WWW.ELAD-SHETREET.COM
Mr
Elad Shetreet, London, UK
Email elad.shetreet@gmail.com
Tel 0044 (0) 7847362920
12 August 2010
The folders with the scanned PDF UK courts, EU RoHS Directive, European Court of Justice RoHS judgement based on Shereet injury at age 14 by SHARP etc proof documents are posted at the bottom of this homage and the list of exhibits is both incorporated at the end of this document and within each of the exhibits folders. Please advise me by email or telephone if there is any IT problem affecting access to the folders at the bottom of this document. Rar and/ zip programs are required for access and downloading of the below posted proof documents and folders. Organisations can ask their IT department or IT maintenance professional service provider to download and copy the folders on a mobile memory system such as a CD Rom or memory stick.
2. Website title: The enactment of EU RoHS Directive (acronym for Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) and Shetreet v SHARP and Lovells / Hogan & Hartson / Hogan Lovells and the worst corruption in UK, US and EU history in respect of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and NHS and UK Attorney General v Shetreet, perjury committing against Shetreet civil actions on behalf of Mossad and the Israel IT export industry, Hanina Brandes, SHARP electronics group overall, SHARP UK, the SHARP daughter companies and importers in Israel and Sharp Corporation, the SHARP parent company, Hogan Lovells et al
3. Case summary:
3.1. SOS to the civilised world by Elad Shetreet who was a victim of unlawful detentions and torture in UK by UK et al regimes in violation of the UN Chemical Weapons Convention, UN torture Convention and the UN Statute of Rome, Article 8 War Crimes, and perpetrated on behalf of Israel and US regimes, Hanina Brandes and his companies, AIFL and AIPAC, SHARP and Hogan Lovells. In spite of the MHRT judgement of 16 September 2010 (Exhibit 23 and 22, folder 1A below) that Shetreet was always the sanest of men and NHS, Met Police et al had no right to abuse psychiatry against him and the admission as of November 2009 at High Court in London by the NHS and UK Attorney General that Shetreet was always sane (see Exhibit 209.2) and the NHS v Shetreet 23 April 2010 judgement of Mr Justice Simon that Shetreet was always the sanest of men since birth to date and that the NHS never had any psychiatric diagnosis in respect of him, Shetreet was unlawfully sectioned again rather than arrested, in order to conceal Shetreet from the news media and from the criminal justice system and a trial before a jury and from the legal light of day overall. On the morning of 8 June 2010, Shetreet’s residence at 95 Malvern, Rd, London NW6, was raided by several uniformed police officers and plain clothed officials and he was told that he is being sectioned without any assessment. Medicine was additionally abused in a criminal manner, and in this respect, this was perpetrated both in Israel and UK, whereby the physical, dermatological treatment of that aspect of his injury at age 13 by SHARP that Shetreet does need is being unlawfully and maliciously denied him to date, in order to cause preventable physical pain by refusing to provide the laser and related dermatological treatment indicated for the permanent improvement of the most painful toxically induced skin pathology ever documented due to his injury at age 13 by SHARP, and that before partial treatment was forthcoming privately this injury and pathology was incompatible with life and neurologically injurious due to the levels of dermatological pain, without the above treatment. This was perpetrated in order to cause maximal harm to and destruction of Shetreet. One of the most evil aspects of case is that with news coverage, the crimes against Shetreet in UK would not be possible, yet all news media are being forced to censure the case. When all the al Jazeera journalists involved unanimously wanted and even demanded to cover case in March 2010, other regimes forced the Qatari government to veto Al Jazeera about coverage of the Shetreet case. If not for the news embargo against the crimes against Shetreet to date, none of the judicial and political crimes against him would have been possible. Likewise, UK regime will not accede to Shetreet’s many provocations and demands to be prosecuted before a jury no matter how actionable his provocations, even though they prosecute Muslims at the drop of a hat for far lesser public and/or private statements than those undertaken by Shetreet. The US Attorney General is taking the same position and will not attempt to extradite Shetreet for the provocations he undertook by email to the US Attonrey General directly in relation to that jurisdiction given the Washington DC global headquarters of Hogan Lovells that styles itself the third largest American law firm, including in its May 2010 advertorial in the Washington Post.
3.2. In this case, the UK and US regimes declared a war of total destruction on behalf of Israel and the Israel IT export industry with its close links to co-defendant SHARP electronics group and thereby with co-defendant Hogan Lovells, against the rule of law and common decency to a degree that from now on David Cameron et al must be officially known as the paedophile terrorist Prime Minister. An earlier much more strongly worded version of my website is online as of 13 January 2010, and partly pasted below with redactions, and is exhibited in folder 1B, yet none of the parties to the case, including SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General most directly, and others, dared sue me or any other party that stated that SHARP injured me, e.g. the EU and ECJ judiciary who judged in favour of RoHS in 2008, for alleged ‘libel’ and/or prosecute me for alleged ‘perjury’, as I publicly demanded of them to do on my website as of 13 January 2010, and by other means since case outset. In fact, I was only civilly sued and applied against for injunctions, including in relation to the NHS, for a censorship injunction in respect of the evidently most embarrassing document in case, by UK Attoney General, by the NHS and by SHARP and Hogan Lovells. This is an official admission that I tell only the truth, not lies and that the truth hurts the regimes et al, and this is an admission of above to date by all offenders against me in case of the truth and accuracy of all my below statements and of the authenticity of the proof documents in the aforementioned folders posted bleow. This document is also a legal pleading at High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division and is under statement of truth and is thereby legally actionable under penalty of alleged ‘perjury’ if anyone wished to dispute any facts relied on.
