanity. In other words, UK regime are deploying against me forcible psychiatry as a torture and murder weapon against the sane persecuted political dissident paradoxically because I am too sane, not lacking in perfect sanity.  In fact, if I was prosecuted in front of a jury, the corruption, bribery, torture and sadistic depravity scandal regarding the SHARP, Hogan Lovells and US and UK regimes offences against me would be such that many of the corporate and official offenders against me would have to be prosecuted in Nuremberg IMT mass trials.  The same criminality as above mentioned by UK regime, SHARP and Hogan Lovells also applies to US regime that directly instructed the UK regime crimes against me and likewise refused to prosecute and extradite me, given their involvement and complicity and my below mentioned provocations against US regime as well, given that Hogan Lovells is an American company headquartered in Washington DC and US regime refused my demand to prosecute and fine Hogan Lovells and the US business domiciles of SHARP and obtain thereby for me compensation in their jurisdiction for the crimes against me by Hogan Lovells and SHARP since age 13.  US and UK regimes, you already admitted that I am totally sane and more than mentally fit and well to stand trial, on multiple occasions mentioned above and below, including when you prosecuted me in 2010 for malicious communication because it does not involve a jury as a minor charge (Exhibits 2005) and when Mr Justice Simon to whom I submitted all the major psychiatric reports about me, including the fraudulent ones by US and UK regimes and their NHS that dispute my sanity, and he rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’ and sentenced me after a whole day hearing on 23 April 2010 at High Court to a three months custodial sentence for contempt of court that he then suspended for 12 months, in a prison for the sane, Pentonville, in response to an application by the NHS itself to have me imprisoned for contempt of court in a prison for the sane only for allegedly violating their 2009 unlawful NHS Westminster Primary Care Trust v Shetreet censorship High Court kangaroo claim and injunction against me to cover-up their crimes against me, and the Court of Appeal Civil Division on 16 November 2010 also rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’ and upheld my suspended custodial sentence in a prison for the sane only, but reduced it to 28 days suspended for 12 months as of 23 April 2010.  In any case US and UK regimes have no proof that I am ‘delusional’ by any misinterpretation of the situation, even though any ‘delusion’ about Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is by US and UK regimes not me, and even by their own fraudulent terms and allegations against me with a wink and a nod by them, even by force of openly fraudulent, disingenuous and arbitrary assertion by them disputing the objective merits of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, if they disagree with me about a civil case about money, at most they can allege that I ‘lied’ about money, as people do every day and are prosecuted for this for fraud before a jury – why such corporate, judicial and official cowardice from a trial against me before jury SHARP, Hogan Lovells, US and UK regimes? As aforementioned, alleged lies about money are immune from psychiatric intervention, as it is very normal and extremely common for people to lie about money, and is alleged fraud by definition, not a ‘mental illness’ – otherwise no one could be prosecuted for fraud in US and UK, they would be deemed ‘delusional’ instead.  Moreover, since when did a ‘subclinical’ (in psychiatric jargon) dispute about money or politics lend itself to psychiatric interventions through the allegation that the non-state party to the dispute with the regime is ‘delusional’ in a ‘clinical’ sense and should be subject to forcible psychiatry rather than criminal proceedings because the victim and dissident disagrees with the regime.  Even persons who describe themselves or are described so by others as “Holocaust deniers” are not subject to forcible psychiatry in the West due to ‘delusions about World War Two’ and political dissent against the regime.  In the USSR the KGB would throw into psychiatric prison for ‘reformist delusions’ anyone who disagreed with the communist regime, but the very definition of ‘democracy and the rule of law’ let alone ‘human rights’, is the ECHR Article 10 - Right to freedom of expression and thereby the right to dissent with the ruling regime and not be unlawfully psychiatrically detained for this without charge or trial by a jury of your peers.  Therefore, SHARP and Hogan Lovells, US and UK regimes, NHS, Met Police and FTAC charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists who tortured me, most directly, I hereby publicly challenge you before ECtHR and the whole civilised world to a legal dual before a jury, quit your depraved, cowardly, criminal, satanic, brutal and as ruthless and unlawful as nuclear terrorists abuse of psychiatric medicine as a murder and torture weapon against the persecuted sane political dissident, as was done by the KGB in the USSR, and prosecute me before a jury for my many below and above mentioned provocations against you since 2006 to date, let a jury decide if I am sane or no if you still dare disingenuously dispute my sanity with a wink and a nod despite your many above and below mentioned official and legally binding admissions in and out of High Court (where you civilly sued me as of 2009 to date) and Westminster Magistrates Court (where you prosecuted me in 2010 for the minor charge of malicious communication that does not require a jury and the CPS did not make any mention of any alleged mental illness, they invited the court to understand that I was perfectly sane, Exhibits 205) of my perfect sanity and perfect mental fitness by your very own repeated admissions to stand trial also before a jury in any case.  (See Exhibits 52,198 and 210.)  As aforementioned, in March 2007 the UK psychiatric tribunal and in March 2010 the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission rejected the above allegations (“stalker of women and girls”) against me by aforementioned FTAC and US and UK regimes as perjury to the UK psychiatric tribunal, yet even after the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission judged in my favour in relation to the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man in order to unlawfully detain, forcibly inject with toxins, torture, additionally injure and attempt to murder me in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the Guardian newspaper admitted (see Exhibit 210 and see online Guardian correction) that the Met Police, FTAC and NHS psychiatrists had no right to make in the Guardian and Guardian online libellous and medical confidentiality violating comments about me under my full first and sir name, i.e. “Elad Shetreet”, without precedent in NHS and UK history, and without my permission, that the Guardian therefore voluntarily removed with an online correction stating my name from the Guardian online on 22 June 2010, and even after the NHS civilly sued me at High Court on 6 November 2009 for a censorship injunction in order to cover-up their abuse of forcible psychiatry and other crimes against me and relied on and exhibited not any of the many NHS hostile and fraudulent pseudo-psychiatric documents about me but exhibited and relied only on (see Exhibits 22) the independent non-NHS psychiatric report about me to the UK psychiatric tribunal that was paid for not by me but by legal aid and that proved that I am totally sane and without any alleged mental or personality illness, defect or disorder, and the UK Attorney General then did the same as NHS and likewise relied on and exhibited only Exhibits 22 about me when he civilly sued me as well later in November 2009 at Admin Court division of High Court, the English High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division judiciary refused to date my applications, most recently in November 2010, to discharge the ECRO baring me all right to go to law since 2005 to date and/or give me permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division against the most unlawful ECRO against me since 2005 to date, not to mention that above official crimes would not have been committed if I was not under an unlawful ECRO and unable to go to civil law at High Court and protect myself with civil claims and anti-torture and other injunctions and monetary orders and referrals by judges of rogue charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists for prosecution before a jury for torture and crimes against humanity. Even more grotesquely, in UK persons under an ECRO cannot obtain legal representation because lawyers are too afraid of being subject to an ECRO themselves if they help someone under an ECRO, be the ECRO lawful or unlawful and due to a miscarriage of justice, yet even Camp Guantanamo inmates have a right to both criminal, civil and human rights legal counsel there and in the courts of mainland US and UK and lawyers in US, UK and beyond are more than happy and even eager to represent them in US and UK courts even pro bono, due to the news coverage involved, yet no one will legally represent me in civil law on either legal aid or pro bono, not even in relation to UK Attorney General v Shetreet, in which I am entirely the defendant, due to the unlawful ECRO against me.  I note that a UK ECRO in objective UK law is supposed to only require its target to request permission from a High Court judge before going to law, it is not in objective UK law supposed to bar him from going to law for all and any reason overall for the rest of his life no matter how meritorious the cause of action and how grave the offence/s against him and to declare him thereby vermin against whom all crimes are legal, even murder, which is the case here, and therefore he cannot go to law at all for any reason forever.  Secondly in objective UK law a UK ECRO is supposed to last for only two years, yet my 2005 unlawful ECRO that was obtained by fraud to begin with was unlawfully extended by SHARP and Hogan Lovells by more fraud to date, and the UK Attorney General who committed more fraud, torture, unlawful detentions and worse against me, far from applying to have all orders against me set aside as obtained by fraud and ordering the CPS to prosecute all corporate and official offenders against me, is as of 2009 seeking by his perjury committing civil action against me at Admin Court division of High Court without a jury needless to say to make the unlawful ECRO permanent and declare me a “vexatious litigant” against SHARP and Hogan Lovells and thus bar me from going to law for any reason forever, even though it is they who have taken unlawful, vexatious and perjury committing ECRO perpetration and unlawful extensions civil actions against me since 2005 when the unlawful ECRO was imposed by fraud and perjury, and it is the UK Attorney General, SHARP and Hogan Lovells, the Met Police, City of London Police, FTAC, NHS et al, even by the judgement in my favour of the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission and by the admission of the Guardian newspaper (see Exhibits 22, 198 and 210) that are criminally fraudulent, corrupt, vexatious and worse against me and unlawfully psychiatrically detained me, tortured me, additionally injured me, committed perjury, fraud, concealment and nondisclosure at High Court and also at psychiatric tribunals against me and committed invasion of privacy and libel against me in the Guardian since 2004 in UK to date in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London.  (See Exhibits 8, 13 and 52.)  In addition to above, my most indisputably timely, otherwise meritorious and procedurally separate 11 July 2005 lodged High Court action for serious fraud, libel, invasion of privacy and infringement of copyright v Hogan Lovells, lodged only a few months after the publication of the offending SHARP and Hogan Lovells advertorial against me on 4 February 2005 and when the fraud was still ongoing, was simply dismissed without even any formality, hearing or lodgement of defence, and my likewise indisputably timely, admitted by one of the co-defendants and otherwise meritorious and procedurally separate and additional 29 May 2007 High Court action v SHARP, Mail on Sunday and Yediot, that Mail on Sunday already admitted by removing the offending against me 11 June 2006 article from their website shortly after paper publication for “legal reasons” was placed on a “Stay” by a High Court Master judge freezing all proceedings as soon as it was lodged pending permission by a High Court judge for proceedings to continue, and of course all my permission to apply applications under ECRO to High Court to allow proceedings to continue in this separate and most proven action were denied.  I was able to lodge above 2007 High Court action in spite of the ECRO only because I did not ask for permission, rightfully, as none would have been give even though the objective law is on my side on that point and overall.  (See Exhibits 8 and 13.)  Worse still, the most indisputably timely and meritorious libel, invasion of privacy and infringement of copyright causes of action and aspect of my main 2004/5 action against Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd consequent to the most fraudulent, outrageous and unlawful advertorial with stolen partially nude medical photos of me that SHARP and Hogan Lovells published about me with quotation of their spokesperson directly and verbatim, stating, “SHARP: ...”and the libellously commenting about the case in both Israel and London to that date on 4 February 2005, that I added to my above case v SHARP by High Court in London applications only two months after the publication of the offending advertorial against me by SHARP and Hogan Lovells on 4 February 2005 and that substantiated the multinational corporate bribery and fraud cause of action of case, as SHARP were quoted gloated in their advertorial that they both chronically and catastrophically injured me at age 13 and unlawfully defrauded me of my compensation in the case in Israel and cut off my “arms and legs” by chronically injuring me and then evading service of proceedings by fraud and bribery, was so timely otherwise meritorious and therefore inconvenient that it was simply ignored in all the defence pleadings and case judgements to date that were so fraudulent by both the defendants and the judges that both the defence pleadings and judgments may well have been about another case in all but name and there can be no doubt this case is the worst miscarriage of justice due to judicial corruption and malice in UK and perhaps Western legal history overall. However, one of the most judicially criminally insane aspects of in this case came as of the lodgement against me of NHS Westminster Primary Care Trust v Shetreet at High Court in London on 6 November 2009, in which the NHS that since 2006 unlawfully psychiatrically detained, injured and tortured me in order to divert me away from the criminal justice system in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells supposedly because I was not mentally fit and well to be a defendant in a criminal case and appear before a jury, this NHS civilly sued me and admitted that I am mentally fit and well to be both a civil and a criminal defendant and stand trial before a jury in a criminal case, and as aforementioned, the NHS relied at High Court, of all psychiatric documents about me, only on Exhibits 22, the non-NHS independent psychiatric report that proves my perfect sanity.  De facto, the NHS went to High Court in London and admitted that they unlawfully psychiatrically detained, tortured and attempted to murder a sane man without any fear of prosecution or other consequences, and even asked to be rewarded for these crimes with a censorship injunction, and the same can be said about UK Attorney General v Shetreet, pending, vexatious litigant application.  Yet when during the NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet hearings at High Court I asked Mr Justice Eady, Mr Justice MacDuff and Mr Justice Simon to hear and procedurally accept my countersuit v NHS and order for me a protective anti-torture injunction and order for me monetary compensation, they pretended that I did not exist.  This was even the case when and after Mr Justice Simon rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’ on 23 April 2010 when the NHS applied to High Court to have me imprisoned for contempt of court because I threatened to violate the injunction after the Met Police, FTAC and NHS threatened to unlawfully psychiatrically detain me again in March 2010 and proceeded to unlawfully psychiatrically detain me again on 8 June 2010, and this was also the case on 16 November 2010 at the Court of Appeal Civil Division who merely reduced my suspended custodial sentence in a prison for the sane handed down by Simon J to 28 days from three months but ignored the rest of my appeal, especially in relation to the countersuit and protective anti-torture injunction. Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet and UK Attorney General v Shetreet may be the first time a violent criminal goes to court to freely admit and even gloat about his violent, injurious and murderous crimes against the victim and without any fear, embarrassment or hesitation apply to English High Court and Court of Appeal judges for the victim of their violent crimes against him since age 13 to date to be punished and for them to be rewarded for their crimes.  This is how absurd and lawless the situation has become.  Moreover, on 8 June 2010, after all the aforementioned 2009 and 2010 repeated and multiple admissions of US and UK regimes, even of the NHS and UK Attorney General directly, at Admin Court, at High Court and at Westminster Magistrates Court where I was being prosecuted at the time for malicious communication only, because it does not involve a jury, my address was raided by Met Police and NHS and I was unlawfully sectioned and unlawfully psychiatrically detained again, including by the criminal wanted dead or alive Dr Paul Mallet of NHS Brent, and kidnapped to an NHS psychiatric torture facility against a sane man because, it was disclosed to me by the detaining psychiatrists, the US Embassy in London and US Dept of Justice instructed UK regime to do so in retaliation for my perfectly legally actionable provocation by email of 7 May 2010 to the US Dept of Justice and US Embassy expressing support for a prohibited organisation, etc (see paragraphs 7 - 9 below) and challenging them to prosecute either me or Hogan Lovells, an American company, for their crimes against me.  Since when do American terrorists/spies also known as American diplomats and other US officials have a right to make supposedly clinical decisions in UK about foreign nationals?  Moreover, what gives them the right to use psychiatric medicine as a torture and murder weapon against the persecuted sane political dissident, against a man they admitted time and again, in and out of UK civil and criminal (without a jury) court to be totally sane and in any case mentally fit and well to be prosecuted including before a jury?  I was severely injured by the forcible psychiatric toxic injections against a sane man and thereby Auschwitz type forcible medical experiments perpetrated against me by US and UK regimes since 2006, my injuries include catastrophic stomach pain, chronic fatigue that requires me to sleep many more hours than is normal and extensive dental damage that required dental treatment, due to the induced involuntary grinding of teeth during sleep.  The refusal of the English judiciary to order a protective anti-torture injunction even after Mr Justice Simon rejected on 23 April 2010 my trick ‘insanity plea’ and gave me a suspended custodial sentence for contempt of court proves the English judges are complicit in these crimes and are eager for me to be tortured and murdered by these crimes in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells due to the judicial bribery offences against me.  Because my above injuries by US and UK regimes were deliberately induced and were not due to any ‘accident’ or ‘negligence’ I hereby claim from UK regime at ECtHR, as I cannot go to law domestically in either US or UK, 10 billion euro. 

4.2. See Exhibits 216 and paragraphs 5 below about the refusal of UK Attorney General to comply with disclosure and discovery laws in relation to UK Attorney General v Shetreet and thereby fraud by concealment and nondisclosure and admission of perjury and other offences against me by him, SHARP and Hogan Lovells on whose behalf he is acting and by others, and Exhibit 56.1 (above pasted in full), transcript of Shetreet and SHARP and Hogan Lovells ECRO extension High Court hearing and judgement, 15 July 2009, and my witness statement and challenge to SHARP and Hogan Lovells and any other interested party that I served by email on 8 November 2010 on Admin Court division of High Court, US and UK Attorneys General, SHARP, Hogan Lovells and others with a challenge to have me prosecuted for perjury if they dispute that statement and below summary of that witness statement of 8 November 2010.  As aforementioned, in complicity with SHARP, Hogan Lovells, the criminally corrupt English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary and the US Attorney General, who also refused to comply with my disclosure requests, the UK Attorney General refused to comply with disclosure and discovery laws in relation his pending civil action against me at Admin Court and thereby committed fraud by concealment and nondisclosure and admitted that he, SHARP and Hogan Lovells and others are committing against me perjury and other offences and stated that he will not disclose anything other than his perjury committing skeleton argument against me, equivalent to a mere charge sheet in criminal law that may well be total fiction, as in this case, which is the equivalent of a prosecutor in a criminal capital punishment US and/or UK case stating that he will not disclose or rely on any ‘forensic or witness evidence’ if any, or any evidence whatever, and refuses to even disclose the identities of any ‘complainants or witnesses’, if any, to support his allegations, and admits that in fact the defendant of the worse than vexatious and utterly fraudulent capital punishment prosecution is entirely innocent and that the US and/or UK Attorney General knows this and always knew this but that he is seeking to judicially murder an innocent man in order to cover-up the judicial theft of a high value civil claim the defendant was the claimant of, in this case namely Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells. The UK Attorney General would not act in this manner if he did not believe that he was criminally complicit against me with the English judiciary and also acting against me criminally on their behalf and with their cooperation, as his action against me would be automatically thrown out by any English judge I applied to for this remedy of dismissal of his action against me due to fraud by concealment, nondisclosure and noncompliance with discovery and thereby admission of perjury and other offences against me by him, SHARP and Hogan Lovells on whose behalf he is acting and by others if the English judiciary had not sold their souls to the devil in 100% in respect of me and in general, that is to say if they were not the devil incarnate to begin with and exceeded the devil in evil and lawlessness.  I note that the UK Attorney General is acting against me on behalf of the US Attorney General and Hogan Lovells, an American company, and that the US Attorney General likewise refused to comply with my US FOIA disclosure request to him of 2010 by simply ignoring my disclosure request, and SHARP and Hogan Lovells of course also refused to comply with disclosure since case outset.  This is a clear admission by above parties, including the US and UK judiciaries and prosecutors up to the US and UK Attorneys General that they are openly stating that they are not in the business of justice and law enforcement but of law breaking, fraud, perjury, unlawful detentions, torture, murder and worse, by framing and falsely convicting innocent by their own admissions defendants, which means that ECtHR cannot recognise any US and UK proceedings, judgements, orders and extradition requests (this includes the extradition request to UK by Sweden against Julian Assange blatantly on behalf of US) and that no one may be extradited from UK to any state and/or from Europe overall to US or UK, as this would violate the ECHR Article 6 - Right to a fair hearing and Article 5 - Prohibition of unlawful detention.

4.3.Pasted quotation from page 1 of Exhibit 56.1, the 15 July 2009 Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells High Court transcript of the unlawful second extension of the unlawful ECRO against Shetreet by SHARP and Hogan Lovells et al also on behalf of US and UK regimes baring him all right to go to law since 2005:

MR. SHETREET:  Well, number one, I want to say how illegal this application is and how I am very, very surprised that this court is even willing to entertain such an application and not have them immediately arrested and prosecuted.  The Royal Correspondent for The Sun was jailed for three months in 2007 for doing something infinitely less serious.  He just hacked into sort of social telephone calls of members of the Royal Family and he was jailed for three months.  But they hacked into my legally privileged correspondence and how can this not occasion criminal proceedings against them?  I challenged Norton Rose...

MR. JUSTICE STEEL:  I am not really interested at the moment in the merits of this matter.  Do you want an adjournment and, if so, why? 

End of pasted quotation from above transcript

The full 15 July 2009 High Court transcript is pasted at the bottom of this document.

Due to the escalating wave of corporate and judicial criminality against me since age 13, SHARP and Hogan Lovells decided in 2009 that all boundaries were breached in respect of me and that any semblance of the rule of law had disappeared, in addition and in complicity with the UK Attorney General they were desperate to extend the unlawful ECRO against me because objectively the law is on my side in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and if I was able to go to law all the judgements and orders against me would have to be set aside as obtained by fraud, perjury and fraud by concealment and nondisclosure with compensation, and then UK Attorney General would not be able to civilly sue me on their behalf, with their complicity and on their instructions to him, as he did later in 2009, therefore in order to extend the ECRO in 2009, for the second time since 2005, for another maximum two years, SHARP and Hogan Lovells hacked in May 2009 into my email account and sent emails and left web form messages in my name to law firms seeking legal representation in my name, and then relied on and exhibited these emails at High Court and committed perjury by alleging these emails were sent by me and not by them falsely in my name, and asked Mr Justice Steel to reward their blatant invasion of privacy and violation of legal confidentiality even if the emails were from me, and in circumstance they also committed criminal perjury by alleging the emails were from me and not from them, and also committed hacking into my email account, which is also a criminal offence in UK punishable with a substantial prison sentence, as I reminded the gangster judge Steel J at the 15 July 2009 hearing, and asked him why he does not have SHARP and Hogan Lovells arrested immediately, as the transcript will show, and will thereby show that Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was so judicially farcical from outset that even if SHARP and Hogan Lovells attacked me with an axe at one of the hearings the English judge witnessing the attack would not only approve but would join in and strike me with an axe himself in open court.  Despite the blatant hacking and blatant perjury about that and all aspects of case overall since outset, the response of Mr Justice Steel on 15 July 2009 was not to punish SHARP and Hogan Lovells, refer them to the Met Police and CPS for prosecution for hacking, fraud, perjury and other offences and set aside all the judgements and orders in case as obtained by corporate fraud since outset about all aspects of case in all defence pleadings and statements since case outset, with interim compensation, as any law abiding judge would have done in the circumstance, but to unlawfully extend the unlawful ECRO for another maximum two years without even permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division.  Typically for lawless US and UK regimes, later in 2009, the Court of Appeal Civil Division refused me permission to appeal without any reason and UK Attorney General, instead of prosecuting SHARP and Hogan Lovells for above and much else, relied on the above 2009 ECRO extension obtained by criminal hacking and criminal perjury and thereby UK Attorney General also relied on the fake emails obtained by criminal hacking and civilly sued  to have me declared a vexatious litigant against SHARP and Hogan Lovells in November 2009. When I complained to the City of London Police and Met Police about the hacking and perjury, both of which are criminal offences, my complaint was simply nullified for no stated reason, except of course that all crimes are officially legal against me based on the say so of the criminally corrupt and directly complicit also in above hacking crime English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary and US and UK Attorneys General.  Because Hogan Lovells is an American company headquartered in Washington DC, I also complained by email to the US Attorney General about the above hacking and fraud offences, but of course received no response from him either because he too is simply a gangster and terrorist.  Needless to state, SHARP and Hogan Lovells, Met Police, CPS, UK Home Office, UK Foreign Office and all other branches of UK and US regimes that I requested disclosure also under UK and/or US FOIA and/or UK DPA laws also refused to disclose or totally ignored my disclosure requests.  Above blatant criminal conspiracy to frame me by the UK judiciary, US and UK Attorneys General and SHARP and Hogan Lovells by fraud by concealment and active perjuries red in tooth and claw and their reliance with success against me at High Court by SHARP and Hogan Lovells and at Admin Court division of High Court to date even by the UK Attorney General on fake emails obtained by hacking and on an ECRO extension likewise obtained by hacking and perjury in order to set out to frame a man and de facto convict a man and give him a pauperisation and de facto death sentence should have far reaching consequences for the status of the US and UK terrorist regimes, judiciaries, prosecutors and all other officials at ECtHR and means that all convictions in and extraditions to US and UK and/or from UK, even those obtained by supposed ‘eyewitness testimony’ whose ‘testimony’ and commission of perjury can and is easily procured by all US and UK terrorist regimes prosecutors, judges and other officials every day and/or ‘forensic evidence’, be it biological, ballistic or computer forensics, the latter ‘forensics’ as in my case on 15 July 2009, are unsafe and most questionable indeed, as all judgements, charges, ‘evidences’ and all other statements by proven criminally fraudulent US and UK judges and prosecutors, even up to the highest instances of the US and UK judiciaries and prosecutors, as in this case that directly criminally against me involves the US and UK Attorneys General and the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary (criminals like the US and UK Attorneys General et al only appoint other criminals to the bench, as this case proves), and all other officials and politicians are now highly suspect and no more believable than the perjuries and hacking against me of SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the fairytales of the Baron Munchausen, as even biological tissues and body fluids for supposed forensic tests can easily be forcibly removed or stolen unaware from a suspect or defendant and planted on the scene of the crime or on the victim, or the forensics results documents can be fictional and on paper only, without  any actual tests having been carried out by the US or UK regime laboratory, and means that ECtHR must never allow anyone to be extradited from ECHR signatory states to either terrorist state US or UK or even from UK to ECHR signatory and other states, especially not of Muslims, e.g. Abu Hamza and Abu Quatada aka Othman and other political dissidents, such as Julian Assange, who are far more vulnerable to violations of human rights by the US and UK terrorist regimes and their proxy puppet regimes in Europe, the Middle East and beyond, given their ‘war on terror’ crusades against the Muslim world and Muslim culture and religion and fanatical determination to control the oil fields of the Middle East based on any pretext.  Above also means that all civil orders and judgments in US and UK where a jury was not involved and/or did not have the final say are also totally null and void, and all US and UK convictions overall, even those involving a jury that can be easily manipulated by false ‘forensics’, perjury of ‘witnesses’ procured by civil defendants and/or judges or in criminal or some civil cases also by the prosecutors and/or judges, as in my case in both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General v Shetreet at High Court, etc, are all null and void and all US and UK judges, prosecutors and all other officials are simply fraudulent and violently criminal organised criminals and terrorists red in tooth and claw who should be declared wanted dead or alive by all civilised jurisdictions and ideally placed on a Nuremberg IMT style tribunal and given a taste of their own medicine.  In addition, the latest High Court judge to nullify and thereby render himself complicit in all the crimes against me and directly commit against me an additional judicial crime is Mr Justice Calvert-Smith to whom I applied under the terms of the ECRO for permission to apply in November 2010, fully noting also the timely libel, fraud, concealment, nondisclosure, etc aspects of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells that were totally ignored and nullified since 2004/5 to date, the hacking, unlawful detentions, torture, violation of medical confidentiality by UK regime in the Guardian online from 2007-2010, my meritorious separate case v Mail on Sunday et al on a “Stay” pending permission to continue proceedings, the March 2010 judgement in my favour by the UK Independent Complaints Commission and against the Met Police and FTAC for the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, giving me automatic right to go to domestic law for monetary compensation under ECHR Articles 3 and 5 for unlawful detentions, torture, forcible toxic injections, personal injury, the 22 June 2010 admission by the Guardian that the Met Police, FTAC and NHS violated my medical confidentiality, etc more recent offences and developments, yet he refused without any reason my most objectively meritorious November 2010 permission to apply and discharge the ECRO application.  It is most noteworthy that Calvert-Smith was until recent years the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service.  This further compellingly demonstrates the unlawfully close connections and complicity between and the fraudulent and murderous immoral and criminal calibre and makeup of both the entire UK judiciary overall and of the entirety of UK prosecutors and police officials overall, and that no one in US and UK may have a fair criminal or civil hearing with such corrupt and closely connected judges, prosecutors and police officials who see themselves as part of the same totally lawless and criminally corrupt branch of the regime, ‘team’ or de facto mafia and do not believe in the freedom from corruption and independence of judges from the executive branch of the regime or in the professional integrity and freedom from corruption of prosecutors.  An additional recent judicial offender in case in late October 2010, for same above reasons, is Mr Justice Cranston, who was a Labour MP until recent years.  An additional judicial offender in case is Mr Justice Underhill, who unlawfully extended my unlawful ECRO in 2007 by joint corporate and judicial fraud and perjury, and refused me permission to appeal, importantly, after my unlawful psychiatric detentions and torture by US and UK regimes to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells commenced in 2006 giving me automatic right to go to domestic law for compensation under ECHR Articles 5 and 3, and he refused my application to him to sue for a protective anti-torture injunction, and for that reason and others the blood of my additional subsequent torture and unlawful psychiatric detentions is on his hands.  Mr Justice Underhill was until recent years also a senior part of the executive branch of the UK regime as the personal lawyer of, officially known as the “Attorney General” to Prince Charles, the next in line to the UK throne and his crimes have compromised the reputation of the UK royal family, as who is to say that Prince Charles would not have acted exactly as his personal lawyer Underhill J had he been sitting in judgement over me.  An even more astonishing aspect of case is that Michael Seymour, one of the most senior partners at Hogan Lovells, is a part-time High Court judge even though his commercial practice brings him and thereby the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary into a direct conflict of interests as judges de facto acting in their own cause in all cases in which Hogan Lovells is either counsel for the litigant or the direct litigant, as in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and thereby means that all legal fees to Hogan Lovells are de facto bribes to the English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary.  The UK courts and UK judiciary are truly kangaroo and totally criminally corrupt to the core without any shame or inhibition.  The presence of Michael Seymour on the High Court bench is in violation of my ECHR Article 6 - Right to a fair hearing, as no judge can act as a judge in his own cause, and means this application must be automatically successful.  Moreover, the very presence in the senior UK judiciary of Calvert-Smith, Cranston, Underhill, Seymour and others like them without any shame or embarrassment on the part of the UK judiciary and executive, even of the former chief prosecutor of UK, a former ruling party MP and a former personal “Attorney General” to the UK royal family, makes a further mockery of justice and the rule of law in and of itself and would be most appropriate for USSR, where all the senior judges no doubt had to be also zealous USSR Communist Party members and loyalists and co-prosecutors and de facto co-defence lawyers in civil cases against the Soviet state and/or its allies and where no criminal defendant or civil claimant against the Soviet state and/or its allies was allowed to have a fair hearing, just as I was not allowed even one fair hearing in US and UK to date, but not for a supposed ‘rule of law abiding democracy’ in name only as it transpires like rogue US and UK, and compellingly demonstrates that in rogue US and its puppet regime ruled UK there is no difference between the political policy makers up to cabinet level, including the US and UK Attorneys General, prosecutors and judges, and that civil cases are likewise unlawfully prejudiced in US and UK in relation to large well-connected multinational, US and UK companies such as Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd and Hogan Lovells that are seen by US and UK judiciaries and politicians as an honorary branch of the US and UK terrorist regimes whose bribes to US and UK politicians, judges and all and sundry in power are likewise seen as not only legal but welcome, as in this case, given the proven by Exhibit 6.1 and admitted by the UK Ministry of Justice bribery offences in case against me of High Court judge Master Miller, for which judicial bribery offences only I, not he, was punished most severely indeed to date with a vermin status, unlawful detentions, unlawful torture, unlawful pauperisation and unlawful economic death sentence.