3.3. Contrary to the malicious falsehood against Elad Shetreet in relation to Shetreet v SHARP, electronics maker, and Hogan Lovells, third larges American law firm globally headquartered in Washington DC, by Dr David James et al of NHS, Met Police and FTAC that was published in the Observer and in the Guardian online from August 2007 until June 2010, when the Guardian Legal Editorial Dept removed above referenced comments against Shetreet by Dr James et al, Shetreet did not protest at UK Parliament on 7 June 2006 with an anthrax hoax that closed UK Parliament for an hour on above date and was reported as breaking news all over the world by the BBC, CNN, Fox News et al, in order to “prove” his injury at age 13 by SHARP – as Dr James, FTAC, Met Police et al alleged in the Guardian, as SHARP themselves never disputed his injury, rather, Shetreet protested against the unlawful vermin status against whom all crimes are legal and is therefore under an ECRO prohibiting him from going to law that was perpetrated against him by the judicial and executive branches combined of UK regime as of July 2005 because the law is objectively on his side but UK regime did not want Shereet to be successful, even though the law and the objective merits of the case were always on his side. Rather, Shetreet protested in order to gain access to a jury trial as a criminal defendant in order to challenge the legality of his unlawfully judicially perpetrated vermin status against whom all crimes are legal by explicit judicial orders and political policy decisions. The fact that UK did not allow Shetreet to be prosecuted for above provocation and the subsequent provocations, as Shetreet demands to date, is a further admission that UK regime admits foul play against Shetreet and that the law in above civil case is on his side objectively, and hence will not allow any civil and/or criminal trial with full production of evidence in relation to Shetreet. Instead Shetreet, a legally proven sane man, was ‘diverted’ into a KGB style pseudo-psychiatric gulag and/or a psychiatric and totally barbaric and cruel UK regime version of Guantanamo Bay of unlawful detentions, forcible toxic injections, torture, injuries and attempted murders since 2006 to date, without charge and without trial, except for a misdemeanour “malicious communication by email” charge that is pending, because it does not require any jury or real trial with production of evidence and news coverage. Should Shetreet be prosecuted in the light of day, before an independent jury, literally the entire political and judicial ruling class of UK regime would have to be criminally prosecuted as well, as would SHARP and Hogan Lovells, as would officials of other, allied regimes, etc.
3.4. In order to cover-up aforementioned, below mentioned and all other corporate, judicial and political crimes against Shetreet since age 13 to date, by the Israel and UK regimes, SHARP, Hogan Lovells, Hanina Brandes, the Israel IT export industry et al, Elad Shetreet, a legally proven totally sane man since birth to date, including by the High Court judgment of Mr Justice Simon of 23 April 2010 most recently and by admission of NHS and UK Attorney General at High Court as of 2009, was, as of June 2006 to September 2008, and again as of 8 June 2010 to date unlawfully detained, tortured, forcibly injected with contraindicated for him toxins even by the online warning of the maker of Risperidone, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson, that like all ohter makers of all other anti-psychotic drugs, prohibit the use of thier products against anyone who is sane and/or who has pre-existing brain damage other than Alzheimer’s and/or who has pre-existing liver damage, as in Shetreet case in respect of all above three categories, and nearly tortured to death and nearly murdered thereby Elad Shetreet until he was discharged as a man who was always sane by the Mental Health Review Tribunal on 16 September 2008. Worse still, on 8 June 2010, UK regime and Met Police raided Shetreet’s address and unlawfully sectioned him and unlawfully detained and tortured him again on s 3 of the UK Mental Health Act (MHA), and again forcibly injected him with contraindicated toxins.
3.5. This case is a chapter and verse revelation on a Biblical scale precisely because the victim of all the unprovoked crimes by and on behalf of Israel is who he is. If Jews behave toward others they themselves regard as Jews like vicious beasts of prey and nuclear terrorists when money is involved in a high value civil case that was originally, when it commenced in Tel Aviv District Court, only about the chronic catastrophic toxic injury, disability and disfigurement of a 13 year old juvenile by a defective product made by SHARP electronics group and Sharp Corporation directly, then Isrealis have no moral standing in relation to any issue. The above injury was forensically proven also by two peer reviewed case studies about Elad Shereet, including Chemosphere, the most prestigious academic toxicology journal in the world, published by Elsevier Science, the most prestigious science publisher in the world, and was relied on by the EU as of 1999 for the enactment in 2003 of EU RoHS Directive (acronym of Restriction on Certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical products). On 1 April 2008 ECJ judged in favour of RoHS and since then all PBDEs brominated flame retardants are banned in all consumer electronics made in and/or imported to the EU, and since 2008, many elecronics products in the EU include a sticker at the back of the product that states “RoHS Compliant”. RoHS was also adopted by the US as its standard for consumer electronics toxic safety. This juvenile, Elad Shetreet, happened to be the son of a serving cabinet minister in Israel when the case commenced in Israel in 1994 and the court case commenced in 1996 before it was evaded by fraud ultimately in 2004 without any trial or production of evidence or compliance with disclosure laws in Israel, becasuse SHARP, Hogan Lovells and their lawyer in case in Israel Hanina Brandes who is also the leader of the Israel IT export industry that has close links with and orders from Sharp Corporation, paid bribes to politicians and simply refused to accept service of both domestic proceedings on the local SHARP importer arbitrarily, and on Hanina Brandes, based on the perjury that he only had “limited power of attorney” when in fact Brandes later unintentionally admitted in London that he had full power of attorney in Israel from outset. SHARP also refused to accept proceedings on the global headquarters of SHARP in Japan by service out of jurisdiction. This was allowed to pass because the judges were fixed by the bribed politicians. In 2000 SHARP and Hogan Lovells went so far as to instruct and bribe Hanina Brandes to overthrow the then head of state of Israel, President Weizman, by disclosing about him legally privileged documents that proved he accepted bribes, as do nearly all Israeli politicians, and this forced his resignation, even though he was not prosecuted because bribery is de facto if not officially legal in Israel, as proven by this very case. SHARP, Hogan Lovells et al perpetrated this in order to intimidate the judges into compliance with their abrogation of the rule of law and demand that they be allowed to simply refuse to accept service of proceedings, even on the SHARP importer domiciled in Tel Aviv that trades as “SHARP” to date and is liable in case under Israeli product liability laws and by contract. Therefore, the