4.4. Question to and prosecution before a jury and legal dual before a jury challenge to Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge and the entire Mossad sayanim and psychopathic organised criminal and more ruthless than Hitler English High Court and Court of Appeal pseudo-judiciary: If the objective law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, notwithstanding the proven and admitted by the UK Ministry of Justice bribery offences against Shetreet by High Court judge Master Miller who was subsequently forced to prematurely retire from the bench, is so robustly on the side of Shetreet that the judicial injury and judicial crime against him by the unlawful dismissal and judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells with an unlawful ECRO to begin with unlawfully baring him all right to go to law overall since 2005 to date is so monstrous that no matter what provocation Shetreet commits in order to gain access to a jury to protest the judicial and other official crimes against him the jury will counter-nullify all charges against Shetreet just as all the crimes against Shetreet were nullified by the English judiciary, Met Police, CPS et al, then why become an increasingly self-criminalised pseudo-judiciary that commits daily more crimes against Shetreet in order to cover-up the previous ones, and why hide from the legal light of day and publicity and behave like creatures lower than sewer rats and human flesh eating vicious insects, and why act as if SHARP and Hogan Lovells’ pockets are their own due to judicial bribery offences as a norm for the English judiciary, if the law is so much on side of Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London since 2004 that it is necessary to unlawfully detain, torture and murder Shetreet by foul play to conceal him from a jury by foul play, and thereby increasingly co-criminalise the UK Ministry of Justice, Met Police, FTAC, NHS, City of London Police, CPS, UK Attorney General et al and the rest of UK regime and subsequently also of US regime, as Hogan Lovells is an American company headquartered in Washington DC, by forcing them into criminal partnership with the English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary in order to cover-up your crimes, as transpired, then, instead of turning the whole legal and moral world of US and UK upside down, why not simply act lawfully and judicially for a change instead, set aside all judgements and orders against Shetreet with an apology for the worst miscarriage of justice in US and UK legal history and with immediate compensation from SHARP and Hogan Lovells and thereby stop once and for all the escalating vicious circle of escalating judicial corruption and judicial self-criminalisation and the total abrogation of the rule of law, human rights and in case of UK also of ECHR by gangster states US and UK? Interestingly, psychiatrists and police agency forensic experts define serial murderers and other extreme murderous criminals like the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal pseudo-judiciary in relation to their crimes against me as “psychopaths”, and their definition of psychopaths is of “offenders who cannot feel any empathy for their victims or regret for their crimes”, which is the precise definition of the English High Court and Court of Appeal pseudo-judiciary, SHARP and Hogan Lovells and all those in US and UK regimes who you co-criminalised, including Met Police and NHS KGB-like charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists because they were forced to commit crimes to cover-up for you.  Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, if you do not reopen my case and set aside all judgements and orders against me at High Court and the refusal of the Court of Appeal Civil Division to give me permission to appeal I hereby challenge you to a dual before a jury for my many criminally legally actionable provocations since 2006 to date, have me prosecuted before a jury or set aside the orders against me, or you and the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal pseudo-judiciary will become known in the entire civilised world as organised criminals, mafia, gangsters and Mossad sayanim, more ruthless and less law abiding than Hitler, wanted dead or alive by all civilised jurisdictions and the commonly decent people of UK will come and riot outside the Royal Courts of Justice and UK Parliament and demand that you all be thrown off the bench without any pension and into prison by a joint address of both houses of UK Parliament and subsequent prosecutions, as the law allows in respect of corrupt judges. However, I note that no High Court or above judge was thrown off the bench by UK Parliament since the early 19^th Century, whereas even in rogue US corrupt judges are thrown off the bench and into prison nearly every year, in UK at most, like Master Miller, excessively offending judges whose offences become too public are asked to prematurely ‘retire’ very quietly and discreetly to protect the UK and English judiciary from further embarrassment, which means that in UK judicial corruption is de facto legal.  In addition, US and UK regimes unintentionally disclosed to me that their worst nightmare is running out of pseudo-psychiatric options to unlawfully detain and torture me and of being forced to detain me without charge and without trial at Paddington Green Police station, the Camp Guantanamo of UK, in response to my provocations in order to gain access to a jury trial, because of the publicity and news coverage of the US and UK regime, SHARP and Hogan Lovells crimes against me since age 13 that either detention at Paddington Green Police station or a jury trial would entail.  Therefore, the question is asked again of you Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, if your crimes against me retroactively since age 13 to date are so unforgivable by any normal legal definition that no one other than extreme psychopaths (evidently 100% of UK judiciary) would be willing to tolerate it and therefore publicity and proceedings before a jury must be avoided at any cost in respect of me, and for the same reasons all SHARP, Hogan Lovells and official files about me in US and UK are regarded as top secret and no compliance with disclosure and discovery laws in respect of me may be undertaken, even when I am the civil defendant, as in UK Attorney General v Shetreet and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, then why don’t you give me back what you stole from me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells instead of turning the world upside down.  Moreover, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, have you no shame whatever, to pursue a vulnerable victim of corporate atrocity since age 13, why don’t you pick on someone your own size, a billionaire for example who could humiliate you in the press and then hire a contract killer to target you and settle accounts with you.  See further Questions to US and UK regimes in paragraph 4.4 below.

4.5. (See also above paragraph 4.4.)  Questions that I would like ECtHR and the Council of Europe to put to US and UK terrorist regimes: (1) Is there still any semblance of the rule of law in US and UK or no, and does UK overall still recognise ECHR, or do they publicly admit to being terrorist regimes, as under Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General v Shetreet, pending, US and UK common law whereby all crimes were legalised against me and thereby legalised overall under equality under the law and ECHR Articles 14 and 6 - Prohibition of discrimination and Right to a fair hearing, even 9/11 and worse insurgency, even nuclear insurgency against US and UK cities, and all other crimes are legal, even insurgency by Al Qaeda on 9/11.  (2) Is the determination of the outcome of High Court cases with refusal of the Court of Appeal Civil Division to give permission to appeal by corporate bribery of High Court judges by which all High Court high value civil cases involving large companies the official policy of the US and UK judiciaries, Attorneys General, prosecutors, police officials and regimes overall, and that the victims of such judicial and corporate bribery offences be punished and ultimately murdered for these crimes against them?  (3) Why are US and UK regimes and the organised criminal English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary so ferociously supportive of SHARP and Hogan Lovells interests, even though I am the victim of their crimes as of age 13, why are they not pursuing SHARP and Hogan Lovells instead of me, as if SHARP and Hogan Lovells were paying them bribes and/or were a branch of US and UK regimes that pays all the salaries, officially or in bribes, is it not because above organised criminal ‘companies’ are de facto part of Mossad due to their close business links with the Israel IT export industry and the entire English High Court and Court of Appeal kangaroo pseudo-judiciary are likewise Mossad sayanim agents whose first and only loyalty is to Israel, money and bribes and/or the expectation of bribes, also from Mossad, Israel and companies with close links with Israel and/or US, such as SHARP and Hogan Lovells.  (4) Do US and UK regimes believe that psychiatry is a branch of medicine or a torture and murder weapon against the persecuted sane political dissidents who they hate and are eager to exterminate but do not want to prosecute in a court of law before a jury and thus a branch of politics, not medicine, if yes, then all US and UK officials and the US and UK charlatan pseudo-psychiatrists who take instructions from them should be declared international war criminals wanted for prosecution for crimes against humanity in all civilised jurisdictions. (5) Even after I attempted to commit suicide earlier in 2010 due to the judicial crimes against me, the unlawful destruction of my livelihood by the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the Auschwitz type medical experiments against me by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man on behalf of the judicial criminals against me and in order to conceal their crimes against me by diverting me away from the criminal justice system and mentioned this in my subsequent pleadings to High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary, these judicial crimes against me have not stopped, which means the English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary are indisputably murderous as well as totally corrupt and fraudulent, how then are English judges morally superior, if they allege they are, to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi leader defendants who were convicted at the Nuremberg IMT trials, unless of course the English judiciary take the position that no one should have been convicted and judicially killed at Nuremberg IMT because all English judges are far more ruthless and murderous than the Nazi leaders who were judicially killed at Nuremberg and other post-war tribunals, yet no one has seen fit to punish even one of the English judges.

5.1. Violation by UK Attorney General of all the UK disclosure and discovery laws of his own regime in relation to UK Attorney General v Shetreet and formal abrogation of the rule of law by UK Attorney General in complicity with US Attorney General, SHARP and Hogan Lovells: See attached Exhibits 216.  Attached is the disgraceful latest refusal by SHARP and Hogan Lovells and US and UK regimes overall, in this case by the UK Treasury Solicitors acting in UK Attorney General v Shetreet for the UK Attorney General, to comply with my 2010 UK Data Protection Act (DPA) and UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure request in relation to his pending civil action against me at the Admin Court division of High Court.  I note that the US Attorney General, the US State Dept and the US Embassy in London who are an unofficial party to UK Attorney General v Shetreet totally ignored my US FOIA disclosure request and did not even bother to respond in order to refuse to comply in writing.  The excuses of the UK Treasury Solicitors acting for the UK Attorney General in UK Attorney General v Shetreet and of the UK Attorney General thereby to his refusal to comply with the disclosure and discovery laws of his own regime to the effect that third parties on whose behalf and with whose cooperation and instructions, SHARP, Hogan Lovells, Israel, US and UK intelligence services, etc he is acting against me have a right to remain secret and that the rest is covered by internal UK regime “professional privilege” is insulting to the intelligence and an admission of foul play by him, SHARP and Hogan Lovells et al against me.  An agent of the state prosecuting and otherwise legally acting on his own behalf against a defendant does not enjoy professional privilege, as Met Police and all other UK police forces and CPS have no professional privilege in prosecutions, and if secrecy of complainants, supposed ‘witnesses’ and other second and third parties and internal prosecutorial professional privilege could be relied on in criminal cases in US and UK then literally nothing and no forensic or witness evidence whatever would be disclosed in criminal proceedings in US and UK except for the charge sheet, which is absurd.  Indeed, there are plenty of common law US and UK criminal cases where judges that acted in accordance with the law because a jury was involved dismissed prosecutions and/or civil cases because the prosecutors and/or claimant did not comply FULLY or only complied partially with disclosure, yet in my case overall, both in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, censorship injunction, etc and UK Attorney General v Shetreet there is was no disclosure or discovery whatever, and only deception in relation to the pleadings relied upon partially because no jury was involved in all above civil cases involving me as either the defendant in two of the above cases and claimant in one of the above cases.  Moreover, UK Attorney General is not a commercial client of an external firm of solicitors like Hogan Lovells, so professional privilege does not even remotely apply in any case by any stretch of the imagination!  All UK Attorney General disclosed to date is his skeleton argument against me, equivalent to a charge sheet in criminal law, that may well be totally fictional, that contained nothing factual, only expressions of hostility and outright perjury.  Also needless to state that the UK Ministry of Justice, Court of Appeal Civil Division directly, Met Police, FTAC, NHS (who together with Met Police and FTAC that is part of both Met Police and NHS unlawfully psychiatrically detained and tortured me to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells), CPS, UK Foreign Office, UK Home Office, US Attorney General, US Embassy in London and all other requested branches of the US and UK terrorist regimes also refused to comply with my 2008, 2009 and 2010 UK DPA, UK FOIA and US FOIA disclosure requests.  Moreover, UK Attorney General v Shetreet that is a de facto criminal case, in which criminal allegations are made against me in the claimant skeleton argument without any conviction against me and without any proof, is also a civil case, and no claimant or prosecutor in a criminal case and/or ally to a claimant in a civil case on whose behalf the civil case is brought by the second party, as in UK Attorney General v Shetreet that is on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells and US regime, has any right to remain secret even from the defendant, make secret allegations, provide secret ‘evidence’ and refuse to comply with DPA and/or FOIA and/or discovery, if they want to remain secret they are at liberty not to prosecute, not to claim and/or are required to withdraw their claim and/or prosecution against me.  Even in terrorism trials ‘secrecy of witnesses’ is not permissible, and there are precedents for that.  UK Attorney General v Shetreet, NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, like Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, is an intelligence services black operation and Salem witch trials travesty against me, not a civil case or a criminal case, and no part of the rule of law, and the fact it was lodged at all on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells et al without fear of immediate dismissal and perjury prosecutions by judicial orders proves that the entire London High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary nullified and abrogated the UK rule of law in relation to me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells since outset and are Mossad sayanim agents and contract killers in relation to me and not judges since Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells outset.  Yet most importantly, the refusal to comply with disclosure and discovery by UK Attorney General in relation to his civil claim against me on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells who also refused since case outset to date to comply with disclosure and discovery laws even though SHARP has no professional privilege to rely on, nor does Hogan Lovells because Hogan Lovells is a co-defendant also acting for its own self and therefore also has no professional privilege to rely on, is an admission by both the US and UK Attorneys General and SHARP and Hogan Lovells on whose behalf and on whose instructions they are acting against me to have me declared a ‘vexatious litigant’ in relation to SHARP and Hogan Lovells, that the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is on my side and that all the Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells orders were obtained by corporate fraud by concealment and perjury by commission and judicial nullification of the rule of law overall and must be set aside immediately, with interim compensation, preferably by Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge himself if he has any respect for the rule of law.

5.2. Public challenge to organised criminal SHARP, Hogan Lovells and terrorist US and UK Attorneys General, CPS, Met Police et al: if SHARP and Hogan Lovells ever had any defence other than perjury to my civil case against them and any grounds or merit for their multiply unlawfully extended unlawful ECRO against me as of 2005 to date and if UK Attorney General ever had any grounds or merit for his action against me to make the SHARP and Hogan Lovells fraud by concealment and perjury obtained unlawful ECRO against me since 2005 permanent against me to bar me forever any right to go to law and if additional crimes of torture and unlawful detentions were not committed against me since 2005 to date in order to cover-up the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, then why not disclose everything and allow me to scan and post it on the internet and copy it to ECtHR and WikiLeaks and all other dissident websites worldwide and let the whole civilised world decide for themselves?

5.3. Paradoxically, in his above mentioned and exhibited refusal to disclose the UK Treasury Solicitors acting for the UK Attorney General invited me to complain to the UK Information Commissioner in order to invite him to take legal action against the UK Attorney General and UK Treasury Solicitors for their refusal to comply with my recent UK DPA, UK FOIA and discovery disclosure request.  When I complained directly to the UK Attorney General about the refusal of the UK Treasury Solicitors to comply directly and on his behalf with my above disclosure and discovery request the response of the UK Attorney General directly was as pasted below:

From Complaints <complaints@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk>

To Elad Shetreet <elad.shetreet@gmail.com>

Cc Patrick Driscoll <Patrick.Driscoll@tsol.gsi.gov.uk>

Date 26 November 2010 13:55

Subject RE: UK Attorney General v Shetreet 14136/09- urgent discovery application to Admin Court

Dear Mr Shetreet

If you are unhappy with the level of service you have received in relation to your request under the Data Protection Act, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner at the following address: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.  You also have the right to apply to the courts in relation to the requests you have made under the Act.

Yours sincerely

James Ross

Freedom of Information

From: Elad Shetreet [mailto:elad.shetreet@gmail.com]

Sent: 25 November 2010 13:22

To: Catherine.Edwards@tsol.gsi.gov.uk

Cc: Complaints

Subject: UK Attorney General v Shetreet 14136/09- urgent discovery application to Admin Court

UK Attorney General, Your refusal to comply with DPA in your latest letter to me from Patrick Driscoll of TSoL is unacceptable, I hereby require you to disclose immediately all your data about me under Discovery laws in civil and criminal cases or drop your application against me.

Elad Shetreet

End of pasted email.

Above pasted response directly by the UK Attorney General this time, not the UK Treasury Solicitor, in which he, not I, recommended that I take legal action against him be it via a third party, the Information Commissioner, and thereby also directly at High Court, as frankly the Information Commissioner is part of UK Government, is instructed, funded and staffed by UK regime, and simply nullifies any complaint that is embarrassing or objectionable to UK regime, which is why my meritorious 2009 complaints to him v SHARP , Hogan Lovells, Met Police and CPS, and all others who did not comply with my DPA disclosure requests of 2008/9 were ignored, so the UK Attorney is de facto telling me to take civil legal action against him at High Court - yet by self-contradiction the same time he is alleging against me at Admin Court division of High Court that I am a “vexatious litigant” who should be prohibited forever from going to law in UK by Admin Court order.  This is equivalent to a prosecutor in a capital punishment murder trial admitting that the defendant did not commit the crime he is accused of or indeed any crime and that he is being harassed and murdered for political reasons only to cover-up the judicial theft of a high value civil claim by him that is most objectively meritorious indeed under law and that was lost only due to the bribery and corruption of the judiciary in that case, due to the reasons enumerated above in and below and also because the sole objective of the UK Attorney General action against me is to declare me a vexatious litigant and thereby extend forever the ECRO against me since 2005 to date and thereby prohibit me forever from going to law for all and any reason, no matter how objectively meritorious, as since its commencement in 2005 to date, the ECRO was never discharged, not even when I was unlawfully detained and tortured by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man and the NHS and Met Police libelled me, incited against me and violated my privacy in the Guardian by admission of the NHS and UK Attorney General themselves who relied on and exhibited only Exhibits 22, the non-NHS independent psychiatric report about me by Dr Charlotte Page that proved me totally sane when they civilly sued me, in case of the NHS for the censorship injunction in 2009 and in case of the UK Attorney General in the pending to date as of 2009 vexatious litigant claim at Admin Court division of High Court. 

6. See attached Exhibit 6.1 – the judicial pre-bribery offence Shetreet v Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd High Court judgement transcript of 6 June 2005 in my favour by High Court judge Master Miller that he fraudulently and irrationally self-contradicted, set aside and most unlawfully dismissed my case without any trial, production of evidence, compliance with discovery or disclosure by the defence or permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division to date, a few weeks later on 23 June 2005 (the unlawful ECRO baring me all right to go to law to date was perpetrated on Miller’s say so a few weeks later by the next judge to deal with case at time, Mr Justice Davis, as Master level judges cannot impose ECROs) due to his bribery offences in case against me after he approached me outside of the courtroom in the court building and attempted to extort from me a kickback bribe from the forthcoming compensation order shortly after he judged in my favour, and thereby committed his bribery offences in case in favour of SHARP and Hogan Lovells, criminally complicit international lawyers acting for Sharp Corporation and its group of companies in case also in Israel since global case outset to date and co-defendants in my procedurally separate 2005 High Court in London claim against them, and also see Exhibits 8 and 13 of my case statement: Above Exhibit 6.1 proves that the judges understood this despite the fraud and perjury of SHARP and Hogan Lovells about that and all other aspects of case, and that I did not sue in UK for allegedly “time barred personal injury only”, as SHARP and Hogan Lovells alleged.  Since the outrageous bribery offence against me by Master Miller shortly after he judged in my favour on 6 June 2005, the case that was highly political and problematic for the judges to begin with because it exposed the corruption of the political and legal system of Israel and of the corruption of SHARP and Hogan Lovells became literally a nuclear war against me from all sides, from both the defendants and the judges, and as this case proves, no English judge can act as a judge in his own cause.  SHARP and Hogan Lovells who were aware from the start from their own sources why Master Miller fraudulently reversed his decision in my favour gloated to the subsequent judges that I stated that Master Miller attempted to extort from me a bribe after he judged in my favour, and stated the bribery offence by Master Miller as fact, not allegation by me, in order to de facto blackmail the judges into taking the strongest most unlawful position against me in order to thereby unlawfully pauperise me, destroy me and murder me in order, from the English judges’ point of view, to cover-up Miller’s bribery offence.  This is why the next judge to deal with the case, in July 2005, Mr Justice Davis, who also destroyed the sound  recording of the hearing in order to prevent the production of any transcript of the hearing before him, gloated at the hearing that instead of punishing Master Miller for what he perpetrated, and of course SHARP and Hogan Lovells for what they perpetrated against me since age 13, he would punish me, the victim, he would make me “buried alive in destitution”, continue to “burn alive with pain” due to continued lack of access to the medical treatment for my injury at age 13 by SHARP that is only privately available due to the refusal of the NHS to fund it, and would ultimately murder me.  At the end of the hearing, in which Davis J also imposed on me the ECRO baring me all right to go to law, that was extended to date and that declared me vermin and all crimes legal against me, and which the UK Attorney General proposes by his aforementioned vexatious litigant lawsuit against me to make permanent, I shouted as I ran out of the courtroom, “but they were convicted of fraud in case” (in Israel), “why torture me” (by continued lack of access to the dermatological treatment that I need for the permanent improvement of that clinical aspect of my chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP and total destruction by unlawful pauperisation).  Little did I know that I would also be tortured with abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man in order to divert me away from the criminal justice system in order to cover-up the crimes against me by SHARP, Hogan Lovells, UK regime et al.  As the exhibited in my case statement proceedings (not bogus “approved judgement”) hearing transcript will show, I appeared later in 2005 at the Court of Appeal Civil Division for my brief kangaroo hearing before Lord Justice Ward in support of my 2005 permission to appeal application and explained to him that my case was for multinational corporate fraud and was very timely indeed, was not just for “time barred personal injury”, as Master Miller et al knew perfectly well, and that my case was unlawfully dismissed and the ECRO unlawfully imposed only due to sadistic judicial hatred against me.  I was too afraid of more misdirected judicial revenge against me for what Master Miller perpetrated against me, so this time I did not explicitly detail to him the bribery offences against me by Master Miller.  I also explained to him that I suffer from the most painful toxically induced skin condition that requires treatment that is only privately available.  Yet all I received from the monster and Mossad sayan Lord Justice Ward who was no doubt aware of the judicial bribery offence against me by Master Miller from his own sources and was desperate to cover it up by destroying me, was sadistic mockery of my calamity and a “judgement” that was so judicially fraudulent that it was about a different case in all but Shetreet v SHARP case title.  More shockingly still, when I complained to the Met Police about the bribery offences against me of Master Miller their response was that judges are above the law in UK, and I must complain to the UK Ministry of Justice, and when I complained by email to the UK Ministry of Justice for the first time about above in early 2006 directly to the office of the Lord Chancellor / UK Minister of Justice they simply ignored my complaint and instructed the Met Police and the NHS to have me unlawfully detained in a psychiatric hospital in order to cover-up the crimes of Master Miller and all the other judges who subsequently dealt with case and continued to nullify my case and thereby committed bribery offences by after the fact complicity and by compounding judicial bribery offences, and by the time Master Miller was thrown off the bench/prematurely retired, the Office for Judicial Complaints at the Ministry of Justice admitted the bribery offences of Master Miller against me as a proven fact without embarrassment but alleged they have no jurisdiction to investigate and put my case to rights because Master Miller was forced to prematurely retire from the judiciary by then and they alleged that they have no jurisdiction in respect of the actions of retired judges, even if these crimes were committed when they were still a fully serving High Court judge, as in my case.  This is the first time in the modern world where the victim was punished with an unlawful pauperisation, unlawful ECRO vermin status, unlawful detentions, torture and death sentence at that, instead of the perpetrators, truly, the organised criminals known as the English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary and all of US and UK regimes overall re as inhuman as vicious insects and as psychopathic as paedophile and cannibalistic serial murderers and nuclear terrorists, they are more evil than the devil itself and are nothing better than bribery taking Mossad sayanim agents and organised criminals not worthy of the title judges and Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge is personally responsible for all above.

Paragraphs 7 – 9 redacted from the public public domain version of this document.

10. This document is under statement of truth ad under UK law is under penalty of perjury if anything stated by its author and thereby by me in this document is disputed by any interested party.

Under statement of truth and written oath, Elad Shetreet

_____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

List of exhibits of folder 1 - Most important until December 2010

Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd and Hogan Lovells 

Note: The references to Lovells have changed to Hogan Lovells as of May 2010 due to the merger between Hogan & Hartson of Washington DC and Lovells as of December 2009 and the official change of name of the firm to Hogan Lovells as of 1 May 2010 even though the pre-2010 legal documents remain with references to “Lovells”.