case continued in London later in 2004, from where the case was also conducted on behalf of SHARP since global case outset in 1994 by Hogan Lovells of Washington DC, then known as Lovells, in London. Yet because this particular cabinet minister who is one of the parents of Elad Shetreet was one of the very few cabinet level politicians in Israel who did not accept bribes, because he is a PhD qualified law professor by profession and author of the academic bestseller Judges on Trial that is relied on by judges as an authority all over the English speaking world, including by the House of Lords in the Senator Pinochet case, it was decided by the leaders of the Israel IT export industry, including Hanina Brandes who conducted case for SHARP and Hogan Lovells in Israel, that the vulnerability of the invalid that SHARP destroyed at age 13 and who had no wealthy family to protect his interests would be taken advantage of. Therefore, at global case outset Elad Shetreet was kidnapped to a chemical weapons storage facility west of Jerusalem that was known then as Heller Station, and was also a water pumping station. There the agents of the state who perpetrated the crime covered their faces with gas masks, and once so protected, they discharged the nerve gas from gas canisters that had the incorrect label of “Chlorine 1017”. This was perpetrated on behalf of SHARP, Hogan Lovells and Hanina Brandes and thereby of the Israel IT export industry and the objective was to cause Elad Shetreet catastrophic chronic brain damage and severe partial blindness that would totally biologically destroy and disable him and would render him unable to pursue his case for his original injury at age 13 by SHARP or to even survive for long due to total loss of any prospect for any livelihood and economic viability. SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime et al, even UK Attorney General, quite incredibly, admitted above crime at the 2009 Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells hearing that SHARP and Hogan Lovells convened against Shetreet. UK Attorney General then also admitted this crime in exhibits to his civil action against Shetreet at the Administrative Court of High Court in order to officially declare Shetreet vermin against whom all crimes are legal and murder him thereby, in order to cover-up the crimes against him. In 2001, Shetreet moved to the UK with automatic right of abode as an EU national by automatic right of ancestry. In High Court in London, where case continued as of 2004, SHARP and Hogan Lovells simply told the judges, we have no defence, the law is on his side, therefore you English judges must criminalise yourselves and must declare Shetreet vermin against whom all crimes are legal in order to unlawfully pauperise and thereby murder Shetreet, on behalf of Israel and the Jews and the Israel IT export industry, without any trial or production of evidence or compliance by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and all DPA (Data Protection Act) data requested bodies of UK regime to date with disclosure laws and requests, in order to cover-up the crimes against him and murder him in the process. The judges, to their infinite credit, agreed, and also issued against Shetreet an Extended Restraint Order (ECRO) that in this case was given a diabolical misinterpretation and was used to date since 2005 to prohibit Shetreet from going to law at all and rendered all crimes by all criminals legal against Shetreet to date. One of the most astonishing and ‘novel’ aspects of case is that the Jews, including the Jewish ‘English’ judges, decided that because Shetreet senior was a rare politician in Israel who does not accept bribes and therefore could not hire for him lawyers, pay for the physical medical treatment for his injury by SHARP that the health systems in both Israel and UK maliciously denied his son who was rendered as of age 13 a vulnerable invalid, this lack of receipt of bribery by Shetreet Sr should opportunistically be taken advantage of, and his son should be judicially declared in ‘revenge’ for this vermin against whom all crimes are legal and that he should be defrauded, unlawfully pauperised, prohibited from going to law in UK overall with a de facto sign on all UK courts stating ‘NO ENTRY AND NO JUSTICE FOR ELAD SHETREET AND OTHER VERMIN BECAUSE ALL UK JUDGES ARE JEWISH CONTRACT MURDERERS FOR MOSSAD AND NOT JUDGES’ and even unlawfully detained, forcibly injected with toxins, denied the physical medical treatment he does need, and additionally injured a million times over in every possible way since age 13 to date.
3.6. The abuse of forcible psychiatry against the sane political detainee is the cruellest, most degrading, most humiliating persecution that any state can inflict on any of its sane residents and political dissidents, and in respect of forcible administration of contraindicated toxic ‘medication’, also known as ‘anti-psychotic drugs’, it is the most destructive form of torture any modern supposedly civilised state can inflict on any of its detainees, a form of biological destruction that is far more destructive than the torture known as water boarding. Moreover, abuse of psychiatry against sane political detainees is also automatically grievous bodily harm with intent, malicious wounding and attempted murder, as if there is no clinical therapeutic objective in respect of the political detainee against whom psychiatry is abused, then any action against him is by definition an attempt to harm, destroy, injure disable and ultimately kill and/or drive to suicide that would be murder thereby by the regime.
4. I call upon all those who read this website to publicise it by word of mouth and emails and by all other means available to them. There are no copyright restrictions imposed by me in respect of the content posted on my website in respect of which I have copyright.
5. This case is the first case in UK and Western legal history overall whereby a violent criminal, in this case SHARP, Hogan Lovells, the NHS, UK Attorney General et al, goes to court, confesses and even gloats to committing violent and murderous crimes against the civil defendant, and then cheerfully demands from High Court various civil penalties, even “costs” and of late even “imprisonment for contempt of court” without charge or trial. The total depravity of the corporate and high official offenders in this case is the same and revealing of the total depravity of the entire value system and policy that motivated and facilitated the crimes and brought the offenders to political power.
6. Rebuttal by Shetreet of 2 June 2010 pleading by UK Attorney General v Shetreet for subsequently cancelled hearing of 22 June 2010 – in relation to above rebuttal see also paragraphs 19-23 and 26 and the remainder below of document overall:
6.1. The pleading for the UK Attorney General was issued on behalf of:
David Cameron, Prime Minister
Dominic Grieve, UK Attorney General
Stephen Deutz, UK Attorney General legal advisor
And was written directly by
Paul
Gott,
And
Catherine Edwards, Treasury Solicitors,
6.2. Extract from folder 1B List of Exhibits – see full document at the toward the end of this document
Folder
title 1B Additional most important exhibits from 28 August 2009 to 23 July 2010, for pre 30
August 2009 Exhibits see folder 1A and 2-6 - List of Exhibits
Exhibit 215_7 July 2010 150 pounds
compensation order proves that Shetreet was not vexatious in Shetreet v SHARP
and Hogan Lovells either
For the 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.