See Exhibits 2, 4, 5, for EU RoHS Directive (acronym of Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) that was based exclusively on the Shetreet case in terms of the human toxicity data and the peer reviewed published journal articles, including in prestigious Chemosphere, about the toxicology forensics of the chronic catastrophic injury, disfigurement and disability at age 13 of Elad Shetreet by a defective toxic SHARP electronics product that emitted under normal operating conditions multiple synergetic toxic brominated flame retardants fumes.  Above EU Directive has made a beneficial global impact because it forced the Asian electronics makers and offshore factories of European companies to become RoHS compliant, and consequently the US retailers and officials are increasingly demanding from Asian exporters only RoHS complaint consumer electronics products.  In many jurisdictions new consumer electronics products include small stickers at the back of the product that state “RoHS Compliant”.  Thereby the Shetreet injury at age 13 by SHARP is the most legally proven toxic injury in global history and has created a beneficial global legal, political, public health promoting and economic impact. 

Exhibit 1.1_ECtHR 31 Mar 08 lodgement of application Shetreet copied to ECtHR 9 Nov 2007

Exhibit 1.2_UK interception confiscation without EU precedent original 2007 Shetreet v UK ECtHR application consistent with domestic injustice

Exhibit 2.1_1 April 08 EU press release ECJ judgement in favour RoHS enacted based on Shetreet injury and proven toxic fumes from operating electronics

Exhibit 2.2_1999 Danish EPA EU RoHS Directive policy paper re Shetreet mentioned and relied on in page 47 citation 28 based on this document 1 April 08 ECJ RoHS judgement was reached

Exhibit 2.3_2007 Danish EPA additional update report to ECJ re EU RoHS Directive claim

Above ECJ judgement means that in the EU Shetreet’s chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP is part of EU enacted and case law and cannot be disputed without commission of perjury, contempt of ECJ and libel. 

Exhibit 2.4_UN WHO publication re emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from new full toxic load TV sets under normal operating conditions

Exhibit 2.5_10 March 04 MEPs letter to European Commission demanding total ban on PBDEs in consumer electronics

Exhibit 3.1_summary translation final appeal judgement in favour of Shetreet v medical insurer re treatment for injury at age 13 by SHARP

Exhibit 3.2_final appeal judgement in favour of Shetreet v medical insurer re treatment for injury at age 13 by SHARP

Above judgement in Israel in favour of Shetreet for the treatment for the catastrophically painful dermatological aspect of his injury at age 13 by SHARP was not complied with due to political corruption in case.

Exhibit 3.3_NHS 2005 admission of injurious neglect of painful aspect of injury of Shetreet at age 13 by SHARP due to political reasons

Exhibit 4_EU legal website EU RoHS Directive enacted in 2003 based on Exhibit 2.2 Danish EPA  EU policy paper re Shetreet case citation 28 p 47 

Exhibit 5_EU legal website ECJ 2008 judgement in favour of RoHS and claimants Denmark and EU Parliament thereby in favour of Shetreet

Exhibit 6.1_extract 6 June 2905 judgement in favour of Shetreet re corporate fraud no time bar no jurisdiction bar injury at age 13 causation by SHARP and proof of judicial bribery offences against Shetreet by Master Miller and by all other judges who ordered against Shetreet since 2005 to date by judicial complicity and compounding of the original 2005 judicial bribery offence against Shetreet

Exhibit 6.2_full 6 June 05 judgement in favour of Shetreet re corporate fraud no time bar no jurisdiction bar injury at age 13 causation by SHARP

Exhibit 6.3_UK Ministry of Justice Admission of judicial bribery offences against Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells unlawful detentions torture etc 2009 DPA FOIA noncompliance

Exhibit 7_SHARP Hogan Lovells pre-litigation fraudulent libel action threat settlement offer attempt to destroy evidence actionable to date in London no time defence

Exhibit 8.1_2009 forensic translation by Shetreet of 4 Feb 2005 SHARP Hogan Lovells advertorial Court of Appeal Deputy Master responded to 1 April 09

Exhibit 8.2_1 April 2009 admission by Court of Appeal Deputy Master Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells unlawfully dismissed with unlawful ECROs

Exhibit 8.3_4 Feb 2005 advertorial added by applications to London claims on 13 April 2005 further proves Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells not time barred

Exhibit 8.4_4 Feb 2005 advertorial added by applications to London claims on 13 April 2005 further proves Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells not time barred

Exhibit 8.5_colour copy of SHARP Hogan Lovells 4 Feb 2005 advertorial in Maariv further proves Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells not time barred

Exhibit 8.6_Shetreet v Hogan Lovells 11 July 2005 London claim with 4 Feb 05 advertorial exhibited as exhibit “(27)” unlawfully dismissed without hearing

Exhibit 9.1_Shetreet study proved SHARP deployed in his product multiple toxins and sulphuric acid in synergetic toxicity breach of UN Chemical Weapons Convention

Above reference is to the peer reviewed journal article about Shetreet in Chemosphere Vol 39 No 9 Profs de Boer, Bahadir et al and to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention

Exhibit 9.2_Oxford University sulphuric acid toxicity data including by inhalation of fumes from operating products re injury at age 13 of Shetreet

Exhibit 9.3_Common law UK Attorney General v Zardad 2004-5 applicability to Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells UN Torture and Chemical Weapons Conventions

Thereby no time or jurisdiction defence.

Copied from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article545357.ece

In above case UK relied on the UN Torture Convention to prosecute former warlord Zardad for crimes committed in Afghanistan that would have been jurisdiction barred and time barred without UN international law. 

Exhibit 9.4_photographic documentation of laboratory investigations of second case study about Shetreet injury at age 13 by SHARP in Chemosphere

Exhibit 9.5_Vrije University Amsterdam website professional profile of co-author Prof Jacob de Boer PhD head of Dept Vrije University EU and UN advisor

Exhibit 9.6_Techinical University of Braunschweig website professional profile of co-author Prof Mufit Bahadir PhD and Dept director

Exhibit 10.1_admission of injury causation SHARP March 2004 phase out of PBDEs with fraudulent concealment from proceedings

Exhibit 10.2_admission of injury causation SHARP March 04 phase out of PBDEs with fraudulent concealment from proceedings

Exhibit 11.1_translation EU funded RoHS website for exporters to EU article re Shetreet and SHARP did not sue EU for libel about

Exhibit 11.2_EU funded RoHS website for exporters to EU article re Shetreet and SHARP did not sue EU for libel about

Copied from http://www.thairohs.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=138&PHPSESSID=f0a218aad83757a689b3fea69d604833

Exhibit 12_BFRs EU policy peer reviewed journal article citations 57 and 70 of Shetreet peer reviewed case studies by Prof de Boer et al

Exhibit 13.1_March 2009 Information Commissioner file v SHARP Hogan Lovells for concealment and fraud in Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells 

Exhibit 13.2_Information Commissioner convicted law firms common law proves Hogan Lovells SHARP not exempt from Shetreet DPAs since 2004

Exhibit 13.3_11 Feb 05 successful disclosure application by Shetreet evaded by SHARP Hogan Lovells further prohibited dismissal proof of defence fraud

Exhibit 13.4_18 March 2009 additional SHARP Hogan Lovells refusal to comply with DPA as of 2004 admission proof of defence fraud

Exhibit 13.5_6 Dec 2004 Shetreet DPA to SHARP Hogan Lovells copied to judge re multinational corporate fraud bribery etc by them in case in Israel

Exhibit 13.6_6 Dec 2004 SHARP Hogan Lovells noncompliance with 2 Dec 2004 Shetreet DPA thereby first English case judgement 13 Dec 2004 and all others obtained by fraud

Exhibit 13.7_Application Notice for Enforcement of Request for Information delivered by Shetreet at 13 Dec 04 hearing ignored by judge

Exhibit 13.8_concealment no time limitation in fraud Express Newspapers v Archer 2001 common law obtained by same Hogan Lovells  partner Atkins conducting for SHARP

Further to Exhibit 13.8, Express Newspapers v Archer 2001 and refusal by SHARP group to comply with DPA and High Court disclosure application since case outset to date and invalidation thereby of all judgements and orders in case under Express Newspapers v Lord Archer 2001 common law: Because SHARP group and Hogan Lovells relied almost exclusively on a time limitation defence in relation to Shetreet’s case in London as of 2004, their concealment of the 2001 Archer case common law they themselves obtained in relation to the prohibition of any time limitation defence in the event of fraud, and because Shetreet was unaware of this judgement at the time and the defendants were aware of this, all judgements and orders in case in London that was lodged in London in 2004, after 2001, are null and void due to common law, fraudulent concealment and active perjury by SHARP and Hogan Lovells who also refused to comply with all disclosure proceedings by Shetreet in case since outset to date.  Moreover, the decisive factor in the Archer conviction and civil payment of compensation by him was his nondisclosure of the appointments diary alleged to have been kept by him by his PA who stole this diary and later disclosed this diary in 2001 and in 2001 the High Court judge in the perjury prosecution against Archer stated to the jury that had the diary been disclosed in the 1986 case, Archer would have lost his 1986 libel claim v Express Newspapers.  This literally replicates the refusal by SHARP group and Hogan Lovells to comply with my disclose demands, including by High Court order at UK case outset in February 2005 and by DPA on 2 December 2004, before the first English judgment was made out in case on 13 December 2004 and again by Shetreet’s 2009 DPA to SHARP and Hogan Lovells that they also refused to comply with, yet they extended the unlawful ECRO against Shetreet later in 2009.  This means that all judgments were obtained by fraud, perjury, concealment and nondisclosure, by admission of SHARP group and Hogan Lovells.

See Exhibits 185 below further to nondisclosure and fraud by concealment

Exhibit 14_04 Shetreet v SHARP claim form and 04 DPA in London prove claim was for timely multinational corporate fraud bribery not less timely injury

Exhibit 15.1_CPR proves all orders obtained by fraud pan-West European Brussels Lugano Conventions did not apply due to Paris etc SHARP listing
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Exhibit 15.2_SHARP Hogan Lovells time bar perjury prohibited by UK Limitation Act s 28 and s 32 most incontrovertibly rock solid applicable to Shetreet case

Exhibit 15.3_Shetreet exemption from conscription pre age 18 due to medico-legal mental disability since age 13 incontrovertible applicability of UK LA s 28

Exhibit 15.4_UK Benefits Agency doc certifying chronic since age 13 mental disability of Shetreet at applicability threshold of UK Limitation Act s 28

Exhibit 15.5_UK Benefits Agency doc certifying chronic since age 13 mental disability of Shetreet at applicability threshold of UK Limitation Act s 28

Exhibit 15.6_Jury Summons rescinded due to Shetreet mental disability in HM Courts Service judgement applicability of LA s 28 admission

Exhibit 16.1_2007 ICC file v Tony Blair Gordon Brown et al re torture attempted murder etc of Elad Shetreet to cover-up theft of Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 16.2_ICC 12 March 2009 not in position to extradite UK leaders due to continued prohibition of above by new US administration

Exhibit 17.1_Hogan Lovells second most important partner Michael Seymour part-time High Court judge judiciary were therefore murderously biased in case anti Shetreet

Exhibit 17.2_Common law 15 Jan 1999 House of Lords re Pinochet set aside Hoffman L order due to his pro Amnesty International bias

Exhibit 18_UK Attorney General admission of judicial foul play against Shetreet 2009 refusals to comply with DPA FOIA

See also Exhibits 216 below

Exhibit 20_London Times secret new intelligence agency tortured injured attempted to murder etc Shetreet to cover-up judicial political corporate fraud

Exhibit 21.1_admission by UK Shetreet never had any mental illness disorder defect and psychiatry was abused against a sane man to attempt to murder him

Exhibit 21.2_secret correspondence in violation of medical ethics FTAC and NHS practitioners re conspiracy to torture murder etc Shetreet

Exhibit 22.1_report to MHRT by consultant psychiatrist Dr Page certifying Shetreet never had mental illness defect etc and UK abused psychiatry

Exhibit 22.2_2009 reliance at High Court and Admin Court by NHS and UK Attorney General in NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet and UK Attorney General v Shetreet only on report by Dr Page certifying that Shetreet was always totally sane to the exclusion of all NHS charlatan documents fraudulently disputing sanity of Shetreet

Exhibit 23_16 Sep 08 MHRT admission Shetreet never had mental illness and UK attempt to murder Shetreet to cover-up theft of Shetreet v SHARP Lovells

Exhibit 24.1_worse than killing of PC Fletcher near Libyan Embassy unlawful correspondence re Shetreet by US Embassy in London to FTAC and NHS

Exhibit 24.2_admission by NHS First Secretary US Embassy London demanded NHS to unlawfully psychiatrically detain torture murder Shetreet

Exhibit 25.1_19 March 2007 MHRT judgement rejecting FTAC Met Police NHS SHARP Hogan Lovells US Israel perjury black operation against Shetreet

Exhibit 25.2_16 March 2007 NHS perjury against Shetreet admission p 2 last par FTAC allegations “third party information” p 5 par 2 detention etc unlawful

Exhibit 25.3_21 Feb 2007 Israel US SHARP Hogan Lovells Met Police FTAC NHS worst police black operation perjury in West European history against Shetreet

Exhibit 26_4 June 2007 UK state terrorism censorship attempted detention due to denial of freedom of speech re SHARP Hogan Lovells et al

Exhibit 27.1_2009 Shetreet Public Complaint Form witness statement City of London Police SHARP Hogan Lovells refused to sue for libel prosecute for perjury

Exhibit 27.2_redacted admission pages 8 9 29 false arrest abuse of psychiatry against the sane to torture attempt to murder Shetreet by instructions of SHARP Lovells

Exhibit 29.1_SHARP Israel fraud limited power of attorney to evade admission of service of proceedings in Israel as of 1996 by multinational corporate fraud bribery

Exhibit 29.2_Sharp Corp instructions to Sharp UK Hogan Lovells Brandes even though Hogan Lovells alleged to be acting for Sharp UK only see p 2 prove SHARP had full power of attorney in Israel & UK & served in both default judgements merited

Exhibit 29.3_BBC report intimidation judges and SHARP bribery of Brandes to overthrow President Ezer Weizman of Israel by leaking his legally privileged file further proves full power of attorney in Israel

Exhibit 30.1_2007 SHARP delisting from all Brussels Lugano Conventions jurisdiction stock exchanges to evade by fraud Shetreet case admission of fraud

Exhibit 30.2_2007 SHARP delisting from all Brussels Lugano Conventions jurisdiction stock exchanges to evade by fraud Shetreet case admission of fraud

Exhibit 30.3_translated SHARP dummy company importer fraud conviction SHARP deregistered after Shetreet claim issued in Israel to evade service of proceedings

Exhibit 30.4_SHARP dummy company importer fraud conviction SHARP deregistered after Shetreet claim issued in Israel to evade service of proceedings

Exhibit 31.1_27 Oct 20 05 Court of Appeal Shetreet v SHARP hearing transcript by official transcript company based on Court sound recording

Exhibit 31.2_forgery of same judicial document by SHARP proves previous judgements also forgeries all judgements obtained by fraud

Exhibit 31.1_27 Oct 20 05 Court of Appeal Shetreet v SHARP hearing transcript by official transcript company based on Court sound recording

Exhibit 31.2_forgery of same judicial document by SHARP proves previous judgements also forgeries all judgements obtained by fraud

Exhibit 34_15 Dec 05 refusal to date to discharge ECRO by Igor Judge nominated on Shetreet ECRO including during unlawful detentions torture etc of Shetreet

Exhibit 35_repeated murderous refusal of English judiciary to discharge ECRO re torture attempted murder etc of Shetreet to cover-up judicial corruption

Exhibit 36_09 Cabinet Office 10 Downing St noncompliance with Shetreet DPA admission of theft of Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells torture to cover-up

Exhibit 37.1_06 CPS Special Casework Unit & Scotland Yard Special Branch correspondence re Shetreet admission data held by above them re Shetreet

Exhibit 37.2_09 CPS fraudulent denial they hold data re Shetreet in contempt of ECtHR admission of judicial & official foul play against Shetreet

Exhibit 37.3_09 Scotland Yard fraudulent denial they hold data re Shetreet in contempt of ECtHR admission of judicial & official foul play against Shetreet

Exhibit 38.1_20 Dec 07 fax from German Embassy to UK Government demanding to know why their citizen Shetreet unlawfully psychiatrically detained

Exhibit 38.2_confirmation by German Embassy they visited Shetreet at unlawful detention torture but complicity did not politically intercede

Exhibit 39_27 May 2009 refusal by MI5 to comply with Shetreet DPA disclosure requirement

Exhibit 40.1_UK refused to prosecute Shetreet due to judicial fraud perjury in Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells & classified all docs re arrest of Shetreet

Exhibit 40.2_Scotland Yard Special Branch 06 bail form that was subsequently classified by UK with all Shetreet documents in UK

Exhibit 40.3_ Scotland Yard Special Branch 06 bail form that was subsequently classified by UK with all Shetreet documents in UK

Exhibit 41_UK Police National Identification Service summary about Shetreet

Exhibit 42.1_approval of subsequently classified Shetreet petition 1414 07 18 Feb 2008 European Parliament Minutes

Copied from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+PV+20080218+ITEM-015+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Exhibit 42.2_approval of subsequently classified Shetreet petition 961 07 to European Parliament Official Journal of the European Union

Copied from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:263E:0004:0006:EN:PDF

Exhibit 42.3_approval of subsequently classified Shetreet petition 1414 2007 to European Parliament Official Journal of the European Union

Copied from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:096E:0007:0012:EN:PDF

Exhibit 43.1_Guradian complicity in subsequent additional torture refusal to remove online libel incitement to murder violation of medical confidentiality

Exhibit 43.2_UK Press Complaints Commission complicity in subsequent additional torture etc by refusal to uphold Shetreet complaint v Guardian due to ECRO vermin status 

Exhibit 43.3_2009 refusal by Guardian to comply with DPA request of Shetreet admission of foul play by them and UK regime

Exhibit 43.4_NHS FTAC Met Police Guardian 26 Aug 07 libel incitement to murder violation of medical confidentiality

Due to the first extension of the ECRO in 2007 I was not allowed to go to law in relation to this cause of action as well and require ECHR to compensate me by millions of euro for the loss of this cause of action, as aforementioned.  The allegation that I wanted “police to shoot him on international television”, was incitement to murder, because I never made such a statement.  Quite the opposite my protest at UK Parliament against the unlawful economic death sentence that was given me in Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells.  In addition, I never protested against Sharp group, but against the abrogation of the rule of law against me.

Exhibit 44_refusal to comply with DPA by UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal of UK intelligence services

Exhibit 45_UK Ministry of Justice Office for Judicial Complaints FOIA DPA noncompliance admission of judicial foul play against Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 46_2009 UK Attorney General and Treasury Solicitor refusal to accept Shetreet counter-complaint v SHARP Hogan Lovells UK regime

Exhibit 47_2009 BBC that covered 7 June 06 Shetreet protest at UK Parliament noncompliance with Shetreet DPA

Exhibit 48.1_2009 noncompliance with Shetreet DPA by head of Middle East Directorate of UK Foreign Office after FCO admitted to Shetreet data retention 

Exhibit 48.2_2009 foul play admission final refusal to comply with Shetreet DPA by UK FCO

Exhibit 49_February 2009 only reply to and noncompliance with DPA request of Elad Shetreet to UK Home Office

Exhibit 50_Solicitors Regulation Authority and Law Society refused to take any action against Hogan Lovells for their crimes against Shetreet

Exhibit 51_18 May 2009 refusal by Financial Times to comply with Shetreet DPA admission of foul play

Exhibit 52.1_May 07 unlawful stop on Shetreet v Mail on Sunday Yediot SHARP libel etc claim without hearing

The Mail alleged and Yediot alleged that I violently resisted my false arrest, the Mail publicised the abuse of psychiatry against me without permission by Met Police or NSH, as my sectioning was not press released, Yediont alleged that I had an “obsession” against Sharp group and got what I deserved for suing such a nice company, both above did not mention that I was a sane man against whom psychiatry was abused for political reasons, and in page two of the Yediot de facto editorial it was alleged that Sharp group “deny” injury causation, which they never dared do in any court of law in any jurisdiction, not even by lawsuit for libel against me or any news organisation, and Sharp Corporation and Sharp UK never sued for libel Yediot to correct their above statement for obvious reasons.  The Yediot article was published in English online and the unlawfully detaining psychiatrists at time used it to mock me here in UK.  The line drawn under co-defendants Sharp UK was drawn by someone from HM Courts Service, not by me and is therefore not legally valid. 

Exhibit 52.2_Mail on Sunday 11 June 06 libel violation of medical confidentiality attempted incrimination complicity in torture etc against Shetreet

Exhibit 52.3_Yediot Aharonot 27 June 06 libel violation of medical confidentiality attempted incrimination incitement to torture etc

Exhibit 52.4_admission of libel etc by Mail on Sunday 22 January 2009 that disclosed Shetreet article was removed from website due to legal reasons

Exhibit 52.5_admission of foul play by Mail on Sunday 26 March 2009 by refusal to comply with Shetreet DPA

Exhibit 52.6_BBC 7 June 06 truthful report further proves libel etc by Mail Yediot Guardian SHARP Hogan Lovells

Copied from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5057254.stm

See also for videos http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5050000/newsid_5057300/5057360.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

Because I told Scotland Yard Special Branch after the incident that I protested in order to be prosecuted and speak with a jury about the abrogation of the rule of law in Shetreet v Sharp group and Loevlls and the economic death sentence that was given me thereby, the Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Yard and the political level decided that a jury must never be allowed to scrutinise the judicial fraud and perjury in Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells.  Scotland Yard detectives who unlawfully searched my residence after my false arrest on 7 June 2006 stole CD ROMs with all case documents, including defence pleadings and judgments, in Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells to that date and this was studied by CPS Special Casework Unit and possibly by the Director of Public Prosecutions himself and my complaint against English judicial fraud and perjury was evidently found to be justified.  Therefore, I was never prosecuted.  This is a public and shameless admission by UK Government and judiciary of extreme corporate and judicial fraud and perjury against Shetreet in Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells.

Exhibit 53_2007 complicity by UK Healthcare Commission that did not uphold Shetreet complaint v NHS due to his ECRO vermin status

Exhibit 54.1_2007 complicity in torture etc by UK GMC that did not uphold complaint and did not comply with DPA

Exhibit 55.1_SHARP Hogan Lovells 2009 unlawful ECRO extension application based upon legally privileged emails of Shetreet to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co

Exhibit 55.2_SHARP Hogan Lovells 2009 unlawful ECRO extension application based upon legally privileged emails of Shetreet to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co

Exhibit 55.3_SHARP Hogan Lovells 2009 unlawful ECRO extension application based upon legally privileged emails of Shetreet to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co

Exhibit 56.1_total judicial abrogation of the rule of law 15 July 2009 High Court hearing transcript pseudo judgement and order

Exhibit 56.2_most unlawful judicially criminal order in UK history declared Shetreet vermin against whom all crimes including murder legal

Exhibit 57.1_Shetreet pathological visual EEG brain damage due to SHARP Hogan Lovells foul play at age 24 applicability of UN Chemical Weapons Convention & UK LA s 28

Above is in relation and substantiation of the kidnapping and attack with nerve gas by agents of the state in Israel by contract by Sharp group and Hogan Lovells against Shetreet at age 24 in 1994 that was mentioned at the 15 July 2009 hearing and not disputed by Sharp group and Hogan Lovells.

Exhibit 57.2_extract from book published by Macmillan under English libel laws proves Israeli intelligence murder or injure targets using nerve weapons

Exhibit 57.3_2003 assessment of chronic cognitive deficits of Shetreet further proves applicability of UN law UK LA s 28 crime by SHARP Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 58_open letter to Prime Minister Blair by AIFL & SHARP lawyer in case in Israel Brandes proof of political foul play in Israel & London

Exhibit 59_end p 1 dummy website re Shetreet posted by US spies end p 2 of related sites White House site all other related sites US spy dummy sites

Exhibit 100.1_first London judicial decision in case successful service out of jurisdiction application by Shetreet proved claim unlawfully nullified

Exhibit 100.2_pre-bribery by SHARP judgements in favour of Shetreet dismissal of SHARP appeal in Israel further proof of bribery political blackmail

Exhibit 114.1_unlawfully classified as in private by judge transcript admitted SHARP perpetrated fraud in case in Israel no time bar

Exhibit 114.2_4 March 2005 unlawful order of Mr Justice Morison who unlawfully classified transcript as in private

See Exhibit 114.1 in conjunction with Exhibit 196 in folder 7, and Exhibits 55, 56, in folder 1.  Above exhibit 114.1 is a transcript of the 4 March 2005 hearing before Mr Justice Morison, very first UK High Court transcript in case, as the Master Tennant did not switch on the sound recording machine during the kangaroo 13 December 2004 hearing in order to prevent the production of a transcript.  See as of page 15 of above transcript, when SHARP and Hogan Lovells committed the most outrageous fraud and perjury and alleged that they did not commit any unlawful corporate intelligence activities against Shetreet and also alleged that they had nothing to do with the “Akiba Cohen” incident.  Above refers to a corporate intelligence operative retained on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells pretended to be an analyst from Morgan Stanley in New York called “Akiba Cohen”.  On this basis he maliciously communicated with Prof de Boer and  Prof Robertson, the co-authors of the case studies about my injury at age 13 by SHARP.  Yet when I telephone at time Morgan Stanley in New York they informed me that no such person was employed by them, and his email, that was cloned also ceased to function shortly after I challenged him by email about this.  Above perjury by SHARP and Hogan Lovells who alleged with indignity that I was “abusive” about them in relation to above and case overall, as if I was vermin and had no right to go to law even if criminals totally and even violently destroy my life, was decisively revealed as perjury following the production by SHARP and Hogan Lovells at High Court in July 2009 of an email and a web form that  I allegedly by them sent to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co and which they in fact sent themselves by hacking into my account, which could not have been anything other than blatant unlawful corporate intelligence gathering, and a good deal worse given that above communications were actually sent by SHARP and Hogan Lovells, which is the case.  This made the “Akiba Cohen” incident seem like child’s play by comparison.  Because all the subsequent orders and judgements in case, including the 2005 first ECRO by Davis J were based on and even quoted verbatim the Morison J hearing, judgement and order.  Therefore, all judgements are hereby null and void, as it is obvious from the transcript that Morison J accepted as ‘truth’ all the many perjuries about that and all other aspects of case and was totally corrupted by this into a perjury committing contract killer for SHARP and Hogan Lovells and abandoned all his judicial responsibilities, such as respect for the rule of law and common decently, if any English judge ever had any common decency and respect for the rule of law superior to that of a serial murderer.  This and much more in case that has emerged as of 2009 but that to a large degree was available from outset but maliciously ignored by the corrupt English judges, is evidence a thousand times stronger than the previously unavailable DNA evidence that forensically proved another man raped and killed the victim and caused Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge to discharge in March 2009 Hodgson after the CPS was not in a position to object to the appeal due to the forensic evidence.  The total contempt in case by the judiciary for the rule of law should force a pan-European legal reform that would require juries in all cases and/or a right of appeal to a jury forum in all cases, as judges were proven in case to be part of the darkest and most unlawful part of the executive, as unlawful as intelligence services with a license to kill with impunity, like Mi6, CIA and more notoriously Mossad.

Exhibit 181_admission by UK Ministry of Justice Ombudsman p 2 par 2 High Court judge committed bribery against Shetreet yet Shetreet punished

See Exhibits 13 above re nondisclosure and fraud by concealment

Exhibit 185.1_self contradiction by UK regime as no party disclosed data to Shetreet court bars Russian defendants from action due to nondisclosure

Exhibit 185.2_self contradiction by entire UK regime as no party disclosed data to Shetreet - Customs VAT fraud dismissed due to nondisclosure

Exhibit 185.3_ITV report invalidation and rejection of insurance policies and claims due to slightest medical history nondisclosure by policyholders

Exhibit 185.4_Feb 2009 DPA to Sharp UK direct that was totally ignored and Hogan Lovells also refused to comply with all DPAs directed to them since 2004

Exhibit 185.5_Evening Standard 5 May 2010 report of failure of OFT prosecution further proves miscarriage of justice in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster v Shetreet due to nondisclosure and lack of evidence against Shetreet

Exhibit 198_2010 Independent Police Complaints Commission judgement in favour of Shetreet re unlawful detentions torture injury attempted murders etc by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man by FTAC Met Police NHS et al in order to murder Shetreet in order to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells

The date “24 February 2010” mentioned in the above IPCC cover letter is a typo, the actual date that the IPCC decision was issued and sent by email and letter was 24 March 2010.

Exhibit 210_22 June 2010 admission by Guardian of foul play by NHS Met Police FTAC SHARP Hogan Lovells et al in Guardian online from 26 August 2007 to 22 June 2010 and overall

However, Mr Justice Eady refused to order any compensation for Shetreet or even convene a hearing for same even after the Guardian reached an out-of-court settlement with Shetreet in relation to Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS Westminster PCT v Shetereet, and removed on a voluntary basis the unlawful comments against him in the Guardian online as of 2007 by the NHS, Met Police, FTAC et al, and thereby the Guardian admitted foul play on behalf of SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS, FTAC, Met Police et al.  Presumably this was on the ‘basis’ that because the law is on side of Shetreet also in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells yet the judges declared him vermin, Shetreet must be vermin against whom all crimes are legal in call cases in UK, even when the is the civil defendant.  This further compellingly demonstrates the malice and insanity of the entire predicament and calls to heaven for all Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells judgements and orders to be thrown out, and the same in relation to NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, which were also based on the premise that Shetreet is vermin.

Exhibit 216.1_admission by UK Attorney General of the unlawful judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells due to judicial bribery offences against Shetreet by High Court judge Master Miller in 2005 by the criminally insane refusal of UK Attorney General to comply with his own discovery and disclosure laws and invitation to Shetreet to take legal action against him via the Information Commissioner and thereby directly

Exhibit 216.2_as 216.1

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.

_____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 2 - Additional torture exhibits 60 – 83

Additional torture exhibits – Torture, injury and attempted murder of Elad Shetreet by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man including contraindicated by website warning of the maker of Risperidone permanently injurious forcible toxic injections without any psychiatric diagnosis at any point or clinical objective other than to divert and conceal Shetreet from the criminal justice system and a jury trial that would cause a judicial corruption scandal and to torture to death and murder Elad Shetreet in order to cover-up corporate and judicial fraud and perjury

Exhibit 60_World Psychiatric Association Madrid Declaration on Ethical Standards for Psychiatric Practice violated by UK against Shetreet

Exhibit 61_World Psychiatric Association Statement & Viewpoints on the Rights & Legal Safeguards of patients violated against Shetreet

Exhibit 62_UK Government letter proving decision made to unlawfully psychiatrically detain Shetreet before his 7 June 2006 protest at UK Parliament

Exhibit 63_9 June 2006 unlawful pseudo psychiatric NHS detention certificate re Shetreet

Exhibit 64_16 June 2006 kangaroo psychiatric tribunal abrogation against Shetreet as misdirected revenge for High Court judicial corruption

Exhibit 65_21 July 2006 gutter press style pseudo psychiatric report by Dr Rizkar Amin about torture of Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 66_8 August 2006 gutter press style pseudo psychiatric report about torture of Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 67_12 March 2007 Israel US SHARP Hogan Lovells Met Police FTAC NHS addition to worst police perjury in EU history against Shetreet

Exhibit 68_2 March 2007 perjury by NHS FTAC et al and Dr Rizkar Amin against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 69_5 March 2007 perjury by NHS against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 70_15 March 2007 perjury by NHS FTAC et al and Dr Rizkar Amin against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 71_21 December 2007 perjury by FTAC Met Police NHS Israel US diplomats SHARP Hogan Lovells and Dr Maya Ranger against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 72_28 December 2007 UK psychiatric tribunal abrogation of the rule of law against Shetreet

Exhibit 73_proof unlawful pauperisation & abuse of psychiatry against sane objective to torture Shetreet to death & cause him to commit suicide

Exhibit 74_7 March 2007 conspiracy to commit perjury torture murder by NHS FTAC Dr Rizkar Amin and Dr Jan Wise against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 75_14 March 2007 perjury by NHS FTAC et al and Dr Jan Wise against Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 76_7 April 2008 UK kangaroo psychiatric tribunal abrogation of rule of law against Shetreet contempt of ECJ judged in favour of RoHS

Exhibit 77_14 June 2006 gutter press style pseudo nursing report perjury by NHS re torture of Elad Shetreet

Exhibit 78_undated probably 16 June 2006 gutter press style pseudo psychiatric report NHS perjury against Shetreet

Exhibit 79_City of London Police admission of persistent harassment surveillance intrusive intelligence gathering by UK police agencies against Shetreet

Exhibit 80_17 December 2008 fraud by City of London Police and abrogation of the rule of law

Exhibit 81_4 March 2009 fraud by City of London Police contradicted by 18 December 2007 original arrest record

Exhibit 82_2009 City of London Police offensive self-contradictory fraud Hogan Lovells receptionists “pregnant” & abuse of psychiatry for “welfare” of Shetreet

Exhibit 83_2007 acknowledgement by IPCC of timely complaint v Met Police FTAC Dr James et al for perjury attempted murder etc

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.

_____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 3 - Additional injury causation exhibits 84 - 99

Additional injury causation exhibits

Exhibit 84_Word version EU funded RoHS website for compliance by exporters to EU article re Shetreet & Sharp Corporation translation

Exhibit 85_German Federal Environment Agency press release re 1 April 2008 ECJ RoHS judgement

Exhibit 87.1_report by Prof Larry W Robertson PhD MPH re catastrophic chronic toxic injury of Shetreet at age 13 by SHARP TV set

Exhibit 87.2_Prof Larry W Robertson update re catastrophic chronic toxic injury disability disfigurement of Shetreet at age 13 by SHARP

Exhibit 87.3_University of Iowa website professional profile of Prof Larry W Robertson PhD MPH

Exhibit 88.1_Dr Janette Sherman MD report re catastrophic chronic toxic injury disability disfigurement of Shetreet at age 13 by SHARP

Exhibit 88.2_website professional profile of Dr Janette Sherman MD

Exhibit 89.1_first case study re Shetreet injury at age 13 by SHARP by Prof de Boer PhD et al Organohalogen Compounds Vol 39 pp 407-410 Stockholm University Dioxin International Conference Proceedings

Exhibit 89.2_conference poster re Shetreet injury at age 13 by SHARP by Prof de Boer Dioxin International Conference Stockholm University

Exhibit 90.1_normal male karyotype cytogenetic chromosomal test result of Shetreet forensic exclusion of spontaneous disorders

Exhibit 90.2_chemically induced damage chromosomal test result of Elad Shetreet further forensic proof of toxic injury

Exhibit 91.1_pre-injury pre-disfigurement passport photo of Elad Shetreet at age 13

Exhibit 91.2_final pre-injury school report of Shetreet age 12-13 grade 7 nearly all grades Good i.e. 8 of 10 or Very Good i.e. 9 of 10

Exhibit 92_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from electronics S Janssen MD PhD MPH citation of Exhibit 89.1

Exhibit 93_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2005 39

Exhibit 94_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2006 40 15

Exhibit 95_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2006 40 24

Exhibit 96_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2007 41

Exhibit 97_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from electronics under normal operation Jour of Tox and Env Heal Part A 68

Exhibit 98.1_Clinical Medicine & Research Vol 1 No 4 by Prof Reed MD prof of pathology director & editor citation 60 Exhibit 89.1

Exhibit 98.2_Marsfield hospitals website professional profile Prof Kurt Reed MD author Exhibit 98.1 cited first Shetreet case study

Exhibit 98.3_Northwestern University School of Medicine profile of Prof Kurt Reed MD Director Clinical Pathology & Medical Microbiology

Exhibit 99_6 January 06 SHARP Hogan Lovells chemical attack against Shetreet not skin allergy as Shetreet then naively assumed

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.

_____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 4 - Additional corporate and judicial fraud - list of exhibits

Exhibit 101_AIFL directors resignations due to Brandes SHARP bribery foul play against President Weizman to intimidate Israeli judiciary

Exhibit 102_SHARP lawyer in case Hanina Brandes identifies himself as spokesperson leader of politically powerful Israel IT export industry

Exhibit 103_ Sharp Corp orders from Israel IT export industry proof of bribery in Israel proof of timely case in UK fraud thereby in UK

Exhibit 104_Sharp Corp orders from Israel IT export industry proof of bribery in Israel proof of timely case in UK fraud thereby in UK

Exhibit 105_www.sharp.co.il address of SHARP Israel and Techno Ralco further proves liability as franchise of SHARP should have accepted service of proceedings of case

Exhibit 106.1_2004 Hogan Lovells letter for Sharp Corp with same matter ref as subsequent letters for allegedly for Sharp UK only prove fraud

Exhibit 106.2_SHARP Hogan Lovells admission of no time limitation in 2004 email

Exhibit 107_SHARP Hogan Lovells obtained all judgements by perjury in all their 2004-5 pleadings that alleged Shetreet Israeli without right of abode in UK

Exhibit 108_SHARP Hogan Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking of injury gutter press like 2004 skeleton argument

Exhibit 109_SHARP Hogan Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking of injury gutter press like 2005 skeleton argument

Exhibit 110_SHARP Hogan Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking gutter press like second 2005 skeleton argument

Exhibit 111.1_Hogan Lovells notes of 13 Dec 2004 self-contradictory judgement by Master Tennant who previously judged in favour of Shetreet

Exhibit 111.2_unlawful 15 Dec 2004 order by Master Tennant who previously judged in favour of Shetreet and ordered service out of jurisdiction at outset

Exhibit 112_successful stay of execution application by Shetreet further proved claim meritorious and prohibited unlawful dismissal

Exhibit 113_SHARP Hogan Hogan Lovells 1 March 2005 accidental admission of evasion of successful disclosure application fraud perjury nondisclosure

Exhibit 115.1_SHARP Hogan Lovells 14 April 2005 evasion of service by fraud 4 days past deadline required default judgements v SHARP

Exhibit 115.2_SHARP Hogan Lovells 14 April 2005 evasion of service by fraud 4 days past deadline required default judgements v SHARP

Exhibit 115.3_2005 claim pages 5 & 6 SHARP Hogan Lovells replied 4 days and filed defence 1 day past deadline defence time barred abuse of process

Exhibit 115.4_SHARP Hogan Lovells 29 April 2005 defence lodged 1 day past deadline time barred p 2 admits instructions from Brandes in Israel

Exhibit 116.1_SHARP Hogan Lovells perjury re allegedly only distributor with no liability proven SHARP global & UK joint production joint liability

Exhibit 116.2_SHARP Hogan Lovells perjury re allegedly only distributor with no liability proven SHARP global & UK joint production joint liability

Exhibit 117_SHARP Hogan Lovells costs fraud judges declined to convene fraudulent costs hearings judicial admission law on side of Shetreet

Exhibit 118_21 April 2005 US CPSC recall SHARP TV sets with fraudulent concealment by SHARP Hogan Lovells in case in UK & Israel

Exhibit 120.1_23 June 2005 Master Miller self-contradictory fraudulent judgement see Exhibits 6 1 folder judgement in favour of Shetreet

Exhibit 120.2_29 June 2005 self-contradictory unlawful order of Master Miller

Exhibit 121.1_Hogan Lovells Mr Justice Davis judgement shorthand judge destroyed hearing sound recording to prevent transcript foul play

Exhibit 121.2_26 July 2005 Mr Justice Davis unlawful ECRO order & dismissal of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 122.1_27 Oct 2005 approved fraudulent judgement refusing permission to appeal by Ward LJ that did not mention fraud or libel by one word

Exhibit 122.2_27 October 05 unlawful order of Lord Justice Ward refusing permission to appeal unlawful ECRO

Exhibit 123.1_2007 unlawful self-contradictory judgement by Mr Justice Underhill extending ECRO contravening ECHR 5 3 6 etc

Exhibit 123.2_2007 ECRO extension violently contravening ECHR Convention Articles 5 3 6 etc

Exhibit 123.3_2007 proceedings transcript page 58 judge & Hogan Lovells admit bribery offence against Shetreet by Master Miller in 2005

Exhibit 124_2007 unlawful refusal by Lord Justice Kay permission to appeal against ECRO contravening ECHR Articles 5 3 6 etc

Underhill J admitted in his judgement that I was unlawfully detained and tortured by UK as of 7 June 2006 by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man when he also dis-applied Limitation Act s 28 – persons under a mental disability, totally ignored the most timely fraud and libel part of claim, and he still extended the ECRO as if I did not have a right to go to law also under ECHR Convention Articles 5, 3, 6 etc for my unlawful psychiatric detentions, forcible toxic injections, torture etc because he is not a judge but an organised criminal, as is Kay LJ who refused permission to appeal.

Exhibit 125_SHARP Hogan Lovells perjury committing concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking of Shetreet gutter press 2007 pleading

Exhibit 126_timely 2007 complaint by Shetreet to Met Police v SHARP Hogan Lovells corrupt judicial & official individuals crime ref CX621227307

Exhibit 127_2005 complicity by Mr Justice Eady who believes when some judges committed bribery perjury in a case all others must do likewise

Exhibit 128.1_2007 timely Shetreet v Hogan Lovells county court claim for recent & ongoing offences in London unlawfully dismissed due to ECRO

Exhibit 128.2_first May 2007 timely Shetreet v SHARP claim for then recent & ongoing offences in London claim still pending on Stop

Exhibit 130.1_professional profile of Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells case conducing managing partner David Harris

Exhibit 130.2_professional profile of Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells case conducing partner Nicholas Mark Atkins wanted fugitive

Exhibit 130.3_professional profile of Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells case conducing partner Stuart Hill wanted fugitive

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.  _____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 5 - Additional common and enacted law fraud exhibits 131 - 135.2

Additional common law and enacted law and corporate and judicial fraud exhibits

Exhibit 131_5 June 2009 Nuclear Test Veterans Association v Ministry of Defence no time limitation in civil cases of chronic poisoning due to negligence

Copied from

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Atomic-Test-Veterans-Win-High-Court-Bid-For-Right-To-Sue.../200906115296704?f=rss

Above further proves the total judicial abrogation of the rule of law and discrimination about an alleged time limit, even if judges accepted the perjury by SHARP and Hogan Lovells that I did not to sue for multinational corporate fraud, only for allegedly time barred personal injury at age 13.

Exhibit 132_Legal Services Com. v Abu Hamza 2007 no time limit no separation of companies legal identities etc defences due to concealment joint ownership 

Copied from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6276209.stm

The alleged concealment of assets by Abu Hamza by alleged transfer of property to the legal ownership of his sister occurred many years ago, therefore it was “time barred”, as Sharp group and Hogan Lovells alleged about everything they did to me, even the most recent offences ongoing to date.  Therefore, why didn’t Lord Justice Hughes at the Old Bailey tell the Legal Services Commission and CPS, “could have acted sooner”, and “co-defendant with Sharp Corporation Sharp UK separate legal personality”, as was judicially perpetrated against me in Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells, even though my claim for multinational corporate fraud that was perpetrated in 2004 in Israel and directed from Hogan Lovells in London and continued by me at High Court in London later in 2004 and the libel, etc part of claim was added by me by stamped High Court applications to case only two months after publication.  I was also told “you are abusive” – because I proved that Sharp group were convicted on their own plea-bargain admission of fraud in relation to the case in Israel, and was then told “case dismissed” on above excuses or ‘grounds’.  Above exhibited UK common law means Sharp group and Hogan Lovells have no time limitation and no separation of companies and therefore also jurisdiction defence in case irrespective of the applicability of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions to case, in addition to no time limitation in the event of fraud and/or for persons under a mental disability since before age 18, and further shows that UK judiciary committed fraud and perjury about time limitation in Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells.  This proves that UK judges base their judgements on social, racial and religious favouritism, bias and personal hatred, and commit judicial fraud and perjury to suit their desired outcome of case, as was the case in respect of me.  Above exhibited judgement contrasted by the Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells judgements shows that UK judiciary approve of terrorism in principle and believe there are good terrorists, i.e. Sharp UK and Hogan Lovells who are paedophile terrorists who destroyed my life deliberately since age 13, and ‘terrorists’ they hate for purely racial and religious reasons, i.e. all Muslims and all foreigners, and that UK judges even think that all White European foreigners who are claimants and/or defendants in UK court system are also all ‘terrorists’, even if like me they are the injured and defrauded party since age 13.  Yet once a foreigner claims against a UK domiciled company in UK, he is automatically a ‘terrorist’, because he is ‘bothering’ their paedophile terrorist friends Sharp group and Hogan Lovells with whom they went to the same fee paying British boarding schools before they became judges and their friends became Hogan Lovells, Sharp UK, etc partners and/or executives.  This shows that UK judiciary socially, ethnically and otherwise discriminated against me to date because I am a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany domiciled in UK since 2001 and that all convictions in UK of ethnic minorities and/or foreigners, including White European foreign nationals domiciled in UK, and of all defendants overall excluding upper class Englishmen and/or upper class Scotchman in Scotland who are of the same background as the UK judges, are unsafe and must be overturned by ECtHR, and that no one can be extradited to puppet of US UK and/or US from ECHR Convection signatory states, as they would not have recourse to a fair trial, and would also be tortured by abuse of forcible ‘medicine’ for torture, as was perpetrated against me directly by English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary and UK Government, on behalf of Sharp group and Hogan Lovells.  My case contrasted by the Abu Hamza case, shows that the worst miscarriage of justice imaginable was perpetrated against me.  Above common law proves that UK judges do not believe they are objective, professional and independent in thought as well as in name judges, UK judges believe they are the paid perjury committing barristers of the defence in civil cases, depending which individual and/or company they like better, and even corporate contract murderers and torturers in my case, and likewise are prosecutors for CPS in criminal cases where the defendants are foreign nationals or ethnic minorities.  Why are Sharp group and Hogan Lovells partners and executives above the law and totally immune, even when they catastrophically injure, attempt to murder, etc and defraud, and Abu Hamza must serve several years in prison and pay a million pounds he does not even have when Abu Hamaza never harmed or defrauded me or anyone else, the allegations against him by UK are of dissident political speech only.  If only Sharp group and Hogan Lovells had ‘harmed’ me as little as Abu Hamza ‘harmed’ UK, by publishing about me critical comments rather than physically destroying my life and then defrauding me and pauperising me.  There is no doubt in my mind that if Sharp group and Hogan Lovells harmed and defrauded since age 13 the son of some upper class UK citizen with whom English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary went to the same boarding schools, Sharp group and Hogan Lovells would have been forced to pay the full criminal and civil penalties for their crimes and offences against me since age 13 to date.  Above also proves that all the UK organised criminal, child protection and terrorism legislation, that should have been applied and enforced against Sharp group and Hogan Lovells for what they perpetrated against me since age 13 is a total sham, and that terrorism and organised crime, even fraud of hundreds of millions of euro that were stolen from me, even torture and murder are all legal in UK if you are upper class British and motivated by paedophile sadism and greed rather than Islamic and/or other religious and/or ideological and/or ethnic political dissent.

Exhibit 133_2003 UK-US Extradition Treaty Article 7 precludes time limitation defence in transnational cases that were lodged abroad in time

Copied from UK Foreign Office website.

My case in London v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells was lodged in 2004, a year after the enactment of above enactment.  Therefore, its enacted law and common law cases created by it are applicable to Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Hogan Lovells in London.  Above Treaty by UK Parliamentary enactment has an even stronger applicability to time limitation issues also in transnational civil cases that have a criminal element than any common law by itself, because of its enacted nature that then occasioned common law cases in which individuals in UK were requested under extradition proceedings even though the time limitation on their alleged offence abroad expired in UK and/or under the laws of that jurisdiction by the time extradition was requested and/or complied with.  In any case, individuals who escape from prison before their trial commences even domestically are not deemed ‘innocent’ and/or protected by time limitation if they escape detection past the limitation period for their original offence and time limitation is frozen in relation to all their offences.  This is why Ronnie Biggs was forced to recommence his prison sentence even though he escaped from prison and moved abroad of UK.  Sharp group never admitted acceptance of service of proceedings of my claim in Israel.  Sharp group never defended in Israel on the substance of the claim in Israel, i.e. injury causation.  More tellingly still, Sharp Corporation did not even allow and explicitly prohibited as below exhibited and proven, any production of evidence about injury causation, and consequently the claim in Israel ended, was abandoned, was never “dismissed” as Lord Justice Ward at Court of Appeal fraudulently alleged and committed judicial perjury red in tooth and claw when he refused to give me permission to appeal, without admission by Sharp group of service of proceedings in Israel, at any stage of proceedings.  Therefore, Sharp group and Hogan Lovells that had global case conduct from global case outset, are international fugitives in UK from civil and criminal justice to date in relation to my case in Israel and UK.  Therefore, a time limitation defence is prohibited to Sharp group and Hogan Lovells in relation to my proceedings against them in London as of 2004 under the same international and national laws and common laws that prohibit a time limitation defence for fugitives from international justice against whom a warrant for their arrest and/or proceedings were issued in a timely manner, as my claim in Israel was issued in a timely manner.  This is reflected in the UK-US Extradition Treaty Article 7 that prohibits any time limitation defence in UK courts in relation to extradition to US on the basis that in US the arrest warrant and/or proceedings were issued in a timely manner under US laws even if the fugitive from US justice evaded detection and/or extradition in UK for a period past the expiry of the statute of time limitation in UK and/or US in relation to the original offence for which the outstanding arrest warrant and/or proceedings were issued in US against him in a timely manner, and effectively freezes time limitation as of the time of the issuance of the timely arrest warrant and/or proceedings abroad.  This means that time limitation was frozen in relation to my claim globally, in relation to both injury and fraud causes of action, once proceedings were issued in Israel on my behalf  by contingent fee lawyers and that is Sharp group and Hogan Lovells civil and criminal legal situation in relation to the time limitation issues of my claim.  This point of law was so obvious, also under UK Limitation Act s 32 – automatic postponement in the event of fraud and/or concealment by the defendant, and the notorious common law case known even to the general public, Express Newspapers v Lord Archer, 2001, ironically obtained by the same conducing partner at Hogan Lovells against me since global case outset in 1994, Nicholas Mark Atkins, that the position of the UK judges in case that Sharp group and Hogan Lovells deserved a ‘reward’ for successfully committing fraud against me in Israel and UK by the definition of the UK Fraud Act, means that there can be no doubt of a maliciously motivated deliberate miscarriage of justice due to unlawful political interference with the judiciary by Sharp group and Lovells, UK officials and diplomatic spies from US and Israel, as occurred in my unlawful psychiatric tribunals against a sane man where aforementioned foreign diplomats rendered themselves complicit in perjury against me by UK Government.  The fact that the claim was timely in Israel under domestic laws there was admitted by Sharp group by their fraudulent refusal to admit acceptance of service of proceedings on my behalf in Israel by fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail, even though proceedings were served in Israel in legal reality, as is elsewhere exhibited.  The evasion of claim was also an admission of injury causation and of intentional harm in relation to my injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by Sharp Corporation.  The fact that my claim in UK was completely timely and meritorious, also because I continued proceedings in London in 2004 shortly after the claim in Israel was evaded by convicted and compounded fraud, perjury, bribery, blackmail and money laundering earlier in 2004, was admitted by Master Miller when he judged in my favour on transcript of 6 June 2005 and on 18 November 2004 when Master Tennant ordered in my favour in relation to the very first decision in case, for service out of jurisdiction on co-defendant Sharp Corporation, but all decisions in my favour were unlawfully reversed due to foul play and an ex parte hearing to which I was not invited and that was subsequently unintentionally disclosed to me, in the case of Master Tennant, and thereby of the other judges in case as well even if the other ex parte hearings about me were not disclosed to me. Worse still and most consistently with corporate, judicial and high official foul play in case, the disclosure order of 11 February 2005 in my favour by Master Tennant was never set aside by Master Tennant and/or any other judge in case, but it was simply ignored and not complied with to date by Sharp group and Hogan Lovells in contempt of court.  This was an admission that all judgments in case were obtained by fraud and was commission of additional actionable fraud under the UK Fraud Act thereby. 

Exhibit 134_UK Fraud Act indisputably applicable to corporate political judicial offences in Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells in London as of 2004

I note that the UK Fraud Act has clauses about “evasion of liability” and “concealment”, including by noncompliance with DPA in relation to money claims, issued or potential, “abuse of power” by UK officials and “gain to another” by unlawful means, that is precisely applicable to the judicial misconduct of this case.

Exhibit 135.1_Patrick Raggett v Roman Catholic Church May 09 prohibiting time defence re intentional harm against a juvenile

Copied from

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6226891.ece

Exhibit 135.2_House of Lords January 2008 judgement prohibiting time limitation defence in case of intentional harm BBC news

Exhibit 164_Regina v Hodgson reversal based on objective evidence invalidates all Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells orders due to judicial perjury

Copied from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.  _____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 6 - Applicability of UN international law to Shetreet case

The applicability to the civil and all criminal aspects of this case in UK, US and Israel of the United Nations International law, the Statute of Rome, UN Chemical Weapons Convention and UN Torture Conventions

Exhibit 136_UN Torture & Chemical Weapons Conventions & Rome Statute violated by SHARP Hogan Lovells Israel US UK against Shetreet since age 13

Article 8 War Crimes a ii iii iv vi vii viii b x xi xii xiv xvii xx xxi xxv c i ii iii iv xi xii

The Rome Statue is part of UN international law and is the legal constitution of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  Above Statute has global jurisdiction and no time limitation since its ratification by the UN in 2002.  However, all offences in case against me by all offending parties since age 13 are covered and have no time limitation or jurisdiction defence under UN international law due to the applicability without any time and/or jurisdiction restrictions of the UN Chemical Convention and UN Torture Convention.  Because I am a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, only, not a dual national of UK and/or US, and since 9 February 2009, not a dual national of Israel, as I renounced my former Israeli citizenship on above date due to the crimes perpetrated against me by the Government of Israel and mutual hostility, and because this case was perpetrated by all parties against me since age 13, in both Israel until 2001 and since my move of domicile to UK as of 2001 in UK as if my catastrophic chronic toxic injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation was World War Three and a war of total extermination in which “No quarter will be given” i.e. the truth and the rule of law will not be allowed to make an appearance, by Sharp group and Hogan Lovells, English High Court judiciary and the governments of Israel, US and UK who perpetrated against me crimes and war crimes including in UK, on behalf of Sharp group and Hogan Lovells, the Statue of Rome, UN Torture Convention and UN Chemical Weapons Convention most certainly apply to case, and due to the forcible toxic injections that were perpetrated against me under the abuse of psychiatry against the sane, all the secret protocols and international laws that prohibit nuclear terrorism by the official nuclear powers of the world against other states.  In addition, to aforementioned Article 8, Article 29 of the ICC Statute of Rome prohibits the applicability of any statute of time limitations and states, “The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations”.  In respect of my two catastrophic chronic injuries by Sharp group and Hogan Lovells, one at age 13, and another at age 24 by deliberate contract, and of  the abuse of psychiatry against me, a sane man, by Met Police, City of London Police, FTAC, NHS and central UK Government on behalf of Sharp group, Hogan Lovells, Israel and US in order to torture, degrade, injure, forcibly inject into me neuro-toxic substances and murder me in order to cover-up the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal of Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells, Article 8 of the Rome Statute explicitly prohibits, “Wilful killing; Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons (my note outside of above and below quotation marks – this is very specific to the abuse of psychiatry against the sane by a foreign powers, as UK abused psychiatry against me by direct instructions of the First Secretary of the US Embassy in London and other diplomatic spies from Israel, as are the below prohibitions of forcibly injecting toxic liquid substances); Employing poison or poisoned weapons; Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; Taking of hostages; Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123; Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.  In respect of the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal of Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London with an ECRO excluding me from all right to go to law, even habeas corpus, which abusive exclusion from legal protection caused my vermin status, facilitated the open hunting season against me and caused the abuses of psychiatry against me, the Rome Statue prohibits, “Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party (my note outside of quotation marks, this includes Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London as of 2004 explicitly); Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial (my note outside of quotation marks, this includes Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London as of 2004 explicitly); Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army (my note outside of quotation marks, the loss of Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells also perpetrated against me catastrophically injurious medical neglect of the unbearably painful, neurologically and intellectually disabling without treatment and incompatible with life dermatological aspect of my injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by Sharp Corporation, and the public systems in both Israel and UK refused to provide me with the treatment for the permanent improvement of same that I am entitled to, due to organised criminal political foul play, privation of medical treatment, both private, by fraud and unlawful pauperisation, and public, by malicious denial of treatment, was the most brutal and injurious offence in case ongoing to date, in violation of the UN Torture Convention); Declaring that no quarter will be given; Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.” 