See Exhibits 3-5 in folder 1A, for EU RoHS Directive (acronym of Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) that was based exclusively on the Shtreet 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 injury 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.
See Exhibits 13 in folder 1A and Exhibits 154 and 185 in this folder, mentioned below, for the fraud by concealment and nondisclosure offences by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the executive and judicial branches of UK regime that rendered all judgements and orders null and void in case.
In addition to aforementioned exhibits, see Exhibits 150, 205 and 209 below for a de facto public formal admission by the UK Attorney General, Westminster NHS, the Met Police, FTAC and its Director Dr David James, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS and thereby of the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge and of UK regime as a whole that the civil law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim and UK Attorney General v Shetreet thereby, civil cases, is automatically on side of Shetreet and that SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime et al owe Shetreet unprecedented highly substantial levels of monetary compensation. The NHS v Shetreet, civil case, censorship injunction and unsuccessful application to imprison Shetreet for allegedly violating the censorship injunction, is still a sealed court file, but the case is pending on appeal at the Court of Appeal Civil Division.
See Exhibit 198 for the Independent Police Complaints Commission in favour of Shetreet and against the Met Police and FTAC re the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, unlawful detentions, torture, forcible toxic injections, injury and attempted murders in violation of the UN Torture Convention, UN Chemical Weapons Convention and the Stature of Rome, Article 8 - War Crimes, and perjuries to the Mental Health Review Tribunal against Shetreet by Dr David James, Met Police and FTAC.
Exhibit
196 caused SHARP and Hogan Lovells to admit foul play against Shetreet by
blocking all of their emails accounts save that of the global CEO in Washington
See Exhibit 158 and 209.1 for an admission of foul play by SHARP, Hogan Lovells e 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 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 Exhibit 2010, 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 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 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 v Shetreet, which were also based on the premise that Shetreet is vermin.
The gender references to the UK Attorney General change as of exhibits dated as of May 2010 due to the UK elections of May 2010 and change of office holders, but not policy.
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.
See Exhibit 114.1 folder 4, in
conjunction with below mentioned Exhibit 196 in this folder, 1B, and Exhibits
55, 56, in folder 1A. Above Exhibit is
hereby promoted in importance to folders 1A and 1B – most important exhibits, above exhibit is a
transcript of 4 March 2005 hearing before Mr Justice Morison, very first UK
High Court transcript in case. 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
End of extract
6. 3. As
of below mentioned and further below mentioned toward end of document, Exhibit
185 of folder 1B, exhibits prove the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells,
NHS v Shetreet and counterclaim and UK Attorney General v Shetreet was more on
side of Shereet than any other case of miscarriage of justice in UK and US
legal history. Moreover, this is de
facto an American case as well, as one of the main co-defendants in case is
Hogan Lovells that described itself in its May 2010 advertorial in the
Washington Post as the third largest American law firm, and the US Attorney
General and US Dept of Justice are involved in the case as interested parties,
and the UK Attorney General is civilly suing Shetreet and wishes to officially
and openly declare Shetreet vermin against whom all crimes are legal, in to an
even greater degree of extremity than obtains due to the unlawful ECRO.
As of 1 June 2010 the UK Attorney
General missed his final deadline for the disclosure of his skeleton argument
to the Admin Court re UK Attorney General v Shetreet, three weeks before the
two hour kangaroo hearing in case at Admin Court that was listed for 22 June
2010. Above hearing was permanently
cancelled by
In his original 2009 action, paradoxically, UK Attorney General, like Westminster NHS, relied only on two medical documents re Shetreet. One was the 2008 report about Shetreet by consultant psychiatrist and MHRT judicial psychiatrist Dr Charlotte Page that proved Shetreet completely sane, and the second one was the letter by Dr Jonathan Michael, Director of the largest NHS hospitals trust in central London, that also confirmed that Shetreet was injured at age 13 by SHARP and that this is no “delusion”, as insane NHS psychiatrists alleged tongue in cheek to date in order to unlawfully detain Shetreet.
UK Attorney General acted as he did no doubt also because the orders and judgement of Mr Justice Simon on 23 April 2010 made the UK Attorney General case against me even more absurdly false and unsustainable. On above date Mr Justice Simon rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’, rejected my oral application at hearing outset to adjourn the hearing for legal counsel because I am so sane and better than sane that I would not be disadvantaged by lack of legal counsel, as he also rejected my oral application to adjourn to summon testimony from the charlatan psychiatrists who unlawfully detained and tortured me on the basis that they would only state perjuries if they dared allege that I am not the sanest of men.
On 13 January 2010 Met Police arrested me for bomb hoax and then rearrested me based on his own confession to blackmail only, not bomb hoax, for blackmail. The refusal of UK regime to prosecute Shetreet for either bomb hoax or blackmail or any charge that requires a jury and trial, is further proof and admission by UK regime that all decision makers always believed that Shetreet is the sanest of men and that the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet and counterclaim was always on his side, hence they do not want to prosecute Shetreet in the legal light of day before a jury, for fear that UK officials would be thereby prosecuted themselves.
The failure of UK Attorney General and CPS to withdraw their civil and misdemeanour criminal actions against Shetreet even after they sectioned him again on s 3 of MHA on 8 June 2010 further proves that all UK regime decision makers always believed that Shetreet is the sanest of men and that the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was always on his side. This refusal by UK and US regimes to prosecute Shetreet before a jury compellingly demonstrates that no legal action would have been undertaken against Shetreet and that SHARP and Hogan Lovells would never have dared defend the lawsuit by Shetreet if juries were involved
The massive foul play by UK Attorney General in case proves that he was complicit in the foul play proven in Exhibits 55, 56, folder 1A and Exhibit 196 folder 1B, in which SHARP and Hogan Lovlls relied on false emails they sent themselves in the name of Shetreet and then relied on to unlawfully extend the unlawful ECRO in 2009.