Because the worst crimes against me in UK by UK were perpetrated due to instructions to UK by US and Israeli diplomatic spies, and because the US Embassy in London is an official US espionage installation and military base, guarded by a “detachment of marines” and many US diplomatic spies are former US military personnel, and because essentially all Israeli diplomats are members of Mossad and member of the Israeli military due to universal conscription for Jews in Israel for a period of approximately three years as of age 18 and reserve conscription for a few weeks per annum subsequently until approximately age 50, all the crimes committed against me in UK, including the unlawful nullification and dismissal of Shetreet v Sharp group and Hogan Lovells due to political interference with the judiciary and ex parte hearings in which I was not represented and was not allowed to attend, are war crimes by definition of UN international law and the Rome Statute.

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.  _____________________________________________________________________

16 December 2010

Folder 7 - Less important than folder 1 exhibits from 28 August 2009 to December 2010

For the complicit foul play by the EU institutions against Shetreet and the termination of all legal fees paid by the EU to Hogan Lovells and the renunciation of Hogan Lovells by the EU for their crimes against Shetreet see exhibits Exhibit 42.4, Exhibit 139.1, Exhibit 139.2, Exhibit 156, Exhibit 163.1-3, Exhibit 171, Exhibit 172, Exhibit 176, Exhibit 177, Exhibit 192, Exhibit 193.  Above is equivalent to a conviction of SHARP and Hogan Lovells by the European Court of Justice, if it was a criminal, not a civil, instance, for their crimes against Shetreet since age 13 to date.

Exhibit 196 caused SHARP and Hogan Lovells to admit foul play against Shetreet by blocking for a period all of their emails accounts save that of the global CEO in Washington DC to incoming emails from Shetreet due to additional self-incrimination thereby.  See also Exhibits 206.  Exhibit 196 below, further proves that SHARP and Hogan Lovells relied on 15 July 2009 on fake communications, one email and one web form, that they sent themselves in my name by identity fraud in complicity with UK Attorney General et al, to third party law firms, in order to unlawfully extend the unlawful to begin with as of 2005 ECRO against Shetreet that formally declared Shetreet vermin, in order to enable UK Attorney General to attempt to declare Shetreet a vexatious litigant later in 2009 and thereby permanently prohibit Shetreet from going to law for protection from unlawful detentions, torture, attempted murders etc and monetary compensation for same. This is further proven by the fact that Met Police, NHS et al, acting on behalf of Shetreet, unlawfully detained Shetreet on 8 June 2010, exactly 14 days before the 22 June 2010 hearing of UK Attorney General v Shetreet, which had to be cancelled in circumstance.

See Exhibit 158 and 209.1 for an admission of foul play by SHARP, Hogan Lovells et al by refusing to prosecute Shetreet for blackmail and threats, as the law is on side of Shetreet, and Shetreet is therefore not perceived by them as a blackmailer, only as a debt collector.

See Exhibits 206 and 213 for admission of foul play by SHARP and Hogan Lovells by refusal for a period to accept any further emails from Shetreet due to self-incrimination.

See Exhibits 202, automatic admission of foul play against Shetreet by UK and US regimes due to their refusal to prosecute Shetreet after his documented provocations, unavailable until further notice online, however, interested parties can obtain a copy upon request.

See Exhibits 3.1-5 in folder 1A

Exhibit 3.6_NHS minutes additional denial of dermatological treatment refusal to deal with complaint re abuse of psychiatry violation of confidentiality of another 

Above is not in the public domain due to a censorship injunction on that document.

See Exhibits 29 in folder 1

Exhibit 29.4_Hanina Brandes US SEC registration re Lanoptics Ltd owner of EZchip Semiconductor listed on NASDAQ

Exhibit 29.5_EZchip Semiconductor listed on NASDAQ owned by Lanoptics Ltd and Brandes

See Exhibits 42 in folder 1

Exhibit 42.4_European Parliament unlawful refusal to lodge Shetreet October 2009 petition and admission of foul play regarding 2008 petition

See Exhibits 54 in folder 1

Exhibit 54.2_complicity of the Royal College of Psychiatry in its refusal to intervene and denounce abuse of psychiatry

Exhibit 54.3_criminally insane criminal complicity by GMC with Met Police FTAC NHS nullification of rule of law

Exhibit 138_12 Aug 09 refusal to comply with DPA and admission of foul play against Shetreet by UK Parliament

Exhibit 139.1_17 Aug 2009 EU law abrogating refusal of EU to openly officially intervene and renunciation by EU of right to preach to other powers

Exhibit 139.2_EU law abrogating refusal of EU Ombudsman to admit Shetreet complaint ref 2494 2009 SIT

Exhibit 140_14 Aug 2009 email by Shetreet that forced SHARP Hogan Lovells to admit bribery to Iran to obey Western news blackout of case

Exhibit 141.1_confirmation by High Court no N460 permission to appeal form ever filled by judiciary re Shetreet

Exhibit 141.2_confirmation by High Court no N460 permission to appeal form ever filled by judiciary re Shetreet

Exhibit 141.3_admission of foul play by Mr Justice Underhill 17 July 2007 transcript proves Shetreet did ask to appeal yet N460 not filled by any judge in case

This is the case in respect of all other High Court orders in case, which further proves that no legal formalities were observed because case was unlawfully nullified and unlawfully dismissed on the ‘basis’ that Shetreet is a nonhuman vermin animal against ‘which’ all crimes are legal, by most unlawful High Court judgements and orders, due to purely broadly political and workplace political reasons, in total abrogation of the domestic UK rule of law and applicable EU and ECHR rule of law.

Exhibit 142_Shetreet email to Sharp UK triggered SHARP EU headquartered in Hamburg auto-response proves all judgements obtained by fraud as of 2004 that supposedly Sharp UK has no joint liability with the rest of SHARP group

Exhibit 143_Associated Press 21 October 2009 London Lite successful threatened frivolous ‘libel’ action by notorious convicted child rapist and worse to defend his good name yet Shetreet who is the victim of all offences in case since age 13 is officially vermin under ECRO not allowed to go to law for any reason.

Exhibit 144_unlawful concealment of data about Shetreet by Met Police from IPCC and admission of foul play and unlawful nullification of IPCC of complaint v City of London Police

Exhibit 145_appointment of solicitors by Met Police re Shetreet re personal injury following meritorious complaint to Mayor yet these solicitors did not offer any compensation due to the unlawful ECRO baring Shetreet all right to go to law

Exhibit 146_Oct 2009 insane criminal complicity nullification of complaint refusal to comply with DPA by Solicitors Regulation Authority

Above refusal by SRA to comply with Shetreet DPA to SRA is admission of foul play by both them in relation to their complicity of foul play by Hogan Lovells and was thereby also an admission by SRA of foul play by Hogan Lovells.

Exhibit 147_criminally insane additional foul play fraud etc by NHS by alleging EU RoHS Directive is a “delusion about radio waves from TV sets”

Above exhibit is in the confidential Shetreet v NHS folder due to the NHS v Shetreet censorship injunction

Exhibit 149_successful 2005 civil action by Shetreet further proves perjury fraud etc by UK Attorney General

Exhibit 150.1_23 Nov 2009 most unlawful in UK history Attorney General v Shetreet civil action with 13 Aug 2009 signature of Solicitor General

Exhibit 150.2_exhibit in contempt of court by Attorney General in violation of 6 Nov 2009 censorship order of Eady J – unavailable in the public domain See Exhibit 22.2 for its ‘legalised’ redacted version

Exhibit 150.3_unlawful reliance by UK Attorney General on legally privileged document to US Attorney General that was not addressed to her and that was not yet posted in the public domain

Exhibit 150.4_admission by UK Attorney General that no legal representation possible for Shetreet in her action

Exhibit 150.6_total abrogation of the rule of law by UK Attorney General that approved of forgery of transcripts by SHARP and Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 150.7_totally lawless UK Attorney General approved of admitted fraud by concealment and DPA violation by SHARP Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 150.8_admission by UK Attorney General of complicity with fraud against Archer and also murderous crimes against Shetreet

Exhibit 150.9_additional admission and complicity by UK Attorney General of foul play 71 pages

Exhibit 150.10_proof of service of Exhibit 150.8 on Court of Appeal Hogan Lovells Attorney General et al

Exhibit 150.11_UK Attorney General position that most complex case in UK history be finalised at approx two hours kangaroo hearing

Exhibit 151_2009 foul play refusal of William Hague MP who later became UK Foreign Secretary in 2010 to help Shetreet

Exhibit 152_foul play nullification of foul play by Serious Fraud Office branch of UK police

Exhibit 154.1_Nov 2009 foul play nullification by Information Commissioner even though DPA was to Sharp UK that do not have immunity from DPA

Exhibit 154.2_Information Commissioner final unlawful nullification of Shetreet DPA noncompliance by all companies and all branches of UK regime

Exhibit 156_proof from Hogan Lovells website EU paid fees to Hogan Lovells since before 2006 and thereby liable for Hogan Lovells offences against Shetreet

Exhibit 158_ incontrovertible admission of crimes by refusal of SHARP Hogan Lovells UK Government to prosecute Shetreet for blackmail threats etc against SHARP Hogan Lovells 

Exhibit 159_refusal to comply with Shetreet 16 Oct 2009 DPA request to NHS Westminster PCT re Westminster PCT v Shetreet 6 Nov 09

Above email by NHS Westminster PCT is dated 26 October 2009 and thereby predated the civil action against Shetreet, thereby it is not covered by the censorship injunction and/or the legal case of above title.  However, the continued refusal to date by NHS Westminster PCT to comply with DPA proves fraud in that case as well.

Exhibit 160.1_Dec 2009 nullification by Nursing Counsel of Shetreet complaint due to multiplicity of offending officials as did GMC PCC IPCC in respect of City of London Police SRA etc

Exhibit 160.2_nullification and blatant criminal complicity by criminally insane Nursing Counsel re Shetreet complaint

Exhibit 161_note taken by Government of Israel that Shetreet no longer their citizen and they have no jurisdiction over him

Exhibit 163.1_proof of service of LBA on EU institutions and admission of liability by refusal to comply with disclosure demand 

Exhibit 163.2_admission of direct criminal liability by EU by refusal of Ombudsman to prosecute Shetreet for blackmail

Exhibit 163.3_violation by EU of EU Data Protection laws by refusal of EU to disclose copy of data about him to Shetreet

Exhibit 165_Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards nullification of complaint v MP of Shetreet who refused to assist

Exhibit 166_nullification by Court of Appeal & Information Commissioner of 16 Nov 2009 DPA application re SHARP Hogan Lovells invalidated 2009 Court of Appeal Civil Division order against Shetreet

Exhibit 167.1_invalidation of 2009 Court of Appeal Shetreet order due to reliance on perjury committing UK Attorney General v Shetreet

Exhibit 167.2_additional invalidation of 2009 and all previous Court of Appeal Civil Division Shetreet orders by their 2009 refusal to comply with Shetreet DPA

Exhibit 168.1_Dec 2009 Legal Services Ombudsman acceptance of complaint v Hogan Lovells was subsequently nullified by Ombudsman herself

Exhibit 168.2_18 Feb 2010 nullification by Legal Services Ombudsman of Shetreet complaint v Hogan Lovells after her office upheld complaint

Exhibit 169_most unlawful order in Court of Appeal Civil Division history judicially criminally complicit in torture and attempted murder

Exhibit 170_BBC reports UK rejection of Chinese judicial independence and thereby of UK judicial independence

Exhibit 171_BBC reports US and EU hypocrisy about human rights in China and violation of all these rights in respect of Shetreet in UK

Exhibit 172_Epoch Times reports European Parliament hypocrisy about human rights in China due to human rights violations re Shetreet in UK

Exhibit 173_24 Dec 2009 unlawful complicit nullification of Shetreet complaint also by the Local Government Ombudsman

Exhibit 175_ press release Nov 2008 plea agreement by SHARP with US Dept of Justice for 120 million dollars for fraud

Exhibit 176_EU Commission endorses 48.3 million euro aid to Sharp Corporation for TV sets plant in Poland 25 June 2008

Exhibit 177_SHARP press release EU approval of SHARP joint venture with Italian companies 4 Jan 2010

Exhibit 178_nullification of the rule of law re Shetreet by UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Exhibit 179_Lord Chief Justice stated that he acted as he did in a case due to publicity proof that Shetreet was denied justice by news blackout

Exhibit 180_nullification of the rule of law by the Local Government Ombudsman

Exhibit 182_public domain proof and admission by NHS dermatologist that craniofacial dermatological treatment unlawfully denied by NHS in order to harm and torture

Exhibit 183_10 Feb 2010 self contradiction by Court of Appeal Civil Division that stated torture of Binaym Muhamed illegal and torture and worse of Shetreet legal only because BM has publicity and Shetreet does not

Exhibit 184_pseudo moralistic hypocrisy by MacDuff J who judged on 13 Jan 2010 all crimes legal against Shetreet - Kray grandson jailed for murder

Exhibit 187_Underhill J who tortured etc Shetreet as of 2007 was Attorney General of Prince Charles until 2006 complicity of UK royal family

Exhibit 188.1_website of maker Janssen warns Risperidone triply contraindicated for Shetreet catastrophic brain & gastric damage deliberately induced

Janssen is owned by Johnson & Johnson

Exhibit 188.2_Netdoctor website warns Risperdal Risperidone triply contraindicated for Shetreet catastrophic brain damage deliberately induced 

Exhibit 188.3_US National Library of Medicine warns Risperidone triply contraindicated for Shetreet brain damage deliberately induced 

Shetreet suffers from both pre-existing brain damage and pathological VEP / visual EEG and from pre-existing, yet he Risperidone and then Zypexra aka Olanzapine were deployed against him unlawfully, in violation of the public contraindication of the makers, and consequently Shetreet suffered severe injuries, to his neurological, gastric and dental health. 

Exhibit 190_Shetreet contingent fee lawyer in Israel presiding judge offered Supreme Court judiciary Shetreet not vexatious in Israel and UK as UK Attorney General fraudulently alleged that Shetreet was supposedly as vexatious in Israel as in UK

Exhibit 191_Shetreet v SHARP forensic complex fraud Israel Courts & Companies House file evasion of case by fraud in Israel 1996 to 2004 & 2004 to 2007

Exhibit 192_EU foul play proof Competition Commissioner served with notice of Hogan Lovells crimes re Shetreet and is complicit by payments to Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 193_EU Data Protection Supervisor served with notice EU nondisclosure to Shetreet with no response complicity admission of overall EU foul

Exhibit 194_refusal by US law firm that advertised online for Risperidone injury victims to represent Shetreet proves unlawful ECRO vermin status is Western worldwide

Exhibit 196_identity fraud breach of ECRO etc SHARP Hogan Lovells lodged on 8 March 2010 their copy of 2005 Shetreet High Court application on behalf of Shetreet in order to breach ECRO on behalf of Shetreet and attempt thereby to falsely imprison him for contempt of court and unlawfully endorse the action of UK Attorney General v Shetreet and thereby further unintentionally admitted that SHARP and Hogan Lovells sent the emails supposedly by Shetreet that they relied upon on 15 July 2010 to unlawfully extend the ECRO – see Exhibits 55, 56

Exhibit 197.1_urgent handwritten demand by UK regime on behalf of US regime as well that Shetreet surrender himself to additional psychiatric torture due to political reasons

Exhibit 197.2_urgent letter to same effect also dated 19 March 2010 for unlawful harassment appointment on 23 March 2010

Exhibit 199.1_US federal judge judges in favour of US 9-11 workers injured by toxic fumes also of PBDEs and did not call them delusional, Citation: Federal Judge Orders More Talks on 9/11 Deal, New York Times online, 19 March 2010

Exhibit 199.2_peer reviewed published scientific journal article re 9-11 workers injurious health effects of flame retardants fumes exposure, Citation: James Dahlgren et al, Persistent Organic Pollutants in 9/11 world trade center rescue workers: Reduction following detoxification, Chemosphere 69 (2007) 1320-1325

Exhibit 199.3_peer reviewed published scientific journal article about 9-11 workers injurious health effects of PBDEs fumes exposure, Citation: Simon Litten et al, Destruction of the World Trade Center and PCBs, PBDEs, PCDDFs, PBDDFs, and Chlorinated Biphenylenes in Water, Sediment and Sewage Sludge, Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, 5502-5510

Above Exhibit 199.2 was peer reviewed published in Chemosphere, the most prestigious toxicology peer reviewed journal article in the world in which the second case study about Shetreet’s injury at age 13 by SHARP was published.  However, above academic journal articles are not case studies and no 9/11 WTC inhalation of toxins health effects claimant has proof remotely as good as Shetreet for his injury causation, also partly because the 9/11 inhalation health effects are not as absolutely provable as Shetreet’s injury because these effects were not highly disfiguring and generally clinically possible only due to an exclusively toxic causation during childhood. 

Above further proves the criminal insanity of the abuse of forcible psychiatry against Shereet by alleging his proven chronic toxic injury at age 13 by SHARP was a “delusion”.

Exhibit 200_see also Exhibits 42.4 139 163 172 176 192 193 Hogan Lovells homepage no longer allowed to advertise they are acting for the European Union evidently following dismissal of Hogan Lovells by EU due to December 2009 complaints by email by Shetreet to the Competition Commissioner v Hogan Lovells and posting of hostile disclaimer by the EU website on the only legal document by Hogan Lovells not purged by EU from the EU website

Above sanctions by the EU against Hogan Lovells is equivalent to an ECJ criminal conviction of Hogan Lovells if it was a criminal, not civil, instance, and has domestic UK legal status, as EU law is incorporated into domestic Member States’ laws and their domestic courts and judiciaries have to rely on EU law.  This thereby totally invalidates all the English High Court judicial fraud and perjury and abrogation of the rule of law on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells based on the English judicial premise that all crimes against me are ‘legal’ because I was vermin, and means that all the civil judgements and orders against Shetreet must be set aside with immediate interim compensation.

Above further demonstrates how absurd the situation is whereby no one in UK and worldwide will comply with disclosure laws about me and I have to glean whatever information I can from the internet.

SHARP and Hogan Lovells refused all disclosure requests from me, as did all others, since case outset to date.  However, on 21 April 2010 I emailed the following DPA disclosure demand to SHARP and Hogan Lovells / Hogan Lovells, copied to Admin Court and High Court re the two pending cases there and the 23 April 2010 hearing:

Exhibit 201_16 April 2010 abrogation of the rule of law by Mr Justice Andrew Collins in contradiction to the orders and judgement of Mr Justice Simon on 23 April 2010 who rejected Shetreet’s trick insanity plea

Exhibit 202.1_email by Shetreet to US Attorney General et al in which Shetreet called himself West European Ambassador of a prohibited organisation and called for oppressive regime politicians to be killed by rebellious soldiers for which US and UK regimes are unwilling to allow any prosecution of Shetreet before a jury in order to conceal the crimes against Shetreet 

Above exhibit is not available online currently, interested parties can obtain a copy on request.

Exhibit 202.2_Telegraph 10 May 2010 proves US and UK regimes admit foul play by themselves directly and by SHARP and Hogan Lovells against Shetreet since age 13 to date by refusing to prosecute Shetreet before a jury

Open quote of headline of above cited Telegraph article:

A terrorist who claimed to be the leader of al-Qaeda in Britain and called for the deaths of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair has pleaded guilty to trying to recruit Muslims to his cause.  End quote

Yet UK and US regime will not prosecute Shetreet who has done much more, including his demonstration at UK Parliament in 2006 that closed it down for an hour, because US and UK regimes do not want any jury proceedings in relation to Shetreet in order to conceal the crimes against him by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and of course the regimes of Israel, UK and US.  This also proves that the prosecution of Shetreet for “malicious communication” only, because it does not require a jury, is false, frivolous, vexatious and unlawful.

Exhibit 205.1_charge sheet for malicious communication only and thereby admission that Shetreet is mentally fit and well to be prosecuted before a jury as well for more serious charges of blackmail etc and thereby admission of foul play against Shetreet by refusal to prosecute him before a jury as Shetreet demanded and confessed to Met Police to blackmail

Exhibit 205.2_additional proof of foul play by UK executive and judicial branches of regime in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet, UK Attorney General v Shetreet civil case and CPS v Shetreet

13 January 2010 Police Bail Notice lists BOMB HOAX ONLY as exclusive possible charge and grounds of arrest and subsequent re-arrest with 2009 crime ref number was for BLACKMAIL ONLY and renders the subsequent prosecution for malicious communication only vexatious and dishonest and all civil judgements and orders in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet null and void miscarriage of justice that would not have been possible if UK judges were prohibited in fact and not only in theory from breaking the law and/or if a jury was included in the proceeding.

Exhibit 205.3_10 May 2010 further self-contradictory Met Police et al fraud and perjury against Shetreet and concealment of alleged evidence

Exhibit 206.1_13 May 2010 auto-response from Hogan & Hartson email account of Warren Gorrell CEO of Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 206.2_13 May 2010 notification to Elad Shetreet of email rejection by Hogan Lovells

The Hogan Lovells email accounts of Warren Gorrell CEO of Hogan Lovells and David Harris rejected my emails, as did all Hogan Lovells emails, due to a restriction by Hogan Lovells prohibiting acceptance of any emails from me, even though the Hogan Hartson in Washington DC and Lovells in London respectively email accounts of Warren Gorrell, David Harris and others accepted emails from Shetreet on same date.  It subsequently transpired by additional emails by Shetreet to other Hogan Lovells partners that all Hogan Lovells email accounts of personnel in UK, US and worldwide are blocked to Shetreet, but that Shetreet emails are still accepted by the separate, old, Hogan & Hartson and Lovells email accounts.  This proved that SHARP and Hogan Lovells quarrelled about case.  Hogan Lovells since reopened its email accounts to Shetreet in order to gather intelligence about him.

Exhibit 206.3_self contradiction to above email restriction and admission of automatic Washington DC jurisdiction for all offences against Shetreet as of age 13 to date, 3 May 2010 Washington Post article and interview with Hogan Lovells CEO Warren Gorrell and de facto advertorial

Above advertorial included a subsequent correction and the advertorial as a whole is entitled “Hogan Lovells merger makes firm one of largest in US” and the article even states, “the third largest firm in US”.  Nowhere does above de facto advertorial and interview with Hogan Lovells CEO Warren Gorrell who was quoted verbatim and photographed, state that in relation to Shetreet, Hogan Lovells are still separate companies, one London headquartered and one Washington DC headquartered, only that Hogan Lovells is an American law firm and the third largest US law firm at that by self-advertorial in the Washington Post.

In below Exhibit 209.1 UK Attorney General accuses Shetreet of threatening to kill the UK Attorney General, states this as fact and not allegation, and even states that Shetreet makes no idle threats, yet he refuses to have Shetreet prosecuted for these offences, including against the UK Attorney General himself.  Was there ever a more criminally insane and contemptuous of the rule of law UK Attorney General.

Exhibit 209_withdrawal of all NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet exhibits and references in pleadings by UK Attorney General v Shetreet thereby admission that entire case must be withdrawn as NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet is materially and procedurally inseparable from Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells

Exhibit 211_8 June 2010 additional unlawful psychiatric detention on section 3 of UK Mental Health Act by unlawful order of a Magistrate obtained by fraud, perjury etc by Met Police et al in the absence of Shetreet

Exhibit 212_9 and 17 June 2010 requests by Shetreet to SHARP and Hogan Lovells served on CEO of Hogan Lovells by email for discharge of unlawful ECRO in order to cover-up the miscarriage of justice in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and civil liability of SHARP and Hogan Lovells for the unlawful detentions torture and administration of a toxic substance against Shetreet as of 2006

Exhibit 213.1_see Exhibits 206 22 June 2010 email cc copied to Admin Court London US Attorney General et al and Hogan Lovells that caused SHARP and Hogan Lovells to admit foul play by blocking all further emails from Shetreet except to Warren Gorrell CEO of Hogan Lovells and only at his former premerger Hogan Hartson email account

213.2_rejection of email by Hogan Lovells and Europe managing partner David Harris also at his Lovells address after Hogan Lovells rejected all emails from Shetreet - see Exhibits 206

It is noted that until 2009, Hogan Lovells and SHARP were most eager to receive emails from Shetreet, and they then exhibited these emails at High Court in order to obtain the first ECRO in 2005 and is subsequent extensions in 2007 and 2009, and in 2009 SHARP and Hogan Lovells even relied primarily on a web form enquiry and email that they sent themselves in the name of Shetreet to third party law firms.  Therefore, above refusal of SHARP and Hogan Lovells to accept emails from Shetreet due to self-incrimination is an admission of foul play.

Exhibit 214_18 June 2010 criminally insane document by Mr Justice Blake in which he refused to make in order in case and de facto refused thereby to grant habeas corpus and thereby admitted that psychiatry was abused to cover-up theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and thereby also declared all crimes legal against Shetreet even torture and murder

Exhibit 215_7 July 2010 150 pounds compensation order proves that Shetreet was not vexatious in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells either

Exhibit 217_criminally insane nullification of the rule of law overall by Mr Justice-Calvert Smith the former chief prosecutor of UK and head of CPS

Exhibit 218_16 Nov 2010 criminally insane nullification by the Court of Appeal Civil Division of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and of NHS Westminster PCT v Shetreet counterclaim by Shetreet

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic. 

Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.  _____________________________________________________________________

Exhibit 8.1

Hogan Lovells are referred to below as “Lovells” because the document was composed before Lovells changed their name to Hogan Lovells in May 2010

24 March 2009

Translation with translator’s Witness Statement and notes, under Statement of Truth and written oath by Elad Shetreet in respect of the truth of the translator’s statements and the accuracy of the verbatim translation from the original Hebrew that in the original version is a corporate advertorial of highly libellous, hostile, vulgar, fictional, perverting of the course of justice and criminally fraudulent propaganda by and on behalf of Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK, Sharp Israel, Sharp group of companies overall and Lovells in London in Maariv daily newspaper in Israel that was published on behalf of Sharp group and Lovells on 4 February 2005 and added by me to my 2004 lodged then ongoing High Court in London claims v Sharp group and Lovells by stamped High Court in London application notice on 13 April 2005 that was served by High Court on Sharp UK and Lovells but was ignored in all the defence pleading documents and equally fictional “judgements” about a materially different case in all but name

Translator’s Witness Statement under Statement of Truth

1. Statement of truth, Elad Shetreet confirm this document is true and that under UK law I am thereby liable to alleged “perjury” prosecution if any stated fact is disputed.

2. I Elad Shetreet will copy to Lovells and Sharp UK directly and thereby to Sharp group as a whole and to the Lord Chief Justice and Attorney General in London on above date this document with supporting other proof documents by email in scanned format.  I Elad Shetreet hereby publicly challenge Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK and Lovells and Sharp group as a whole to whom this will be copied, to prosecute or sue me before a jury or for alleged “perjury” and/or alleged “libel” if they dispute any fact and/or any accusation I make against them with which they dare to disagree and refuse to admit.  If Lovells and Sharp group refuse to comply with my above demand to be prosecuted and/or sued by them and/or on their behalf, then the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General must accept this as a criminal and civil admission of fraud and perjury in case by which all “judgements” and “orders” were unlawfully obtained and set aside all judgements and orders against me in Shetreet v Sharp group and v Lovells at High Court and Court of Appeal in London that refused to give permission to appeal.  I note that no jury was involved in case and no clinically sane UK jury would have consented to such gross and deliberate miscarriage of justice by deliberate judicial fraud and perjury to the extent that all case judgements were fictional and about a materially completely different case in all but name.

3. This new information and consistently other developments in this case renders my case materially and forensically much stronger than the Crown v Hodgson case of March 2009 in which the life prisoner Hodgson had his murder conviction quashed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice personally without any defence or objection offered by the police and/or CPS based on new forensic, DNA evidence, because in my case it is not as if there is merely “new DNA evidence”, but in addition, the situation is equivalent to that whereby the “murder victim” for whose murder a death row inmate was given a death sentence at age 13 based purely on the 100% fiction and perjury at High Court in London “witness statements” of Lovells and Sharp UK and without any forensics or hard substantiating evidence by Lovells whatever, not even a “dead body”, is found alive and well and living under his own name, with impunity and without any denial of his identity and of the unjust death sentence given to the death row inmate at age 13.

4. The below translation is made by me, Elad Shetreet, in reference to Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd (Sharp UK) and Lovells at High Court in London, lodged in 2004 and 2005.  The translation from Hebrew into English is of a Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK, Sharp Israel, Sharp group of companies overall and Lovells libelling, invading of privacy, violating of medical confidentiality and copyright infringing, mostly fraudulent, perverting of the course of justice, blackmail and bribery procured gutter press advertorial against Elad Shetreet, also in relation to the case in London v Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK and Lovells explicitly.  This gutter press advertorial thereby also by Sharp UK and Lovells in London directly materially resembles the Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK and Lovells highly fraudulent and sadistically mocking of the catastrophic chronic whole body clinically multiple injury, disability and disfigurement of a child at age 13 by a defective Sharp Corporation product and de facto toxic weapon, 2004/05 defence pleading documents and Lovells “skeleton argument” and application “witness statement” at High Court in London submitted by them during approximately the same period, as of December 2004.  The advertorial was published in Israel in Kol Hazman, the Friday weekend supplement of Maariv daily national newspaper, the second largest circulation national daily newspaper in Israel, on 4 February 2005, pages 46-50.  The gutter press advertorial included verbatim quoted libellous, fraudulent and perverting of the course of justice statements by a “SHARP” executive, explicitly identified as a spokesperson on behalf of “SHARP” group as a whole, including and explicitly Sharp UK and Lovells in London when the case in “London” against Sharp UK was libellously and prejudicially discussed.  I note for the benefit of those who are not knowledgeable about English law that in English common law, including by countless precedents, libel and other offences in foreign mass circulation periodicals and books, least of all against a UK domiciled claimant, as I am UK domiciled since 2001 and thereby since well before the offending advertorial against me by Sharp group and Lovells was published, has no jurisdiction defence due to the global nature of the flow of information and the certainty that the offending material reached the UK, as no doubt Maariv reached the UK, through numerous subscriptions by UK residents and organisations, travellers who fly in from Israel to Heathrow on direct flights seven days a week and in addition to both Heathrow and other UK airports by indirect flights to UK from Israel and bring with them newspapers from home, routinely purchase newspapers including at the bookshops at the international airport in Israel and/or routinely receive newspapers free of charge on the flights from Israel to Heathrow, on the internet accessed in the UK at www.nrg.co.il, etc.  In addition, Sharp Corporation was listed in the tree main continental West European stock exchanges at the time and thereby under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions incorporated into UK civil law and the Civil Procedure Rules book, it was therefore liable with all its daughter companies and business domiciles in Western Europe including the UK.  Sharp Corporation subsequently delisted itself from all the stock exchanges in Western Europe in 2007 only in an attempt to evade jurisdiction and liability in this case by fraud, after they committed fraud and perjury and alleged as of 2004 that they, including Sharp UK, were not liable in UK to me, and thereby obtained all case dismissals against me partly on the fraudulent basis that judges did not dare rely on directly but were emotionally prejudiced into hostility against me by this blatant perjury into using their alleged “discretion” to commit judicial perjury and unlawfully nullify my claims by falsely alleging a fictional “time limitation bar” to my most timely claims, “because Shetreet has no jurisdiction in UK”, as Sharp group and Lovells fraudulently alleged.   The gutter press advertorial was added by me, the claimant Elad Shetreet, to my 2005 High Court in London claim v Sharp Corporation and Sharp UK with a citation and an attached complete photocopy of the original offending advertorial by officially stamped, i.e. “sealed” High Court application notice copied to by High Court to Lovells and thereby to Sharp group on 13 April 2005, only two months and a few days after publication and thereby well within the libel deadline of one year since paper publication and/or the end of  internet publication.  The 4 February 2005 “conditional” advertising fees obtained and thereby bribery and blackmail obtained unlawful gutter press advertorial publication by Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK, Sharp group and Lovells included my stolen by them, partially nude copyright infringing and medical confidentiality protected and legally privileged under UK law medico-legal photos that were incorporated into my High Court in London 2004 particulars of claim and served on Sharp group and Lovells by High Court in London shortly after I lodged the claim on 21 October 2004.  In addition to blatantly legally actionable v Sharp group and Lovells in London, libel, copyright infringement, violation of medical confidentiality and invasion of privacy, this advertorial was a further commission of fraud, bribery, blackmail and conspiracy to murder in case, and an admission of all the other multinational corporate frauds, perjuries, perversions of the course of justice, conspiracies to murder, blackmails and briberies including of politicians and judges in Israel and other foul play in case since outset in 1994 in London and Israel and to date in London, and a contempt of UK court in and of itself by Sharp group and Lovells.  There is no doubt that contempt of UK court was committed because confidential, legally privileged documents that were served on Sharp group and Lovells in London by High Court in London shortly after I lodged my claim on 21 October 2004 were unlawfully published by Sharp group and Lovells in Israel on 4 February 2005 in order to pervert the course of justice in both Israel and UK.  Moreover, the overall violently fraudulent, vulgar, malicious, perverting of the course of justice and prejudicial nature of the advertorial was a contravention of my ECHR Article 6 and thereby UK Human Rights Act guaranteed “Right to a fair trial” in both the ongoing at the time cases against Sharp group in London and in Israel and was a compelling demonstration that all the judgements and orders in Israel were obtained by Sharp group, their lawyer in Israel, Hanina Brandes and their lawyers worldwide since international claim outset and in London to date, Lovells in London and Lovells conducting partner since 1994 Nicholas Mark Atkins specifically, by multinational corporate fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail.  This was so even if the advertorial about both the then ongoing case in London that was mentioned fraudulently and specifically including with the word “London” and the then ongoing case in Israel was published in the second largest mass circulation national daily Maariv in Israel and not in the Daily Mirror or Sun in London.  This was more so given the contemporary global and multinational corporate nature of the flow of information, money, bribery, blackmail, politics and judicial workplace politics in respect of a case that was both highly politicised, multinational and unlawfully contested by Sharp Corporation, Sharp group as a whole, Hanina Brandes and Lovells from the outset.  The gutter press advertorial included verbatim quoted libellous, fraudulent and perverting of the course of justice statements by a “SHARP” executive on behalf of Sharp group as a whole, including and explicitly Sharp UK and Lovells in London when the case in “London” against Sharp UK was fraudulently mentioned.  I did not make a translation at the time, in 2005 or before the aforementioned present date in 2009, as Lovells acting for Sharp group did not dispute any of my complaints in the aforementioned 13 April 2005 High Court application that added this part of my claim to my High Court in London claims, did not dispute that Sharp group published the unlawful advertorial, and did not defend this part of my claim in any way other than at one point at a hearing when they briefly orally alleged that it was not “Sharp UK”, but Sharp Corporation and the rest of Sharp group who were liable for the advertorial.  However, Sharp UK and Lovells already unintentionally admitted that they were actually acting for Sharp Corporation, when they attempted to allege that Sharp UK was “not” liable but called Sharp Corporation “my client” on page 15 of the exhibited Morison J hearing transcript and produced documents from Sharp Corporation in Japan.  This evasion of UK jurisdiction was their disingenuous “defence” in relation to the claim as a whole that even the most ferociously biased against me English High Court judges and Court of Appeal Lord Justices who refused to give permission to appeal did not dare to openly rely on and therefore committed judicial perjury and concocted a fraudulent “time limitation bar” on the claims as a whole, which did not exist in legal reality.  I did not make a translation in 2005 because my reasonable expectation at the time was that High Court would enforce my successful application at the time against Sharp group and Lovells to disclose their undisclosed documents about me.  Thereby including their own English language documents about the advertorial, including a translation into English of the advertorial that Sharp group and Lovells no doubt had even before the advertorial was published subject to their prepublication approval.  I did not anticipate that all my claims would be most unlawfully nullified and dismissed by rogue High Court in London judicial total abrogation of the rule of law, judicial fraud and perjury.  Above part of claim in relation to Sharp group’s unlawful advertorial and inseparably linked to the claim as a whole was not mentioned by one word in either the fraudulent Sharp group pleadings or equally fraudulent, fictional “judgements” against me that were thereby and overall about a materially different case in all but name and with only one partial exception, by Morison J, did not mention that Sharp group and Lovells committed against me and my contingent fee lawyers in Israel legally actionable in London to date fraud and perjury in Israel and London since international case outset, were convicted of fraud in relation to case in Israel, evaded admission of service of my proceedings in Israel by criminally convicted and compounded fraud and perjury and bribery and blackmail of politicians and judges, including by deregistering their daughter company in Israel after my claim was lodged and alleging their lawyer Hanina Brandes did not have “power of attorney” and that therefore he and Sharp Corporation “was not served” at his office in Israel when it was later proven in London that he did have full power of attorney and that Sharp Corporation was served in Israel in legal reality, and that therefore there was no time limitation defence under UK law, due to a time limitation start date 2004 when my claim was evaded in Israel by fraud and under Limitation Act (LA) s 32 – automatic postponement and no time limitation defence in the event of fraud and/or concealment by the defendant.  This is in addition to LA s 28 – postponement for persons under a mental disability (including brain damage and intellectual decrement) since before age 18 and the Statute of Rome UN international law that prohibits a time limitation defence when a toxic weapon is deployed, as Sharp Corporation did to me at age 13, and again at age 24 when a corporate murder contract against me in which a chemical nerve gas weapon was botched and I was left with permanent brain damage, catastrophic decrement of intellect and catastrophic decrement of vision.   The advertorial part of my claim was not mentioned by one word in any of the fictional in all but name “judgements” that were about a materially different case in all but name because like the rest of the parts of my timely claims for multinational fraud, conspiracy to murder and actual grievous bodily harm since age 13 to date, the advertorial part of my claim had no “time limitation” defence in legal reality due to the indisputable date of 4 February 2005 stated on the advertorial and my addition of the advertorial to my claim by stamped High Court application notice on 13 April 2005, by any stretch of the imagination, but more overtly so than the rest of my materially joint 2004/5 claims v Sharp group and Lovells at High Court in London that were unlawfully nullified and dismissed based on a fraudulently corporately and judicially alleged “time limitation bar” technicality exclusively.  Far worse still, Sharp group and Lovells and High Court judiciary imposed on me, for purely political and unlawful reasons, in order to conceal the joint corporate and judicial foul play, an even more so unlawful and unlawfully extended human rights violating double and consecutive Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) that was unlawfully extended for another maximum two years in 2007 and judicially and corporately abused in order to allege that I was “under s 42 of Supreme Court Act” and thereby was corporately and judicially deployed as a pretext to bar me all right to go to law since July 2005 to date, even for habeas corpus from consequent subsequent unlawful detentions, torture, murderous forcible medical experimentation and attempted murder by UK on behalf of Sharp group and Lovells that was perpetrated to cover-up the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal of my High Court in London claims.  Moreover, under UK law, only claims and applications against Sharp group and Lovells directly should have been “caught” by the ECRO, not unrelated actions for habeas corpus when under unlawful detentions, torture and attempted murder by UK, for a timely libel claim that I lodged against the Mail on Sunday that was placed on a “stop” in June 2007 without any hearing and without any defence being lodged, and an action for libel and invasion of medical confidentiality, invasion of privacy and incitement to murder that I attempted to lodge against the Guardian after their unlawful publication about me on 26 August 2007 and was prevented from doing so.  I note again that Sharp group advertised its products in Maariv at the time.  Much more importantly still and central to the fraud, perjury, bribery, blackmail, conspiracy to murder and other corporate multinational foul play in case with impunity in both Israel and therefore in UK as well, Sharp Corporation has orders worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars for precision instruments for its factories and related services and products with the economic engine of the Israeli economy as a whole and therefore politically all powerful in Israel and highly influential abroad of  Israel, the Israel IT export industry.  In addition, Sharp Corporation’s lawyer in Israel, Hanina Brandes, is a leading IT export industry entrepreneur in his own right and a board member of the politically influential in Israel, US and UK, America Israel Friendship League (AIFL) that also recently issued an exhibited open letter to Tony Blair that they posted on the internet.  Moreover, Israel is the most bribery prone and corrupt society in the world.  This is why most of its politicians and judges are in receipt of bribes and openly live beyond their visible means from their very small by Western standards civil servants’ salaries and why even when caught red-handed in bribery, as in the case of Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel to date, they are not prosecuted.  Bribery is the norm and is even “legal” in all but name in Israel.  Therefore, the advertorial by and on behalf of Sharp group would not have been published without their permission, initiative, financial remuneration and bribery with more “conditional” advertising, i.e. bribery and blackmail of withdrawal of advertising, editorial control over and final prepublication approval of its entire contents, including of the supply by them and inclusion of my copyright and medical confidentiality protected medico-legal photos that were included in my UK claim and served on Lovells in London by High Court shortly after 21 October 2004 as part of my particulars of claim lodged by me in London on that date.  Part of the objective of the gutter press advertorial was psychological warfare against me and against my family in Israel.  Even though I do not reside in Israel since 2001 when I moved to London, my parents still reside there and one of my parents is a former cabinet member and former MP and internationally published law professor and author of the US and UK academic bestseller Judges on Trial that was relied on by the Law Lords in the Senator Pinochet judgement.  However, I note that the relatively short involvement, from 1988 to 1996, of one of my parents in national politics in Israel, as an MP from 1988 to 1992 and MP and cabinet minister from 1992 to 1996, was as a political maverick and outsider, who unlike the vast majority of Israeli politicians and senior judges, did not accept bribes and was not part of the criminally corrupt with impunity “system” and “Establishment” of Israel in that sense, to the point that he even had to self-finance his own election campaigns.  Indeed, no advantage accrued to me in either Israel and needless to say UK due to my above provenance, quit the opposite, it only increased the determination of Sharp group and Lovells to destroy my case and my life by foul play, fraud, perjury and massive bribery and blackmail of the business community, politicians and the judiciary in Israel and additional fraud, perjury and worse in UK as of 2004 and to date because they feared from case outset in Israel and London in 1994 that any compensation paid to me would become “notorious” and inspire class action lawsuits against Sharp group based on my case.  The main motivation for the gutter press advertorial was to further poison the political atmosphere and further prejudice the judiciary and politicians in Israel and even in the UK and worldwide against my ongoing at the time claims in Israel and UK and thereby pervert the course of justice including and especially in the UK by additional fraud by Sharp group and Lovells, bribery and blackmail, by “conditional” advertising and threat of withdrawal of advertising, by blatant bribery and blackmail thereby.  The stolen partially nude medico-legal photo of me that was served on Sharp group and Lovells shortly after 21 October 2004 by High Court in London and illegally supplied by Sharp group and Lovells in London to Maariv and published in the gutter press advertorial was equivalent to a corrupt and organised criminal corporation or even an outright mafia that bribes a tabloid with which it advertises and thereby editorially controls by blackmail threat of withdrawal of the advertising and bribery with “conditional” advertising, to send its journalists to break into the home of a cabinet level politician or a Law Lord and photograph in the shower or bath, in the nude, one of the UK politician’s or English Law Lord’s family members and then publish these photos in order to humiliate that politician or Law Lord and his family.  This is how depraved and worse still, Sharp Corporation and group and Lovells are in case.  Not only was the advertorial grossly deceitful, malicious and deliberately misleading in a manner that is highly vulgar even by UK tabloids standards, but is very poorly written in “staccato” or “telegraphic” Israeli gutter press style, with highly incomplete, “abbreviated” sentences, that would not be acceptable even in the most vulgar UK tabloid, and I set out to translate this as well verbatim.  Therefore, the very poor, vulgar writing is not the fault of the translation, but of the original.  Interested parties are welcome to order a commercial translation at their own expense in case they have any doubts about the accuracy, verbatim technical and intellectual veracity of this translation, explicitly instructing the translating company to make a forensic translation of offences, mockery, parody and stupidity and that mistakes, sloppy writing and obvious fiction, even gobbledegook, not be corrected or ameliorated in any way.  However, I note that any commercial translation is likely to be of a lesser accuracy and lesser forensic quality, as the gutter press advertorial is so nonsensical it is literally untranslatable, except on a forensic basis, by someone who is very knowledgeable about this case, as an example of deliberate malice, fraud and perversion of the course of justice.  I also set out to replicate the format of the original as far as possible, with the exception of the stolen medico-legal photos, for which I do not have the desktop publishing technology to include in this document.  Additionally, it is not clear why the gutter press advertorial refers to Sharp group and Sharp Corporation in quotation marks (“SHARP”), except in the main headline, this is normally not the custom of Maariv or other newspapers in Israel when referring to companies in conventional articles that are not malicious advertorials.  Possibly, this was a backfiring attempt to conceal the advertorial nature of the piece.  The failure to differentiate between Sharp Corporation and its daughter companies such as Sharp UK that obtained in the advertorial is further proof and admission that in relation to my case there was never any “separation of group companies” in relation to the offences by Sharp group against me and the liability for same.  Aside psychological warfare against me and my family and a desire to publicly humiliate and discredit me and my claim v Sharp group and pervert the course of justice, the chief objective of the advertorial was to fraudulently deny injury causation on behalf of Sharp group, when in fact Sharp group never dared directly, officially, on the record deny injury causation, in or out of court, and even officially admitted my injury causation when Sharp Corporation press released on its exhibited by me website as of approx 2003 but fraudulently, as always in case, without disclosure to me or to High Court in London, that it would “phase out” the deployment of the highly toxic flame retardants PBDEs in its consumer electronics products in order to protect the health of their consumers and avoid further injuries, public relations disasters and litigations like mine, primarily due to my case.  By so doing, Sharp Corporation admitted that PBDEs, least of all adulterated with other toxins, which mixture caused catastrophic toxic synergy, as the peer reviewed forensic investigations of my body and control samples and of my Sharp TV set itself proved, should not have been deployed by them in my Sharp Corporation TV set in the first place, and that I should not have been catastrophically chronically injured, disabled and disfigured at age 13 in the first place by toxic fumes emitted under normal operating conditions by my then bran new Sharp Corporation TV set.  This was also an admission by Sharp Corporation that my Sharp Corporation TV set was a toxic weapon and thereby there is no jurisdiction and/or time limitation defence available in respect also of my original injury by Sharp Corporation at age 13 under UN international law, as even my above injury at age 13 was a war crime and crime against humanity, as was my subsequent injury by Sharp Corporation at age 24 due to the botched murder contract in which a nerve gas was deployed and which left me with permanent catastrophic brain damage.  This is why the fraudulent allegations about what the expert witnesses, Dr Sherman MD and Prof Robertson PhD MPH stated in their written and exhibited reports about me that are easily forensically comparable with the fraudulent gutter press advertorial fictional version of above reports, were so extreme in their gobbledegook and fraudulence and thereby libel against both me and Dr Sherman MD and Prof Robertson PhD MPH.  Moreover, Sharp group and Lovells never realised their exhibited by me libel action threat against me in respect of injury causation specifically even when my injury by Sharp group was reported as fact and not allegation by News Corporation and then the EU RoHS Directive website for Southeast Asia, in which I was also mentioned by name, in addition to the exhibited Danish EU policy proposing paper in English dated 1999 that was posted on the internet to date that relied on my case and on one of the peer reviewed journal articles about me in page 47 and citation 28 and caused the enactment of the EU RoHS Directive, Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics, including PBDEs, in 2003 and the ECJ judgement on 1 April 2008 in favour of RoHS and Denmark and the European Parliament that brought the action to strengthen RoHS.  In the advertorial, names of chemicals that either do not exist at all and/or that exist but that were not mentioned in the reports were deliberately stated in a manner that was obviously maliciously fraudulent and at times a sadistic parody about a catastrophic permanent injury, disability and disfigurement of a child, even if allowing for errors of transliteration into phonetic spelling in Hebrew from the reports in English.  In addition, the diagnosis and report of a medical doctor who saw me at an outpatients clinic at the main university hospital in Jerusalem, whose name was deliberately misspelled as “Zlotogorsky” when his name in reality is Zlotogora, in order to avoid a libel action by him or Hadassah hospital and/or the Hebrew University Medical School, was also altered into the most grotesque gobbledegook whereby they alleged “Dr Zlotogorsky” who does not exist in case, alleged I had an illness called “greyish”.  Aforesaid “illness” is not known to medical science, no such “diagnosis” was ever made about me, I was never examined by any “Dr Zlotogorsky”, only by Dr Zlotogora, a genetics specialist, who diagnosed me at age 17, four years after my chronic injury by Sharp Corporation, as suffering severe chronic whole body skeletal damage (in addition to my more obviously toxically artificially induced dermatological disfigurement) and excluded any hereditary causation for same at the same time, by both clinical exams and subsequently also by karyotype chromosomal test that was of a  normal male.  The outrage is that the gobbledegook that was stated by Maariv and thereby by Sharp group and Lovells allegedly on behalf of Dr Sherman and Prof Robertson was perpetrated under fraudulent quotation marks, because unlike Dr Zlotogora and his university hospital, Dr Sherman and Prof Robertson do no reside in Israel, are not employed by any Israeli university or hospital, and do not have the resource to attempt to sue Sharp group and Lovells in the UK and/or Maariv in Israel for libel.  Maariv only stuck to the approximate subject in relation to the Israeli psychologists it highly selectively and misleadingly quoted and thereby further violated my medical confidentiality without my permission that would never have been forthcoming if requested and without deliberately misspelling their names in order to avoid a libel lawsuit by Hadassah hospital.  However, even then they could not refrain from fraud and parody, as the psychologists were misrepresented as “medical doctors” in the caption above the text segment in which their reports about me were illegally quoted allegedly in verbatim, thereby in breach of medical confidentiality.  Because of the most aggressive fraud, malice and libel against Prof Robertson and Dr Sherman I hereby claim libel compensation on behalf of above parties as well. 

5. Commission and admission in February 2005 of offences by Sharp group and Lovells in case since case outset in 1994 in their gutter press advertorial and legal implications in relation the Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells claims at High Court in London as of 2004

5.1. The general aggressive fraud and worse by both Sharp group, Lovells and Maariv with total impunity, without any fear of libel, etc civil legal action on my behalf and/or on behalf of the other libelled parties, i.e. Prof Robertson and Dr Sherman, even when the verbal and other offences committed and admitted in the article are so extreme and vulgar that they are equivalent to a corporate hit man walking right up to me in broad daylight in a crowded public place and shooting me to death in front of numerous witnesses wearing a “SHARP” logo on his clothes.  This demonstrates more strongly than any evidence ever produced in any civil legal case that Sharp group abused and exploited their business ties with the politically most powerful in Israel, Israel IT export industry, and resorted in Israel as of case outset in 1994 to perpetrate savage foul play, conspiracy to murder, fraud, perjury, bribery and corruption of the entire business and political ruling class in Israel, including the judiciary.  This is why they and Maariv had no fear of any libel, violation of medical confidentiality, infringement of copyright, fraud, perjury, blackmail, bribery, etc criminal prosecution and/or civil action on my behalf in Israel that in fact did not materialise in Israel, and just as tellingly, the most indisputably timely advertorial part of my claims v Sharp group and Lovells at High court in London was unlawfully nullified and “dismissed”, without a trial and without a right of appeal at the Court of Appeal and without mention of the advertorial part of my claim by one word in any of the fictional and fraudulent “judgements” or defence pleadings, with the rest of all the other parts of all three of my 2004/5 claims v Sharp group and Lovells at High Court in London, by way of a fraudulently alleged time limitation technicality exclusively, and a fraudulent jurisdiction defence that was not entirely officially accepted by the judges that dealt with the case but nevertheless prejudiced the judiciary and caused the judgements against me.  This further shows that the law in both Israel in respect of jurisdiction and service of proceedings that Sharp Corporation and group evaded there by convicted and compounded multinational corporate fraud and perjury, and in respect of time limitation, that was unlawfully alleged in London, was entirely on my side and that no part of any of my three 2004/5 High Court in London claims v Sharp group and Lovells was in legal reality “time barred” by any stretch of the imagination.  However, the most shocking casual commission and admission of multinational fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail, including of politicians and judges in case was committed directly by the “SHARP” group executive who was verbatim quoted in the gutter press advertorial, towards the end, gloating that he can commit fraud at will and unlawfully evade legal service of my claim in Israel by alleging that his company that publicly trades as “SHARP” and whose website is www.sharp.co.il, is not answerable to proceedings and will not accept service of proceedings, even though it trades as “SHARP” and is domiciled in Israel and is not legally entitled to refuse service of proceedings.  More so, due to the fact that Israeli product liability law clearly states that the local importer must be served in Israel by the injured consumer, not the maker abroad directly.  Therefore, there is no service out of jurisdiction in Israeli product liability law and I had every legal right and indeed legal obligation under Israeli law to serve the local “SHARP” importer, agency, distributer and wholesaler to date also known as “SHARP” in Israel and/or Techno-Ralco, and likewise had a right that was also unlawfully denied me to serve the pervious and additional company that traded as “SHARP” before Techno-Ralco was given the “SHARP” franchise, M Prosman Ltd that also traded as “SHARP” when it imported and wholesale supplied my Sharp Corporation TV set when I was aged 13.  Worse still, the criminally convicted of tax fraud and money laundering previous Sharp importer, M Prosman Ltd, was deregistered and dissolved after my claim was lodged in Israel in order to evade service of proceedings.  Moreover, my contingent fee lawyers in Israel had M Prosman Ltd revived and brought back from dissolution and deregistration in 2004, but they and thereby I was still not allowed to serve any part of Sharp group for purely political reasons.  The political and judicial position in Israel was that Sharp group has de facto sovereign immunity from my claim due to Sharp Corporation’s conditional orders from the politically all powerful in Israel IT export industry.