See below - Exhibit 150.8_admission by UK Attorney General of complicity with fraud against Archer and also murderous crimes against Shetreet and Exhibit 150.9_additional admission and complicity by UK Attorney General of foul play 71 pages. Above exhibits are an admission by UK Attorney General that he is complicit retroactively and in the cover-up to date complicit in the kidnapping of Shetreet in Israel at case outset by SHARP and Hogan Lovell agents to a chemical weapons storage facility where a chemical weapons was deployed against Shetreet after the agents of the state involved who were acting for SHARP and Hogan Lovells, protected themselves with gas masks. Consequently, Shetreet suffered massive brain damage and cognitive decrement. There is no geographic or time defences to above crimes under the UN Torture Convention and UN Chemical Weapons Convention and UK Attorney General v Zardad, 2004/5 common law.
Due to above and below revelations, I call upon the Court of Appeal Civil Division and Admin Court to order CPS to issue criminal proceedings against above parties and against all other officials involved in case. Since the Nuremberg IMT proceedings, ‘I obeyed orders’ is not a valid defence, thereby above parties have no defence regarding fraud, perjury, incitement to torture and murder, complicity in torture, conspiracy to murder, international terrorism in violation of the UN Torture Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention, complicity with actual torture and attempted murder etc.
The cover letter of above document is already highly fraudulent in and of itself. The bundles were delivered by DHL same day delivery on 3 June 2010, yet the letter states the date “2 June 2010”. This is no doubt to cover for the fact that the UK Attorney General missed the final deadline for service of skeleton argument three weeks before the hearing on 22 June 2010 as of 1 June 2010. This proves differences of opinion within UK regime about case, and the fact that UK Attorney General wanted to withdraw the action completely in light of the aforementioned 23 April 2010 judgement of Mr Justice Simon in NHS v Shetreet. The transcript of the above hearing, order etc are not publicly available due to the censorship injunction in place but the High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division have access to the file.
In the first two pages of the June 2010 UK Attorney General skeleton argument by Paul Gott who claimed authorship of this document on behalf of UK Attorney General and thereby UK Attorney General alleges that the NHS v Shetreet information and exhibits was withdrawn due to the censorship injunction in force in that case, THIS IS PERJURY by UK Attorney General. The censorship injunction is in place as of 6 November 2009 and UK Attorney General sued me and exhibited NHS v Shetreet on 23 November 2009 fully aware of this, by definition, since entire NHS v Shetreet was about censorship, and the censorship injunction in case never prevented him from any action in the case, in his opinion at time and to date. In any case, the censorship injunction to date only prohibits me and only me and anyone acting on my instructions to mention the name of IJK and to disclose in the public domain the case file documents issued by NHS and/or the Court – and more importantly so, it only prohibits me from disclosing anything about case, the rest of the world is at liberty to do as they please and this was the position of Mr Justice Simon on 23 April 2010 who only falsely convicted me of contempt of court and not UK Attorney General as well, because I emailed in medical confidence to another part of NHS the scanned UK Attorney General exhibit of NHS v Shetreet in order to attempt to prevent my additional unlawful psychiatric detention by those psychiatrists I emailed in confidence about my own medical and legal status and the NHS and UK Attorney General admissions that I am a totally sane man since birth to date, as MHRT tribunal and Simon J also judged! Moreover, in late 2009 I repeatedly asked NHS also by email to force UK Attorney General to withdraw his entire action against me because of its reliance on a case in which I was a defendant and that was not entirely in the public domain supposedly, however, NHS maliciously refused and stated that they have no objection to the UK Attorney General action against me and to the mention of their case in the UK Attorney General pleadings against me, as this, with the exception of the name of IJK is in the public domain, and the reliance in the exhibits had already been undertaken and could not be retroactively withdrawn, even in the opinion of the NHS, this is why they never made any such requirement at any of the three NHS v Shetreet hearings I was allowed to attend and in all their pleadings they copied to me, and NHS even revengefully and falsely denounced me in their April 2010 pleading as a “serial litigator” in order to support the UK Attorney General in his action against me. Moreover, all the actual details of NHS v Shetreet and my pleadings and press release of 13 January 2010 in respect of case overall are in the public domain as of my 13 January 2010 press release online on my website, with chapter and verse of NHS v Shetreet, excluding the name of IJK, but with the name of the judges involved and all the other details of case. Moreover, the Dr Charlotte Page and Dr Jonathan Michael documents relied on by NHS are also online, likewise posted on my website since January 2010, and these documents in and of themselves are not covered by the censorship injunction in any way shape or form. Ironically, UK Attorney General admitted this, because in his document he repeatedly referred and quoted my press release that is under statement of truth, paradoxically without any undertaking that he will prosecute me for perjury if he disagrees with any facts stated in this document, if the law is not on my side, either he is a perpetrator of perjury or allegedly I am. His problem is that perjury is a jury trial. UK Attorney General is not entitled to continue the case if he is not willing to prosecute me for perjury and much else because it is a jury trial and a jury does not declare victims of crime to be vermin against whom all crimes are legal in the way UK regime did. I note that Amanda Knox whose case was made infamous was convicted in Italy in 2009/10 of murdering a UK student that was her flatmate, is being prosecuted for defamation by the Italians for alleging mistreatment by police during her interrogation. UK Attorney General alleges I should be civilly punished for demanding compensation for my proven torture by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man by Met Police, that both ECJ, MHRT mental health court and on 23 April 2010 even Mr Justice Simon agreed was the case and ECJ judged in my favour and in favour of RoHS that was based on my injury at age 13 by SHARP. So again, why doesn’t the state terrorist UK Attorney General sue or prosecute me before a jury for defamation, perjury, etc? What is he hiding from a jury if it is not his and others’ foul play against me since age 13 to date? If this case went to a jury, who would be convicted, me or him. His refusal to prosecute makes that response obvious.
The real reason that the UK Attorney General is now so hysterically, zealously and retroactively withdrawing NHS v Shetreet from his case against me is because there was an almighty feud and row between Met Police and NHS and internally within UK regime overall over the NHS and UK Attorney General v Shetreet case, because of the unintentional admission that Shetreet was sane by the above by their reliance on the Dr Charlotte Page report re Shetreet that proved Shetreet was always a sane man who was unlawfully psychiatrically detained, tortured, injured and nearly murdered by UK regime in order to murder him in order to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells.