Verbatim translated extract from the gutter press advertorial by Sharp group and Lovells:

‘The response of lawyer Yehuda Russler who represents “Ralco”, the present importer of “SHARP”: “This lawsuit has been dated, in no way does it have hands or legs.  I will inform at the Court that “Ralco’ does not represent “SHARP”.  (Translator’s note: See my translator’s note in the sub-headline in relation to the libel of “has been dated...no hands or legs.  In legal reality, the claim was timely under Israeli product liability law and was originally lodged in 1996.  Moreover, in Israeli product liability law the importer has to be served, not the maker abroad, and Sharp-Israel “Ralco” had no right to evade the claim under Israeli law, they simply set out to take advantage of the total abrogation of the rule of law in relation to the case, due to massive fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail by Sharp group in Israel and the total corruption of Israeli politicians and judges in relation to my case.)  As far as I remember, this is the third time that Shetreet is attempting to lodge this lawsuit, and every time it is dismissed.  (Translator’s note: As aforementioned, the two lawsuits in Israel were never “dismissed” but Sharp Corporation and group refused to admit service of proceedings that were served in legal reality, which miscarriage of justice occurred due to corporate fraud and perjury, bribery and blackmail of Israeli businessmen, politicians and judges.)

With above comments by Sharp group directly even quoted in the advertorial as “’SHARP’: ....”, Sharp group openly admitted fraud, perjury, bribery, blackmail and total subversion of the rule of law, as Sharp group’s importer had no right under Israeli product liability law to reject service of proceedings and to take advantage of the corruption, bribery and blackmail of the Israeli business community, politicians and judiciary by Sharp group in order to evade liability by fraud.  Evasion of liability is a fraud explicitly recognised as criminally and civilly actionable fraud by the UK Fraud Act.  This and much, much else, elsewhere particularised and exhibited, proves that there was no possible time limitation bar or defence available in respect of any part of my claim in London due to a time limitation start date of 2004 when claim was evaded in Israel and under UK Limitation Act s 32 – automatic postponement in the event of fraud and/or concealment by the defendant and Express Newspapers v Lord Archer civil and criminal common law.  Most ironically above common law in which civil and criminal action was taken 14 years after the alleged offence in 1987 by Lord Archer was obtained for Express Newspapers by Lovells and the same conducting partner against me at Lovells Nicholas Mark Atkins who also acted for Express Newspapers v Lord Archer, yet as always in relation to information deleterious to the defence but essential to the truth and objective reality of the case, Sharp group and Lovells fraudulently concealed this from High Court, and I was not aware of this information at the time.  The fact that this Sharp group and Lovells advertorial part of the claim that was dated 5 February 2005 and was added by me by stamped application notice to my High Court in London claim only two months later was also nullified and “dismissed” with the rest of the claim and my claims in London overall on a “time limitation bar” and was not mentioned by one word in any of the fraudulent by commission and concealment defence pleading documents and even more so fictional “judgements” that were about a materially different case in all but name, further proves there was no time limitation bar on any part of the claims in London and that all three of my High Court in London claims were unlawfully dismissed due to joint corporate and judicial fraud, perjury, bribery, blackmail, abrogation of the rule of law, and judicial discrimination against me due to my physical and intellectual disability due to my injuries by Sharp Corporation and lack of any civil legal representation in UK to date, which rendered me as helpless at High Court as a five year old child without adult protection and which was taken advantage of.

5.2. The legal situation of Sharp group and Lovells is rendered even more criminal in light of the above.  This is because due to advertorial part of the High Court claims in London there was no possibility in legal reality to ask High Court to dismiss my claims without a trial and in case of my claim v Lovells, it was dismissed without trial or hearing.  The fact that Sharp group and Lovells continued to demand to have my claims dismissed with a most unlawful and human rights violating Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) that was abused to bar me all right to go to law overall and that this ECRO be extended for another maximum of two years in 2007 on a “time limitation bar” exclusively even after Sharp UK, the rest of Sharp group and Lovells published the advertorial in Israel on 5 February 2005 and even after I added this to my High Court claims in London by application notice on 13 April 2005 and thereby Sharp group and Lovells were aware that I had an entirely timely cause of action against Sharp group and Lovells, including Sharp UK and Lovells that supplied my stolen medico-legal photos, that has no time limitation, jurisdiction or any other defence by any stretch of the imagination, proves the following.

5.3. Sharp group and Lovells committed fraud and perjury in relation to all their statements about their defence about all parts of the claims in Israel and at High Court in London and that therefore and otherwise, objectively, in legal reality, all three of my High Court in London claims had no substantive or technical defences legally available against them and were entirely meritorious to the degree that summary judgements in my favour and default judgments in respect of Sharp Corporation that was served in London at Lovells and at Sharp UK’s “SHARP Corporate Communications Centre” at London W1 but never acknowledged, are merited and legally required to date.

5.4. Sharp group and Lovells took it for granted that English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary would illegally discriminate against me in violation of both ECHR Convention and EU law, given that I am an EU citizen, because I am a citizen of a second EU Member State and due to my physical and intellectual disability due to my chronic catastrophic injury by Sharp Corporation at age 13 and the botched murder contract against me by Sharp Corporation in which a chemical weapon was deployed against me at age 24 that left me with catastrophic brain damage and lack of any lawyers in UK or anyone else to protect my interests.  On this basis, even murder, even mass murder, even paedophile serial murder, would be legal in UK based on the Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells common law and if both the rule of law and common decency was declared an anathema by the judiciary and judicially fraudulent bias and nullification in favour of guilty and proven criminals the norm, as was judicially perpetrated against me.

5.5. Since without the ECRO that was designed to deny me all access to law including to habeas corpus from subsequent consequent unlawful detentions by corporate and judicial abuse of the ECRO in order to cause my subsequent and consequent unlawful detentions, torture, forcible toxic injections and attempted murder by UK, Sharp UK, Sharp Corporation, Lovells and Sharp group as a whole in order to conceal the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal of my High Court in London claims and the corporate and judicial foul play involved, it would not have been possible to unlawfully detain, torture, injure and attempt to murder me by abuse of psychiatry against a medico-legally proven sane man who never had any mental illness.  Therefore, Sharp group and Lovells are directly criminally and civilly liable for all my unlawful detentions, torture, degradation and injury by UK and should be civilly forced to pay me compensation in the hundreds of millions euro minimum and fined by a minimum of a billion euro and imprisoned in accordance.  Moreover, the extension of the ECRO in 2007 even after my first two unlawful detentions, tortures, injuries and attempted murders in order to allow UK to “finish the job” and ultimately murder me was even more unlawful, due to the fact that under the ECHR Convention Article 5, I had an absolute right to go to law against both Sharp group and Lovells and UK for my first two unlawful detentions, tortures, injuries and attempted murders, yet instead of discharging my ECRO as Sharp group and Lovells and UK were obligated to do and then allowing it to expire, they extended my unlawful ECRO for another two years, the maximum possible under UK law, in order to cover-up all foul play in case and murder me by further unlawful detention, torture, injury and attempted murder that subsequently consequently commenced only a month and a few days after on 9 November 2007 Lord Justice Kay refused me permission to appeal, when Lovells and Sharp group falsely imprisoned me on 18 December 2007 at Lovells London headquarters, Atlantic House, by threat of assault by Lovells staff if I attempted to leave when I arrived there in good faith for a meeting about case and then had me kidnapped by the City of London Police and then tortured, forcibly poisoned by forcible toxic injections and nearly murdered by an additional abuse of psychiatry against a medico-legally proven sane man until the UK psychiatric tribunal was professionally embarrassed at a hearing on 16 September 2008 to admit and judge that I never had any “mental illness” and that all my psychiatric detentions due to Shetreet v Sharp group and Lovells, all since 2006 and the ECRO, were unlawful.

6. Example for forensic comparison with the Sharp group and Lovells gutter press advertorial of news coverage about me that is objective, 100% accurate and not a fictional, fraudulent, insolent, sadistically mocking advertorial by Sharp group and Lovells

Transcript of 27 January 1999 Sky News report broadcasted on above date

The interview was conducted in Jerusalem before I moved to London in 2001 as a second EU Member State citizen with automatic right of abode in UK, due to reasons unconnected to the case against Sharp group.  The interview and news film was produced and presented by senior journalist David Chater that reported my catastrophic chronic injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation as proven fact, not allegation, as later did the EU foreign aid funded Asian RoHS website.  This news coverage did not cause Sharp Corporation to realise its exhibited legally actionable to date as fraud “libel action threat” in relation to injury causation made by Lovells in London to me at case outset by legal letter sent from Lovells in London to me in Israel, well prior to the broadcast.  Neither did Sharp Corporation issue libel proceedings v News Corporation, from whom costs could easily have been recovered, had Sharp Corporation embarked upon and won its threatened libel action, which Sharp Corporation knew and admitted by its inaction it could not win and therefore did not sue suburban west London based Sky News even though England is the most pro-libel claimant jurisdiction in the world.  The European Commission could have likewise been sued by Sharp group in London for “libel” for aforementioned exhibited in original and translation into English RoHS website article posted on the internet to date about me that reported my injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation as fact, no allegation, yet this too Sharp group did not dare sue anyone for “libel” in connection with me.  The news film was featured by Sky News within the first 10 minutes of the commencement of the hourly news programs for several of hours on the aforementioned date, until Sharp Corporation issued bribes and blackmail against News Corporation in the form of conditional advertising in order to unlawfully stop the broadcasts about me and place me under a news blackout.

David Chater speaking over film of Elad Shetreet walking Jaffa St outside Sky News Jerusalem bureau: “Elad says he feels like a man on death row; crippled by a skin and neurological disorder he says he developed as a teenager while watching television”.

Elad Shetreet filmed speaking at Sky News Jerusalem bureau: “At the age of 13 I began using a bran new television receiver that was apparently* over-treated in terms of its internal components with toxic chemical flame retardants and the fumes from the television receiver poisoned me by inhalation”.  (*I withdraw above “apparently”, it was a mistake, the words I should have used were, most certainly and forensically proven as such.)

David Chater speaking over film of photos of Elad Shetreet’s Sharp Corporation TV set and its lab analysis that proved applicant’s catastrophic chronic injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation also exhibited in particulars of claim of Shetreet v Sharp group at High Court in London since 2004: “A scientific article based on Elad’s case documented his injuries and laid the blame on toxic chemical gas, which was being used to treat the electrical wiring inside the television set he was watching in a small unventilated room.”

Elad Shetreet filmed speaking at Sky News Jerusalem bureau: “The anger and bitterness over the terrible calamity and injustice which was visited upon me drives me on.  It really isn’t much to live for, anger, but that is all I have”.

David Chater speaking over film of Elad Shetreet walking through a TV set display section of a retail outlet: “Elad is trying to pursue his case through the courts.  The Israeli solicitor acting for Sharp Corporation, the company who supplied the television set, was unavailable for comment”.

David Chater continued speaking over film of Elad Shetreet exiting a retail building with a large red external sign stating “SHARP”, global logo of Sharp group that is also posted on the exterior of the “SHARP Corporate Communications Centre” in central London W1 to date: “But Elad is determined to fight on because he believes his case highlights a danger too few people are aware of.  David Charter, Sky News, Jerusalem.” 

7. Verbatim forensic translation of advertorial from its original Hebrew into English by Elad Shetreet under Statement of Truth

(Translator’s note) 4 February 2005 Maariv daily, Kol Hazman weekend supplement, page 46, the gutter press advertorial begins

IS IT SHARP OR NOT

ELAD SHETREET SAYS THAT HIS LIFE WAS RUINED AFTER HIS PARENTS PURCHASED FOR HIM A TV SET MADE BY “SHARP” FOR HIS BAR MITZVAH (translator’s note: i.e. 13^th birthday).  23 YEARS LATER (translator’s note: the original claim v Sharp Corporation and Sharp-Israel in Israel was lodged in 1996 and ultimately evaded by multinational corporate fraud and perjury in 2004, without admission by Sharp Corporation of acceptance of service of proceedings that were served in legal reality, as was later unintentionally admitted by Lovells in London, claim in Israel was never “dismissed”), IN A MAJOR LAWSUIT VALUED AT 34 MILLION SHEKELS, SHETREET, THE SON OF THE FORMER CABINET MINISTER PROFESSOR SHIMON SHETREET, ALLEGES THAT THE TV SET IN FRONT OF WHICH HE SPENT MANY HOURS, CAUSED HIM SEVERE HARM: HIS SKIN WAS DAMAGED, THE STRUCTURE OF HIS SKELETON WAS ALTERED AND HE SUFFERERS FROM NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS.  “SHARP”: THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DATED (translator’s note, “has been dated”, allegedly since it was lodged in Israel in 1996 in a timely manner under Israeli law and was therefore subjected to evasion and delay tactics by the defendant by multinational corporate fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail, and was not “dated” before lodgement, is a remarkable “defence” by admission of foul play and illegal profits there from), IT HAS NO HANDS OR LEGS (translator’s note: corporate vulgar gangster-like sadistic gloating about my de facto economic and general limb-amputation and the total destruction of my health and life, loss of my intellect, loss of my bodily makeup due to whole body injury and disfigurement and loss of my livelihood, due to catastrophic chronic brain damage and the loss of my education thereby by Sharp Corporation and group since age 13 by foul play including de facto international toxic terrorism and corporate fraud and conspiracy to murder since age 13 to date and gangster-like unintentional admission of foul play thereby against me since age 13 to date)

Zohar Shahar Levy, Yfat Konifno

(Translator’s note: In reality, above named journalists are not the sole authors of this advertorial, the primary authors of the advertorial are Sharp group and Lovells public relations hacks who drafted and approved the final version prepublication.  I hereby publicly challenge Sharp UK and Lovells and Sharp group as a whole to whom this document will be copied to prosecute me before a jury or sue me before a jury for alleged “perjury” and/or “libel” if this is not so.)

Elad Shetreet’s parents, Miriam and Prof Shimon Shetreet, decided to treat him to a new TV set for his Bar Mitzvah present.  The three went to the “Shekem” department store in Jerusalem and purchased a TV set made by the Japanese conglomerate “SHARP”.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence includes a very extreme lie, libel, fiction and invention at the very outset of advertorial and thus further proves its fictional and malicious Sharp group and Lovells advertorial provenance from the outset.  In reality neither I nor Miriam Shetreet ever purchased that Sharp Corporation TV set.  Prof Shimon Shetreet travelled to the department store alone and purchased the TV set alone.  Had I been consulted I would not have agreed to purchase any made in Japan product because of my perception even then that Japanese products were of far inferior quality and safety to Western products.)  The TV set was the “last word”, in the language of that time, 1982.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a lie and libel in its entirety.  In reality, quite the opposite to the “last word”, the Sharp TV sets were then sold in dumping, below market value prices, and no cheaper colour TV sets were available at retail outlets in Jerusalem at the time.  The Sharp TV set was purchased only because it was the cheapest available brand and make at the aforementioned department store, which itself was the cheapest department store in Jerusalem, Shekem, a not for profit national chain of department stores, owned by the government of Israel.) 

   It seems that even the harshest critics of the TV media and its deleterious impact will remain open-mouthed with amazement at the responsibility of the TV set for the deterioration in the life of Elad Shetreet.  The boy, who was enthusiastic about the TV set and spent many hours in front of it, discovered after eight months worrying physical effects.  He alleges that these effects, including severe skin damage, disorders and changes in hair growth, alteration in skeletal structure, heart problems, neurological disorders in addition to severe mental harm – were all caused as a result of exposure to toxic gasses that the TV set emitted.

   Today, almost 23 years later, 36 year old Shetreet alleges, in a lawsuit that he lodged last week at the Tel Aviv District Court, that he continues to suffer from the same problems.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is misleading.  In reality I did not lodge any claim in Israel in person, and I did not even reside in Israel since 2 February 2001 when I moved domicile to London, the litigation was carried out by contingency fee trial attorneys who acted on my behalf, in my absence from all hearings and I was not involved in the litigation in Israel any more than is a murder victim involved in the murder trial about his murder).  He is demanding that “SHARP” company (translator’s note: the legal title of “SHARP” is Sharp Corporation and its various daughter companies have slightly different titles) compensate him by no less than 34 million NIS for the damages that were inflicted on him, supposedly, due to using the TV set.  (Translator’s note: The venomous “supposedly” is both a libel and an unintentional admission that the piece is an advertorial by Sharp group and of its hostile and libellous nature and objective against me, as Sharp Corporation never dared publicly directly deny injury causation and in fact publicly admitted injury causation, as exhibited from its website.  In addition, the figure stated above is Without Prejudice in respect of my UK claims v Sharp group and Lovells, as I now demand much higher levels of compensation for many additional offences that were not included in the litigation in Israel and/or that did not occur yet.)

   Since he was injured, Shetreet’s life changed.  In early 1983 he was diagnosed as suffering from an eruption of severe acne, from red lesions in his legs and back, bleeding from his nose, dizziness and diarrhoea.  During the same year, he suffered from injuries to his skin that manifested themselves in, amongst other effects, in the eruption of lesions on his back and face.  (Translator’s note: The repetition in above sentence is not an error of translation, but a verbatim forensic translation of the stupidity and sadistic parody of the original.)  Then changes in his hair also appeared – hair loss, change in colour and coarsening of texture.  When he could no longer bear the pain and in order to prevent further harm, Shetreet commenced to shave his scalp hair.

   In addition to skin disorders, in early 1985 Shetreet started to notice that the structure of his skeleton changed – the skull, the upper and lower limps, the torso, the structure of the cheekbones and the structure of the jaws.  Three years later neurological disorders became apparent: stabbing sensation in the skull, blurred vision and tremor in the hands.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence contains a lie.  I suffered extreme pain in the craniofacial skin due to the damage to the skin overall that affected my craniofacial skin most catastrophically, not as above stated.)  After all these effects, heart problems appeared, and he began to suffer regularly from chest pain.  In 1998, the Social Security Agency determined for Shetreet 100 percent of disability.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence contains a lie, in reality the date “1998” was in fact 1997.)

   After the severe physical injuries, the mental injuries shortly followed.  According to Shetreet, the toxins prevented him from continuing his life on a proper course.  Shetreet’s lawyers, Moshe and Kobi Kaplansky, describe his injuries in the particulars of claim: “As a consequence, Shetreet’s life was totally destroyed, his daily functioning was totally destroyed, he was exempted from conscription and his chances to gain an education were lessened.  (Translator’s note: In reality, my education was totally lost due to my injury at age 13 and the subsequent catastrophic chronic brain damage at age 24 due to the botched murder contract.)  He is forced and will be forced in the future to cope with this loss of function that does not allow him to integrate in any form of normal living, both in respect of education, finding employment and minimal social integration.”

SUES, IS DISMISSED AND SUES AGAIN

(Translator’s note: Above caption is a gross lie and libel, in reality the claim in Israel was never “dismissed”, just as murder is not death by natural causes, Sharp Corporation evaded service of proceedings by criminal fraud and never admitted service of proceedings that were served in legal reality.  Therefore, claim was never procedurally “dismissed”, as Sharp group never admitted service of proceedings, even though it was served in legal reality.  Therefore, the first claim in Israel had to be “deleted” by application of my own lawyers, in order to lodge the second claim against the “revived” Sharp daughter company in Israel, that Sharp Corporation deregistered and dissolved after my claim was lodged, in order to further evade admission of service of proceedings, as in Israel product liability law the maker abroad cannot be served directly by the consumer, but the importer in Israel must be served first and only it can serve the maker abroad by service out of jurisdiction, including under contract.  Consistently, Sharp Corporation also alleged to the judiciary and committed perjury when it did so, that its notorious for his bribery offences lawyer in Israel, Hanina Brandes, had only “partial power of attorney” and “was explicitly forbidden to accept service of proceedings”.  Hanina Brandes who is also a politically powerful powerbroker because he is a leading IT export industry entrepreneur in Israel and is notorious for his fraud, bribery, blackmail and other foul play offences in Israel, including the overthrow of President Weizman in 2000 due to a bribe by Sharp Corporation that caused Brandes to unlawfully leak to the national Israeli news media legally privileged documents about his other client Weizman, which implicated Weizman in a receipt of bribery scandal and he was consequently forced to resign in ignominy from the presidency and public life overall and died in disgrace a few years later, as was reported at the time in the news media, including BBC and The New York Times and available on their online archives to date.  This was perpetrated by Sharp Corporation and Hanina Brandes in order to further intimidate and blackmail all the politicians and judges in Israel who had not already been bribed and otherwise compromised in relation to Shetreet v Sharp group and was thereby also the offence of multinational corporate fraud, perjury, bribery, blackmail and perversion of the course of justice against me directly.  However, when the claim continued in London, Lovells unintentionally admitted that Brandes had full power of attorney from the outset by instructing him and mentioning him by name in their 2004/5 defence application witness statement, allegedly on behalf of Sharp UK “only” and “not” co-defendant Sharp Corporation, that also evaded service of proceedings in London, even though it was also served in London in legal reality that Lovells unintentionally admitted by exhibiting documents about me from Sharp Corporation in Japan and by calling Sharp Corporation, only, not Sharp UK, “my client” in page 15 of the exhibited transcript of the hearing before Mr Justice Morison.  This means that Sharp Corporation was served in legal reality in Israel because Hanina Brandes had full power of attorney not only for Sharp Corporation, but for Sharp UK and Lovells as well, he could do everything, even accept a bribe to overthrow the then president of Israel in 2000.  Therefore, in legal reality summary and/or default judgements in my favour are legally merited to date in both Israel and London against Sharp group and Lovells.  Above is blatant admission by the general malicious, vulgar and fraudulent tone and content of this advertorial that it is in fact a gutter press advertorial for Sharp group and not an article.  Additionally, below sequence of alleged quotations and descriptions from my correspondence to Sharp Corporation in 1994 is inaccurate and misleading.  In further relation to directly below paragraph, I can only state that directly to quote verbatim from a confidential document written by an invalid in order to engage in sadistic mockery is beneath contempt.)

   The first time in which Shetreet approached “SHARP” company was in 1994, when he was 25.  In a letter that he sent and asked from the company to compensate him for the damages it caused him.  In the same breath he harshly criticised the company for its ruthless conduct.  “My exposure as a young boy”, wrote in his letter, “was between 1982, date of the purchase of the TV set, and apparently for a year until May 1983...  I received laboratory proof about the source and reason for my injury in early June 1991.  Yet my medical condition at the time did not allow me to act on the matter...

   “At this point I want to emphasise that I am the only author of this document.  I am not a lawyer or anything else in relation to this matter, except a totally damaged victim of a terrible toxin and the foul play of ‘SHARP’.  This document is not an official lawsuit, in addition, my case and my complaints are not based on law exclusively.  I am convinced that the force of my case is based on moral standards, but not only on abstract moral principles →

(Translator’s note)  Page 47, the gutter press advertorial continues

(Translator’s note: Entire subsequent page 47 is an enlarged copy of the stolen, invading of privacy, violating of medical confidentiality and copyright infringing partially nude medico-legal photo of the dermatological aspect of my catastrophic chronic injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation that includes my face, that I included in my particulars of claim at High Court in London and that was thereby served by High Court on Sharp UK and thereby on Sharp Corporation and on Lovells in London shortly after 21 October 2004, when I lodged my UK claim. The text below the above illegally obtained and illegally published photo on page 47 states the following, with quotation marks in the original.) 

Elad Shetreet, “I am an entirely damaged victim of a terrible toxin and of the foul play of ‘SHARP’ Corporation”.

(Translator’s note)  Page 48, the gutter press advertorial continues

(Translator’s note: At the top of page 48 is a smaller medico-legal photo, the text below this photo states the following.)  The injury to Shetreet’s back.  Suffers from 100 percent of disability 

(Translator’s note: below are the highlighted captions below the above partially nude medico-legal photo of me, in the same column as above, the below captions are very clearly sadistic mockery of my catastrophic chronic injury by Sharp Corporation at age 13.)

From the lawsuit: “As a consequence, Shetreet’s life was totally destroyed, his daily functioning was totally destroyed, he was exempted from conscription and his chances to gain an education were lessened.  He is forced and will be forced in the future to cope with this loss of function, that does not allow him to integrate in any form of normal living, both in respect of education, finding employment and minimal social integration”

He copied all the documents in a closed envelope to a third party.  He stated that the reason for this unusual act was that “the envelope would be opened and its contents would be publicly distributed and through the news media, in case that I fall victim to a ‘tragic fatal accident’ or a ‘sudden death’”.  This was because, according to him, it is known that large and global corporations are cynical and act in a ruthless manner when their economic self-interest is concerned

...that large corporations all over the world detest, but on the real potential of loss of prestige, loss of public trust in the company, loss of sales, loss of equity, loss of profit.  Because anyone who would be exposed to my case and tragedy, and to the inhumanity of ‘SHARP’ Corporation, it is reasonable to assume, would support me.”

   Shetreet concludes the letter to “SHARP” company with a somewhat surprising declaration, according to which he copied all the documents in a closed envelope to a third party.  He stated that the reason for this unusual act was that “the envelope would be opened and its contents would be publicly distributed and through the news media, in case that I fall victim to a ‘tragic fatal accident’ or a ‘sudden death’”.  This was because, according to him, it is known that large and global corporations are cynical and act in a ruthless manner when their economic self-interest is concerned. 

   Shetreet’s fears were realised to a certain degree in the response of “SHARP” company.  In a reply letter that the company sent, in which, Shetreet alleged, it rejected his demand for compensation, it warned him that if he publicises any damaging information about it, libel proceedings would be undertaken against him.  (Translator’s note: Above paragraph is totally fraudulent and libelling, it does not mention that the exhibited by me libel action threat made by Lovells in London in 1994 was a legally actionable to date fraud, as Sharp Corporation never realised this libel action threat even when my injury by Sharp Corporation was subsequently reported as fact, not allegation, in Sky News, based in west London, in the most pro-libel claimant jurisdiction in the world, and by the European Commission that is likewise actionable in London, in the EU foreign aid funded Asian RoHS website.  Moreover, the article does not mention that Sharp Corporation fraudulently offered to settle at case outset in a legal letter by Lovells in order to obtain ownership of the injurious TV set, but subsequently altered its position.) 

   Shetreet did not let go.  Shortly afterwards he lodged his first lawsuit of three against the company.  The first lawsuit was lodged in London but was dismissed immediately.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is gross lie and libel in its entirety, in reality, the first claim in case was lodged in Israel in 1996, my first claim in London was only lodged in 2004.)  He lodged the second lawsuit here in 1996, but since its lodgement, says his attorney, there were no court hearings, and this was due according to him, to the evasion tactics by “SHARP”.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a gross lie and libel.  There were hearings, but Sharp Corporation blocked any production of evidence until the end of the proceedings in Israel.)  This was apparently due to its desire to conduct the proceedings in its state, Japan.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a lie and libel and blatant fraudulent advertising for Sharp group.  Sharp group simply wanted to evade proceedings worldwide, full stop, because it admitted injury causation and had no substantive defence to offer in case at any stage, this is why it also evaded proceedings in London, where it had no valid defence in respect of jurisdiction under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions due to its listing until 2007 in three West European stock exchanges and de-listed itself in 2007 in Western Europe in an attempt to evade liability for this case specifically by more fraud.)