Another surprising and decisive proof of the almighty feud within UK NHS and within UK regime overall was that NHS Westminster unintentionally disclosed in their April 2010 hearing pleading that they demoted and nearly totally sacked but for fear of employment tribunal proceedings, Justin Roper, the NHS Westminster PCT manager that instructed the NHS proceedings against me that admitted that I was a totally sane man since birth to date by exhibiting only the Dr Page report about me but not a single NHS gutter press ‘psychiatric report’ against me.
Until page 9 of the June 2010 UK Attorney General pleading he continues the perjuries and sadistic mockery of the crimes against me since age 13 to date that he also committed as of November 2009, and alleged, including in page 3, that I am was a “vexatious ... and vindictive litigant” in Israel, which is not so, the opposite is the case. In Israel, the case was successful at outset and SHARP lost their appeal. Therefore, SHARP and Hogan Lovells paid bribes to be allowed to refuse to accept service of proceedings on an unlawful arbitrary basis, which in Israel by payment of bribes is possible. UK Attorney General also commits fraud by concealment. Not in one word does he state that SHARP were convicted of fraud, money laundering and fraudulent ‘bankruptcy’ of their franchise importer that traded as SHARP in Israel and that was a co-defendant in case and also refused to accept service of proceedings by fraud, perjury and bribery, and Sharp Corporation and its other franchise in Israel that trades to date as SHARP also refused to accept service of proceedings, both domestically, which they had no legal right to do in any case, and by service out of jurisdiction, by fraud and perjury. UK Attorney General also conceals that SHARP and Hogan Lovells also injured me and disabled me again by contract at age 24, even though he exhibited my 2009 witness statement about this attack without any denial or allegation of perjury by me, nor did SHARP and Hogan Lovells deny this at the 2009 hearing. In addition, if allegedly by UK Attorney General no offence by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime was committed against me since age 13 to date, how are my legal actions “vindictive”? Or is it that all crimes are legal against me according to him, which is in fact the case.
Exhibit 8.1 incorporated into the press release - UK Attorney General also concealed this exhibit from his bundles of exhibits and did not mention this exhibit at all in his pleadings, even though it is probably the most important substantive document in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells.
Even more grotesquely, UK Attorney General did not mention by one word that my injury at age 13 by SHARP was so well proven and notorious, that it was relied upon by the EU as the human data basis of EU RoHS Directive (Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment), that had global impact and was even de facto adopted by the US as their standard for consumer electronics safety, which is the equivalent of alleging that in August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered ‘very minor war damage’ and/or ‘no damage at all’, rather than nuclear bombardment that no one in his right mind ever disputed.
In his alleged summary of my civil actions in UK, UK Attorney General fraudulently concealed my successful legal action in 2005 against plumbers who ripped me off, even though I informed him of this also in my press release he refers to in his 2010 pleading, and more fraudulently, he also fraudulently concealed my indisputably and automatically meritorious and timely libel etc High Court action v Mail on Sunday, SHARP and Yediot for libel in June 2006 that Mail on Sunday formally admitted also on behalf of Yediot that relied on the Mail article that predated it and thereby on behalf of SHARP that libelled me in the Yediot article by removing the offending against me article from their website.
This admission that the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells et al is on my side overall by concealment by him of a High Court action against SHARP et al that he admits is meritorious by his concealment of it, like a common thief in the night hiding his booty and/or a flat earth theorist even though it is known to him and that I copied to him in scanned format myself in august 2009, has the most extreme significance for case because it admits the law is on my side overall in all my cases and that he has no case against me.
In page 8, 22 (1) (b) UK Attorney General automatically admits that SHARP and Hogan Lovells owe me billions of euro in compensation and that the law is on my side in case overall, when he admits that on 18 December 2007 I was kidnapped by City of London Police at the instructions of SHARP and Hogan Lovells from Hogan Lovells lobby in London to a psychiatric torture facility against a sane man, as he admitted I was sane since birth to date in case since outset, per his exhibit of the Dr Page psychiatric report about me. If the law was not in my favour in case overall since outset to date, why set out to torture me to death and murder me by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man by his admission, why not prosecute me instead openly before a jury for my many provocations that he states as proven fact as if they were conviction. Query to UK Attorney General, which part of the Dr Page report allowed any NHS psychiatrist to so much as touch me with the tip of his finger, let alone falsely detain and forcibly inject me with toxins, injure and attempt to murder me?
It must be emphasised that UK Attorney General insanely contradicts himself all through the document, he repeatedly asserts that I must be punished, pauperised and thereby judicially murdered because I want compensation from SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime also for the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, torture, injury, forcible toxic injections, attempted murders etc to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan lovells, yet he never asserts anywhere in his very fraudulent to the point of self-parody, flat earth theorist and total self-contradiction ad absurdum and ad nausea gutter press resembling rag of a document that I was ever since birth to date at any point allegedly ‘mentally ill’ or “delusional”, nor does he allege a ‘psychiatric diagnosis’ against me, he admits time and again the law is on my side and that I am owed massive compensation from SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS and UK regime overall, but he simply asserts his hatred against me in literally every sentence and thinks that based on judicial and political hatred of the victim of all the crimes in the case all UK judgements and orders should be decided against me in the future, as they were in the past, and he further admits the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet counterclaim.
In page 8, paragraph 22 (3) (a) UK Attorney General sadistically gloats that under House of Lords 2008 common law, no time limitation can be alleged even about my injuries at age 13 and by contract at age 24 by SHARP, and that the objective law is on my side, as “time limit” was the only excuse for the destruction of my case and life, even though the libel etc and fraud part of case was admitted by UK Attorney General in his 2009 pleading totally timely, as he admitted same in his 2010 pleading, but that judges simply treat me like garbage and declare that all crimes are legal against me. A lack of any time limit and also no jurisdiction defence also in relation to both my injuries by SHARP and Hogan Lovells since outset is furtehr established by the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and UK Attorney General v Zardad, 2004/5 criminal case common law.