   In early January of this year, the Tel Aviv District Court judge, Ilan Shiloh, deleted the lawsuit that Shetreet lodged in 1996 so that Shetreet could lodge it again, this time with addition as co-defendants of Moshe Prosman and the company under his management, “M Prosman Ltd”, that was the sole importer and distributor of the company when the TV set was purchased.  This proceeding was undertaken also in order to enable Shetreet to include a professional expert opinion he obtained abroad and that confirms, according to him, that which is alleged in the lawsuit.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a total lie, the expert opinions, not one, were issued and copied to me before proceedings in Israel commenced in 1996 and these expert opinions by Dr Sherman and Prof Robertson were also included in the first lawsuit but Sharp Corporation prevented any production of evidence by fraudulently refusing to admit service of proceedings that were served in legal reality because its lawyer in Israel Hanina Brandes had full power of attorney all along, as noted above.)  

DR SHERMAN DOES NOT DENY THE ALLEGATIONS

(Translator’s note: Above caption is a gross lie and libel, Dr Sherman’ exhibited expert opinion explicitly confirmed and proved my injury severity and causation by Sharp Corporation at age 13.  Moreover and far worse still, the alleged quotations under fraudulently stated quotation marks of Dr Sherman’s exhibited expert opinion about me are a very depraved parody and lie, literally not one sentence allegedly quoted is factual.  Even the chemicals named are not included in the expert reports about me and some do not even exist, even if one makes an allowance for transcription errors from the English language document by Dr Sherman to Hebrew by the Sharp group and Lovells publicists who wrote the piece in reality and the Israeli journalists involved.  This fraudulent and vulgar gutter press advertorial is beneath contempt, they not only libelled me, but they libelled Dr Sharman as well and they alleged total nonsense on her behalf.)

According to Shetreet, the source of the physical and mental injury that was inflicted on him is, as mentioned above, in the same TV set screen that his parents purchased for him.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is sheer nonsense and was never stated by me or anyone else on my behalf, the TV set “screen” does not contain and therefore does not emit the toxic brominated flame retardants fumes that injured me at age 13 under normal operating conditions, only the plastic components and circuitry.  Additionally, Sharp group, Lovells and Maariv, had no right to state, “according to Shetreet”, as they did in above sentence, because Maariv never interviewed me and Sharp group and Lovells never allowed any hearings about injury causation that they never dared dispute since case outset, nor did I ever appear at any Shetreet v Sharp group hearing in Israel, the proceedings occurred in my total absence and without my direct involvement, as if the proceedings were about murder and I was the murder victim.)  In the plastic components of the TV set, (translator’s note: above sentence is a contradiction of their previous nonsense about “screen”, the advertorial is such dense nonsense that it is self-contradictory and inconsistent, in order to render me lacking in credibility, but ends up evincing no credibility on behalf of Sharp group and Lovells on a rational, forensic analysis of the text) so he alleges, certain plastic particles were concentrated in combination with toxic substances that are used as flame retardants in a larger than normal quantity.  (Translator’s note: Above statement contains a lie.  In reality, as the exhibited second peer reviewed journal article about my injury and its forensic investigation proved, my Sharp Corporation TV set was toxic because, as laboratory analysis of same proved, Sharp Corporation used multiple toxic flame retardants instead of just one and even adulterated that with multiple other toxins including sulphur.  This caused a catastrophically toxic synergy that means the Sharp Corporation TV set that injured me was in fact an illegal toxic terrorist weapon that deliberately injured me, as any first year chemistry student knows that mixing different toxic substances will result in either an explosion or catastrophically increased toxicity and fatality or casualty, death or injury, to anyone exposed to this compounded toxin.  Therefore, this claim is further devoid of any time limitation and/or jurisdiction defence, as under the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court to which UK is a signatory and ratified into its own rule of law thereby and prosecuted by no less than the Attorney General under Regina v Zardad in 2004, in relation to torture that occurred in Afghanistan of immigrants by an immigrant, and a serving to date High Court judge was appointed on a part time basis to the judiciary of the International Criminal Court, the deployment of chemical weapons against combatants and/or civilians is a crime against humanity and/or a war crime and prohibited and there is no time limitation or jurisdiction defence available under above Statute in respect of above offences.  Likewise, under UK antiterrorism laws there are no time limitation and/or jurisdiction defences, and Sharp group’s actions were certainly toxic terrorism.)  As a consequence of the prolonged operation of the TV set in a small and unventilated room, toxic gasses were released, and these caused Shetreet severe damages and side effects. 

   Shetreet underwent many medical and laboratory examinations in the best hospitals and scientific institutes in the world.  Some of them, according to his attorneys, found a causative connection between the toxins that were emitted from the TV set and the effects that he suffered from.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a lie and libel, I sent forensic samples from my own body, frozen adipose tissue and frozen blood, and control food samples, frozen milk and frozen raw chicken tissues, from my environment or residence since before age 13 to that date, i.e. Israel, and I also sent my Sharp Corporation TV set itself to scientists abroad and all the tests results on above samples confirmed my injury at age 13 by Sharp Corporation and excluded any PBDEs contamination from my diet and background general environment.) 

   One of the professional expert opinions that may strengthen his arguments is that of Dr Jeannette Sherman, expert on poisons and toxic substances.  The expert opinion was written on 5 December 1995.  (Translator’s note, Dr Sherman is in fact an accredited and published medical doctor specialist in environmental medicine and her CV is exhibited by me with her expert report.  I CAUTION THAT LITERALLY EVERY WORD ATTRIBUTED BELOW TO DR SHERMAN IS SADISTIC PARODY AND OUTRIGHT FABRICATION AND AT TIMES GOBBLEDEGOOK THAT REACHES ABSURD LEVELS WHEN NONEXISTENT CHEMICALS UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE ARE MENTIONED AS ALLEGED QUOTATIONS OF DR SHERMAN.)

   “Mr Shetreet”, wrote Dr Sherman, “I read all the material you sent me.  Exposure to toxic gasses that you detailed in your letter is associated with medical disorders that appear in your writing … the PCB (a type of poison) contains the same toxins as a certain type of polychlorinator, a certain type of dioxin and dibenzofurnas…  With that, the fact that in your tissue was found a poison of the PCB type is evidence of prior exposure to poison.  The PCB is a totally foreign body and is not a ‘natural’ part of the biological system of life.  From my personal experience, the length of life of the PCB is not very long, a decade or even longer… it is reasonable to assume that by the production and subsequent use of the domestic TV set, not only were PCB toxins released into the air, but also dioxins and brominated and dibenszofurans.”

   The presence of these poison types in his body was connected by the expert with almost all the problems from which Shetreet suffers: “The three types of poisons - PBB, dioxin and furans – are absorbed in the body, not only by inhalation and digestion, but also by skin contact.  Your history in connection to skin disfigurement is consistent in a logical manner with this exposure to components in the dioxin brominater.  Your complaints about poisoning in the central nervous system, cognitive disorders and skeletal anomalies are documented in the published medical literature.”  The following diagnosis of Dr Sherman touched upon the critical timing in which Shetreet met the harmful poisons: “…also the fact the you were a boy at that time in which you were exposed to these substances is significant, considering the weight of your body that was then smaller and the fact that you did not finish to grow”.

   In summation, alleges Dr Sherman: “anomalous effects that are caused by toxins such as PCB, dioxin and furans are well documented in the medical literature…  Considering the results of the exams that you passed to me, I can assume, with a large measure of  probability, that your exposure to PCB, as was released from your TV set, caused the existence of the illnesses that you described and contributed to your neurological, skeletal and other symptoms that were discovered in you.”  (All the above comments about and alleged quotations of Dr Sherman are disgraceful lies, inventions, misrepresentation and at times even gobbledegook, how dare they!)

PROF. ROBERTSON AND THE CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION

(Translator’s note: I state the same denunciation as above stated in relation to the parody of Dr Sherman under fraudulent alleged quotations of her.  Literally every word fraudulently attributed in quotation marks to Prof Robertson is extreme fraud, deception, libel, sadistic parody, ridicule, deliberate lies and falsification.  Only a few extreme examples were pointed out specifically below, but overall not one sentence below has any basis in reality, as any forensic comparison with Prof Robertson’s exhibited expert report about me would prove.)

And this by the way, was not the only professional expert opinion with which Shetreet availed himself in order to prove his allegation.  (Translator’s note:  Above sentence is a self-contradiction with earlier sadistic parody and mockery by the advertorial according to which only one expert opinion was issued on my behalf, and allegedly after proceedings commenced, not well before.)  In Addition, Prof Larry Robertson, a senior toxicology specialist from London, found a connection between the poisons that were released and the medical condition of Shetreet, and in January 1996 he sent Shetreet a summary of research that he undertook about him.  “In the course of my work as a medical doctor I undertook research about the impact of toxins such as PBB and PCB”, wrote Prof Robertson, “in the last years great efforts are being made in an attempt to understand the physical impact that these toxins have.  Experiments were conducted (mostly on rats) in order to ascertain the different influences.  The severe impact manifests mainly in changes in weight (such as increase in the weight of the liver) and a considerable loss of weight of body (depending on the age of the animal).  The long-term impact is considered ‘terminate syndrome’...even though a number of weeks can pass until the rat or other experimental animal dies as a result of the exposure to these poisons, such as the PBB or PCB, in high doses, many bodily changes can be observed even in the first week.”  (Translator’s note:  Above paragraph is parody.  Moreover, Prof Robertson never alleged he was a medical doctor, as he is a PhD and MPH accredited professor of toxicology.  Moreover, because Israel is a client state of US the advertorial alleged he was British and from “London”, rather than an American professor, as is explicitly stated in his expert opinion when his professional credentials are mentioned, in order to further damage his credibility and make cynical use of the anti-British feelings of Israeli public opinion, which renders the position of Lovells and Sharp group that set out to incite the English judiciary against me on the basis that I was a foreigner in UK all the more hypocritical and unlawful, as I am a citizen of a second EU Member State and entitled under EU law to equality of treatment from UK officials including judges.)

   Robertson gave Shetreet a specific consideration of his case: “Mr Shetreet mentioned that he used to watch that TV set a few hours every day for a period of seven-eight months since its purchase.  The TV set viewing was undertaken in a small and almost unventilated room.  On 5 November 1982 Shetreet, then 13, visited his local medical doctor by the name of Dr Guild and complained of headaches, pain in the soles of his feet, dizziness and additional symptoms.  At half 1985, according to Mr Shetreet, his facial skin became covered in lesions reminiscent of ace lesions.  During this period (1984-1987) Mr Shetreet stopped eating (he fasted) for periods of a day to a few days.  Mr Shetreet mentioned that the changes in his facial skin corresponded to changes that occurred in his hair growth, and in the shape and colour of the hair...  The loss of hair is documented in a medical document of Mr Shetreet dated 29 December 1989, that was taken from Hadassah hospital Ein Karem in Jerusalem.  In July 1986 Dr Zlotogorsky wrote that Mr Shetreet looks ‘greyish’, something that indicates a skin abnormality.  (Translator’s note, no such person was involved, Dr Zlotogora is the doctor who was saw me in July 1986 and the “greyish” allegation in relation to him or a fictional character is further depraved lies, mockery and parody, as said, no such person exists in case, and Dr Zlotogora never said such nonsense, Sharp group and Maariv evidently changed his name because they were afraid the real Dr Zlotogora and his hospital, who unlike Dr Sherman and Prof Robertson, reside in Israel, speak Hebrew and read Israeli national newspapers such as Maariv, would sue for libel, whereas there was no one to protect my interests and the courts in Israel were politically biased against me due to illegal lobbying, bribery and blackmail by and on behalf of Sharp group in Israel and beyond, they reasoned, so they could tell the tales of the Baron Munchausen about me, Dr Sherman and Prof Robertson, without fear of retaliation, which is further proof of foul play, fraud, bribery and blackmail in case overall to date.)  In April 1990 Mr Shetreet was examined by a neurologist.  Prof Dickman, who diagnosed in him a tremor of his hands.  In July 1990 a blood sample was taken from Mr Shetreet and sent to a laboratory that specialised in atomic energy.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence contains a lie, the laboratory specialised in environmental medicine.)  The results of the examination indicate a chemical exposure that was inflicted on Shetreet.  In March 1991 he sent a sample of a tissue that was removed by a surgery on Mr Shetreet to laboratories in the Netherlands.  (Translator’s note: Only one laboratory was involved in the Netherlands.)  The results of the examinations indicate that in Mr Shetreet’s tissue were found components of PCB.  (Translator’s note: Above sentence is a total lie, in reality, technical, non-metabolised PBDEs due to direct exposure to PBDEs by inhalation, rather than possible background exposure due to possible contamination of food, etc, were found in my adipose tissue sample.)  In addition, small quantities of PBD.  (Translator’s note: No such chemical as “PBD” is known to science or is involved in case.)  This finding was surprising because the life time of PBD is relatively short.  (Translator’s note: The closing quotation mark was absent in the original Hebrew language advertorial.)

   “...the conclusions in relation to the case of Elad Shetreet:

1. As far as am aware, there is no dispute in relation to the fact that Elad Shetreet intensively used the TV set that was purchased for him. 

2. The TV set of the type ‘SHARP’ contains PBD.  I assume this fact is not disputed either. 

3.  An electronic device that contains PBD can by heating release PBD to the environment, and in addition can produce poisonous components such as dioxin and brominated dibenzufurans.  This fact is supported by the medical literature. 

4. An analytical evaluation supports the fact that Mr Shetreet was exposed to PBD, because this substance has a life time (translator’s note: their reference may have been to half-life) that is relatively short in animals, and it can be safely assumed that Mr Shetreet had higher concentrations of this substance at a certain stage before a sample was taken from him in March 1991.

5. Because in the environment of Mr Shetreet or his food there is no known source of PBD, it can be safely assumed that the contamination that was caused Mr Shetreet originated from the TV set. 

6. Mr Shetreet suffers from a range of medical problems that are supported by countless documentation in documents...  Based on that information, to the best of my judgement as a toxicologist, the medical problems of Mr Shetreet are a result of contamination that was caused him by PBD and its components”.

   With that, according to Prof Robertson, the concerns of Shetreet do not reach a summation, because in the future his body is prone to harsher calamities.  (Translator’s note: The Hebrew word that was used in the advertorial for “calamities”, was “poranut”, which is archaic literary Hebrew inconsistent with the writing style of Maariv, and was certainly stated in a spirit of sadistic parody of the injury of a juvenile, extreme malice and joy over my suffering.)  “The chance of death that was caused as a result of malignant growths, and a sarconomy growth in particular, increased when males are studied...  My concern is that a supervision be kept about the medical condition of Mr Shetreet and by doing so it would be possible to detect early conditions that concern his health”.  (Translator’s note: As aforementioned, everything stated above by Sharp group, Lovells and Maariv, in relation to Prof Robertson and Dr Sherman, including in quotation marks, is outright fraud and vulgar parody, not one sentence is factual.)

HADASSAH MEDICAL DOCTORS DIAGNOSE

(Translator’s note: Even the caption is fraudulent and contradictory to what they state below, as they allege they are quoting clinical psychologists who are in no way accredited to or qualified to comment on toxicology, and their opinions are irrelevant to injury causation.  Moreover, below is the most grotesque violation of medical confidentiality, consistent with the theft and publication of my medico-legal photos and a general Sharp group agenda of sadistic mockery, ridicule and disparagement.  In addition, since when are clinical psychologists “medical doctors”.) 

In February 1992 Shetreet underwent a neuropsychological report at Hadassah hospital.  After he complained about serious disorders in function, Shetreet, then 23 years old, was referred to neuropsychological examination.  Following are the results of the report: Significant were the lack of eye contact and ability to form eye contact with the examiner; his responses were very slow, he finds it difficult to concentrate even during conversation, which raised the hypothesis of a though disorder.  At the same time, he was very suspicious, and the examiner Aya Gal, concludes the report with the following diagnosis:  “Elad Shetreet functions in an average level, with a significant discrepancy between his average verbal function and his average-low performance function.  In a Wechsler test he shows intellectual potential at a high-average level, with a consistently higher function in the verbal field”.

   Benny Lehman, a psychologist from Hadassah hospital that also conducted an examination on Shetreet, wrote in the summation report the following things: “It is recommended to assist Mr Shetreet to reach treatment with talks, at least in order to breach the circle of severe loneliness in which he is immersed....  In addition, it cannot be indicated that that (the poisons) comprise the central cause of the hard circumstance of Mr Shetreet...  (Translator’s note, the parenthesis contents is interpretation on the part of the advertorial, the psychologist did not actually state that comment and therefore all else stated on his behalf must be seen as misleading and out of context.)  It seems that the sense of loneliness and failure is very deep, and it is very doubtful if an external change (such as the surgery to reconstruct the scalp) in and of itself could contribute significantly to the improvement of the quality of life of Mr Shetreet.  (Translator’s note: the advertorial sets out to nullify and ignores that the “failure” and consequent humiliation was caused by the toxic injury at age 13.)  It is necessary to consider the request of a surgery only within a treatment setting that would include the mental treatment that in its setting would make it possible to consider such an intervention”.  (Translator’s note: again, psychologists are not toxicologists, they were not asked to, nor did they set out to, nor qualified to comment on my injury causation.)

THE DEFENDANTS REJECT ALL THE ALLEGATIONS

(Translator’s note: The caption itself is fraudulent, Sharp Corporation admitted injury causation, including by refusing to defend on injury causation in both Israel and UK, by press releasing on its website the “phase out” of the use PBDEs in its products, which is an admission these toxins should have never been deployed in the Sharp Corporation TV set that injured me.  Moreover, Sharp Corporation did not realise its fraudulent libel action threat in relation to injury causation against me or anyone else, including the Danish Environmental Protection Agency that included my case as proven fact in its RoHS enactment EU proposing policy paper dated 1999 and still posted on the internet, the Asian EU RoHS Directive website funded by EU foreign aid, with an article about me there online to date, and Sky News, who reported my injury by Sharp Corporation as fact, not allegation.)

The lawsuit that Shetreet lodged is not directed only against “SHARP” company.  Other defendants are as aforementioned Moshe Prosman and the company he manages, “M Prosman Ltd”, the exclusive importer and distributor of “SHARP” products in Israel.  “M Prosman” company dissolved in 1997, and 5 months ago, due to an application that was lodged by the representatives of

(Translator’s note)  Page 49 is advertising, not part of the gutter press advertorial

(Translator’s note)  Page 50, the gutter press advertorial continues

Shetreet, the Registrar of Companies restored the company to the Registration of Companies.  The meaning of the step from the point of view of the defendants was removal of the ground under the limitation cause, that through this, so it was feared, the company would “survive”.  (Translator’s note: The blatant extreme and explicitly legal advocacy on behalf of Sharp group and its importer in Israel is an open admission that the piece is an advertorial for Sharp group and Lovells, and the comment about “time limitation defence” is blatantly fraudulent in the same spirit, as the claim in Israel was never time barred, it was lodged in 1996.)  Originally the company dissolved after its director was convicted in the year 1989 of tax offences that were mainly import deals of goods to Israel, whiles concealing the real details about the price that was paid for them aboard.  The sentence that was given in the district court, was for 26 months, a suspended sentence of two years and a monetary fine of half a million dollars.  (Translator’s note: Above brief mention in passing of Sharp group’s organised criminal activities and convictions in Israel on their own plea-bargain admission, is further proof and unintentional admission of the advertorial nature of the text and is a depraved whitewash and apologia for the full and extreme extent of Sharp Corporation’s and group’s organised criminal activities in Israel.  Above does not even mention that Sharp Israel and Moshe Prosman did not even pay the criminal fine and back taxes it was ordered to pay because Sharp Corporation money laundered all of Sharp Israel’s assets in Israel, Japan and worldwide.  Worse still, the materially similar defence pleadings documents submitted by Sharp group and Lovells at High Court in London at the time did not even admit or mention by one word that Sharp group were convicted of fraud in relation to this case, and compounded their convictions by perpetrating more fraud, perjury and fraudulent evasion of liability in my case in Israel, and in UK to date.)

   In the lawsuit, lawyer Kaplansky noted that the company, as the importer of the device, carries responsibility toward Shetreet.  “’Prosman’ company”, it was written, “were supposed to have all the required data about the chemical makeup and the dangerous characteristics of the TV set, and they should have been aware and/or should have been aware by law of the existence of a danger in the use of the TV set that caused the harm and its results.  Therefore, they had the duty to warn the public of risks associated in the purchase of “SHARP” TV sets and their use...  The damages that were caused to Shetreet were caused due to the direct recklessness and/or the lack of expertise and/or the breach of its duties by law of ‘Prosman’ company, and it is responsible therefore for these acts and omissions”.

   David Prosman of “Prosman Electronics 1990 Ltd” commented this week to these things and stated: “’M Prosman Ltd’ does not exist already since many years.  The company was owned by my father, who is already 81, and has not worked now for a long time.  The lawsuit does not look to me very serious, and pretty frivolous.  The company that operates today is under my management and it is not the importer of ‘SHARP’”.  (Translator’s note: Above comments by Prosman also on behalf of Sharp group are a lie and libel, “does not look serious” and “pretty frivolous” about offences against a 13 year old juvenile worse than murder are far beyond the purview of ‘fair comment’ in libel law.)

(Translator’s note: There follows a small photo of my former contingency fee lawyer in Israel, with a text underneath, “Lawyer Moshe Kaplansky”, and next to the photo is the below caption.  Even the libel, lies and parody are not consistent in the advertorial, and below, my former lawyer in Israel was alleged to refer to “BBD” in order to make it appear that he is as much a fantasist as the authors of this advertorial, as BDD is not a substance involved in case or known to science.)

“HIS MEDICAL CONDITION IS SUPPORTED BY EXPERT OPINIONS OF DOCTORS WITH A WORLDWIDE REPUTATION.  THE SUBJECT OF BBD IS LIKE WHAT WAS AT FIRST THE ASBESTOS SUBSTANCE: AT FIRST THEY THINK THE CLAIMANT IS CRAZY, AND ONLY LATER DOES IT TURN OUT THAT HE IS RIGHT.  THE MEDICAL CASE OF SHETREET WAS PRESENTED IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE SUBJECT, IN WHICH EXPERTS PRESENTED THEIR DATA ABOUT HIM”

Elad Shetreet lodged an application to the Company Registrar to revive the company in order to sue it.  Do you know a procedure like that?  “I do not know all the legal procedures”.  (Translator’s note:  Above sentence is clearly libel, as a lawyer who lodged the application will not allege that he does not know what it was about.)           

   Lawyer Kobi Kaplansky stated this week: “Elad Shetreet suffers from 100% disability.  His medical condition is supported by expert opinions of doctors with a worldwide reputation.  The subject of BBD is like what was at first the asbestos substance: At first they think the claimant is crazy, and only later does it turn out that he is right.  The medical case of Shetreet was presented in an international conference on the subject, in which experts presented their data about him.  They actually based in research the causative connection between the substances that were released and what they found in his body.”

   Do you know more cases in this country or the world of poisoning that possibly were caused as a result of the release of toxins from a TV set?

   The subject of PBB and PCB is known in the global electrons industry.  This is about a substance that is made by the bromine industry (Dead See).  (Translator’s note:  The bromine industry is not only based in Israel, yet the immediate associating between the bromine industry worldwide and Dead Sea Industries, is further evidence as to the politically problematic status of this case in Israel.)  This is about a substance that is placed in every plastic device in order to retard burning, as plastic tends to burn quickly.  In the end of the eighties, it was understood that it is forbidden to use the substance and it was replaced.  It is known that this is a toxic substance and a poisonous substance that causes damages, and the evidence is that the substance was replaced.

   A lawsuit like this against an electronics company for damage that was caused by one of its devices is without precedent, certainly in these dimensions.  (Translator’s note: The failure to mention the enactment of EU RoHS Directive, restriction on certain hazardous substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment, including PBDEs, in 2003 partly based on the evidence provided by this case, and that the toxicity of PBDEs in consumer electronics, is academic and political consensus in the EU and US, is further proof that the article is an advertorial for Sharp group and Lovells.)

   Ran Levy, an expert in electronics who has a column about the subject in the weekly “Rating”, believes that Shetreet’s road to wining the case is not expected to be simple in the circumstance.  “It is known that every toxic substance has poisons but to date I have not heard that they are released into the air in the way that Shetreet describes.  (Translator’s note: The fact that a non-scientist who has no status as a toxicologist “never heard” about proven scientific facts in case, not even about the enactment in 2003 of EU RoHS Directive only proves ignorance and that the piece is naked advocacy for Sharp group and Lovells.)

   Do you know of a way to prove that the poisoning was caused as a result o the emission of the poisons by the TV set?

   “Shetreet will have in my opinion to bring proof in the form of judgements that would prove that this has happened in the past”.  (Translator’s note: Above is blatant fraud and libel.  A columnist, a gutter press journalist by profession, a vulgar hack at that, is not entitled to act as an “expert” toxicologist in relation to any litigation, and the authors had no right to present depraved gossip and propaganda by him as such, his opinion is no more relevant than that of a plumber about this subject or any other scientific subject in relation to which only accredited academicians are entitled to have a professional opinion.  Moreover, the leading question that this journalist was asked that demanded of him to reach a negative conclusion after he expressed total ignorance about the subject in his previous sentence and the fact Sharp Corporation could not find any toxicologist to speak on their behalf in the open is further admission of injury causation, ironically, and of the advertorial nature of the article.  Additionally, on 1 April 2008, the European Court of Justice judged in favour of Denmark and the European Parliament in relation to the ban on PBDEs in consumer electronics and the EU RoHS Directive requiring same.  As aforementioned, Denmark, that lobbied the EU as of 1999 for the enactment of RoHS in 2003 partially based its case on my case that was cited and mentioned in their 1999 RoHS proposing EU policy paper in English posted on the internet to date in the Danish EPA and Danish-EU RoHS websites.)

   The response of lawyer Yehuda Russler who represents “Ralco”, the present importer of “SHARP”: “This lawsuit has been dated, in no way does it have hands or legs.  I will inform at the Court that “Ralco’ does not represent “SHARP”.  (Translator’s note: See my translator’s note in the sub-headline in relation to the libel of “has been dated...no hands or legs.  In legal reality, the claim was timely under Israeli product liability law and was originally lodged in 1996.  Moreover, in Israeli product liability law the importer has to be served, not the maker abroad, and Sharp-Israel “Ralco” had no right to evade the claim under Israeli law, they simply set out to take advantage of the total abrogation of the rule of law in relation to the case, due to massive fraud, perjury, bribery and blackmail by Sharp group in Israel and the total corruption of Israeli politicians and judges in relation to my case.)  As far as I remember, this is the third time that Shetreet is attempting to lodge this lawsuit, and every time it is dismissed.  (Translator’s note: As aforementioned, the two lawsuits in Israel were never “dismissed” but Sharp Corporation and group refused to admit service of proceedings that were served in legal reality, which miscarriage of justice occurred due to corporate fraud and perjury, bribery and blackmail of Israeli businessmen, politicians and judges.) 

  Prof Shetreet refused to comment for this article.  His son Elad is staying these days abroad.  (Translator’s note: Another lie, in an advertorial that with a few small exceptions is all lies and fiction.  In reality, I permanently moved domicile to UK from Israel on 2 February 2001 and will never travel to Israel, not even for a visit.)

(Translator’s note)  End of gutter press advertorial