In page 9, paragraph 6 (3), the UK Attorney General does not mention that my application is actually pending at ECtHR as of January 2008, and that the International Criminal Court did open a file about the crimes against me by UK regime and they did want to extradite Tony Blair et al, but the US Act also known colloquially as ‘Invade The Hague Act’ or Protection of Servicepersons Act prevents them from extraditing US officials and allies of US, such as UK paedophile sow terrorist regime officials, as is well known to him, yet he attempts to misrepresent my communications with above courts as a ‘vexation’ and ‘failure’ by me rather than evidence of foul play against me by UK and US regimes.
More grotesquely, in page 9, paragraph (4), the UK Attorney General like and in complicity with SHARP and Hogan Lovells alleges that I sent emails to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co, without any proof to above, when all the proof about that, if any, is to the contrary, as anyone can post a web form and even allege it was from Igor Judge LCJ or the Prime Minister. Moreover, since the April 2010 identity fraud against me at High Court by SHARP and Hogan Lovells, see below Exhibit 196, I can prove that SHARP and Hogan Lovells sent the email and posted the web form to above law firms in May 2009 in my name, which anyone with a little IT skills can do and anyone without any IT skills in the case of the web form posting can perpetrate, and there was never any forensic evidence that I sent either of those communications or that they were admissible as emails by me rather than by an imposter from SHARP and Hogan Lovells. Yet the unlawful to begin with ECRO was extended for a further two years purely based on this fraud, that UK Attorney General also relies on to base his alleged case against me. This further proves the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was always on my side to begin with, otherwise, why do SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General resort to such despotic, corrupt, desperate and outrageous fraud. Moreover, since when did any enquiries regarding legal representation from a victim of crime who has a pending proceeding and no legal representation (I have a pending application at ECtHR as of January 2008) result in any civil and/or criminal penalty, let alone total loss of all livelihood and all legal and human rights and a de facto death sentence. Even in Nazi Germany that without justification is regarded by the paedophile sow regime of UK as morally inferior, no one was given a death sentence or any penalty for attempting to retain legal counsel. In 2009 I did email an enquiry to a number of firms that I do not remember now and to Giovani di Stefano, but he would never betray my confidence, and I did not make any enquiry in writing and/or by telephone in May 2009 to Clyde & Co and Norton Rose, and there is no forensic proof that I did, and all the forensic and corroborating proof that I did not. Moreover, as the transcript of the 15 July 2010 will show, I was never called upon to testify and questioned if I sent those emails or no, because SHARP and Hogan Lovells knew that they sent those emails themselves in my name by identity fraud!
In page 9, paragraph 24 (1) the UK Attorney General, after having sadistically mocked all the crimes against me and declared that all crimes against me are legal, he goes on to formally incite murder against me, and I reserve the right to retaliate in kind, and alleges and lampoons, as he did precisely and verbatim in his 2009 pleading by paedophile sow terrorist Catherine Edwards that my cause of action for torture, attempted murder etc by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man that he himself unintentionally admitted is automatically meritorious, is a an attempt by me to go to law for my “murder”, yet he then goes on to denounce me in a subsequent page of this gutter press out of the sewer, tongue and cheek ‘legal document’, as “irrational”. UK Attorney General, you are a totally insane and irrational paedophile sow terrorist, show me in which document did any judge ever allege I set out to litigate for “murder”, rather than attempted murders by abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man and unlawful pauperisation.
By committing mockery about my hypothetical murder paedophile sow UK attorney general and prime minister Cameron incited murder against me in a very real and legally actionable manner, as he sent a green light to MI6 et al and to CIA who regularly assassinate ‘targets’ e.g. CBS news reported on 27 may 2010 that Anwar al-Awlaki who is an ethnic Arab American residing in Yemen since 2004, was added to the CIA list for targets for assassination. is lord chief justice Igor judge willing to sign up to such total lawlessness in the jurisdiction he is supposedly judicially responsible for. This incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder with MI6 and CIA in broad daylight in legal documents before high court in London as of November 2009, in the very building in which Igor judge has his office and is in charge of, is unprecedented in western legal history, even in relation to the Anwar al-Awliki case, as he is not in us jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction that has an extradition agreement with us, and it is not the us attorney general that is conducting his case in absentia, but the CIA, and no us federal judge was ever asked to sign any assassination warrant against him in absentia, let alone if he was still domiciled in us. UK Attorney General in his 2009 and 2010 pleadings against me overall stepped beyond the English judicial habit of declaring all crimes legal against me, he celebrated all crimes against me as ‘good deeds’ and actively incited against me more crimes in a way that even the criminally insane English judges in case did not go so far, with the exception of Master Miller and Mr Justice Davis. Indeed, UK Attorney General literally declared that not to commit crimes against me is a vice, UK Attorney General and Prime Minster Cameron declared nuclear war and world war three against me, against the rule of law overall and against common decency and the general public of UK.
Until page 13, UK Attorney General continues his gloating that although the law was on my side objectively since case outset, judges simply declared that I was garbage and all crimes are legal against me and on that basis only dismissed all my applications and actions to date.
In page 13, paragraph 31, UK Attorney General sets out to rely on the following criminal allegations, one entirely false and fraudulent, and false arrests against me even though this is a civil case, hence this case must be dismissed as null and void, all the more so as UK Attorney General will not allow me to speak to a jury.
In subparagraph (1), UK Attorney General refers to my protest at UK Parliament against the judicial bias and corruption in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells that closed UK Parliament for an hour. Yet UK regime refuse to prosecute me for this to date, and thereby admit the judicial theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, yet UK Attorney General thinks this is good mudslinging against me, even though objectively it proves the opposite of what he civilly alleges. Indeed, legally, since I was never convicted of this alleged by him offence he has no right to refer to it, it is entirely inadmissible hearsay in a court of law, even the CPS did not dare refer to this at the first juryless and bogus “malicious communication” (i.e. allegedly sending allegedly false and allegedly distressing emails) hearing against me on 10 May 2010 and/or in writing in that case. Above is rendered more bazaar and criminally insane by UK Attorney General, as this is not a criminal case on the face of it, and he at least should say alleged, but again, legal niceties or indeed the rule of law are not relevant to case.
In subparagraph (2), UK Attorney General paradoxically proves again the law is on my side because he states that on 18 December 2007 I was kidnapped by SHARP and Hogan Lovells with the help of City of London Police to a psychiatric torture facility against a sane man by his admission in case for nearly a year of additional since 2006 torture, injury and attempted murder. UK Attorney General, which part of the Dr Page and Dr Jonathan Michael documents about me, the only two medical documents NHS and you exhibited about me, allow any psychiatrist to touch me, by what right did psychiatrists torture a man you thereby admitted was totally sane since birth to date, by the same ‘legal right’ nuclear insurgents would blow you and all of Whitehall to kingdom come? UK Attorney General admitted thereby I am owed massive compensation from SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime.
In subparagraph (3), UK Attorney General alleges that I committed a “bomb hoax” at the Royal Courts of Justice on 13 January 2010 at the NHS v Shetreet hearing of that date before Mr Justice MacDuff. As UK Attorney General is well aware, I was not prosecuted for bomb hoax, only for “malicious communication” i.e. for allegedly sending allegedly false emails, though it is not clear what can be alleged as false, that the Met Police sent and/or doctored themselves, because sending allegedly false emails does not require a jury, as it is a misdemeanour. It is my understanding that Mr Justice MacDuff told the Met Police they cannot allege bomb hoax against me, as he dealt with my case and hearing on that date. Yet if the content of the emails allegedly sent by me and that the Met Police either forged, doctored or sent themselves, is admitted as legal, then how on earth can the method of sending them be a unlawful? This is an admission of foul play against me by UK Attorney General and Met Police also in above criminal case and by UK Attorney General also in the civil case against me, as I am automatically entitled to compensation for false arrest and perjury committing false and malicious prosecution.
In paragraph 33 page 18, UK Attorney General reached levels of self-parody that even the most criminally insane psychopaths in history never reached. After all their crimes against me, including catastrophically injurious violent crimes, including to date, including by UK regime, including unlawful pauperisation to date and additional attempted murder and additional injury by abuse of psychiatry against a sane man and by denial of the physical medical treatment I need for my injury at age 13 by SHARP that were committed against me since age 13 to date, including by paedophile sow terrorist UK regime, he denounces me for not expressing any “regret” about my protest at UK Parliament that closed it down for an hour, against UK judicial and political corruption, further proven by himself, even though he repeatedly admits that I committed no crime in doing so because he refused to accede to my demands to be prosecuted for this and to speak with a jury in order to protest against the judicial and political corruption against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the rest of the crimes that were committed against me as a consequence by UK regime to date. One would have to turn around the point and ask UK Attorney General, you paedophile sow terrorist, why don’t you feel sorry for your crimes against me? Indeed, when did any of the offenders against me ever express any regret about their crimes against me and offer to pay me any amount in compensation, did UK Attorney General, SHARP and Hogan Lovells? Did they ever agree to pay compensation? In fact, all the offenders against me simply sadistically gloat about their crimes against me to date, just like UK Attorney General.
As of page 13 and paragraph 32 to 36 when UK Attorney General criticises me he engages in truly childish sadistic mockery and even alleges I was “irrational” even though he exhibited the Dr Page report to the opposite effect and THEREBY PROVES THAT HE IS CRIMINALLY INSANE AND PATHOLOGICALLY IRRATIONAL A BILLION TIMES OVER, yet he sets out to render the statements by me that he admits are true as ‘absurd’ or ‘worthy of hatred and ridicule’ but on a number of occasions he actively contradicts himself and even engages in unintentional self-parody and admission of foul play by him against me. Most notably when he lampoons my demand for compensation for unlawful psychiatric detentions of a sane man due to political reasons and in order to torture me to death to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and he then goes on to mention a very partial catalogue of my provocations, such as blackmail, possession of illegal weapons, active preparations and conspiracy to kill him, threats to kill him, protest at UK Parliament that closed it down for an hour etc in order to be prosecuted before a jury, which he refuses to allow to date, despite my escalating provocations to date. Ironically, unless UK Attorney General is truly insane, his above statements prove and admits that the law in shetreet v sharp and Hogan Lovells, NHS v Shetreet and UK Attorney General v Shetreet is so much on my side and that I am owed massive compensation by his own admission, that even if I killed Prime Minster Cameron and UK Attorney General, with pleasure, and all the other mps and peers, with even greater pleasure, and all the judges who declared me vermin and unlawfully pauperised me thereby with even more pleasure, no jury would convict me of anything, as the crimes against me since age 13 to date by SHARP, Hogan Lovells, paedophile sow UK regime et al are so monumentally and cosmically evil and unprovoked other than by the fact the that common decency and the law is on my side, that anything I did as to protest against the crimes against me and my vermin status in UK would be justified as self-defence and provocation. If this is not so, then by all means UK Attorney General, let us all talk and produce evidence about this case before a jury.
Above proves that UK Attorney General committed more fraud and perjury in the concluding paragraphs 36 and 37 and last page of his depraved and criminally insane document when he asserted, without a shred of proof or evidence, in his entire pleadings in case and exhibits, which ironically, as aforementioned proved and admit by him the opposite, especially when UK Attorney General repeatedly accuses me of “blackmail, protest at UK Parliament, bomb hoax at Royal Courts of Justice, possession of illegal weapons, threats to kill UK Attorney General and Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge and many other judges with these weapons” etc, yet he will not prosecute me for this in criminal law, and would not lodge this action either if it required a jury, and expresses his frustration that the law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lvoells, NHS v Shetreet, UK Attorney General v Shetreet, community standards of common decency and public opinion popularity in his own opinion and by his own admission are on my side, that he cannot prosecute me before a jury as the juries will always be with me, and even turn the case around and demand the prosecution of my tormentors paedophile sow Prime Minister Cameron et al and then convict them.
UK Attorney General totally absented from his pleadings and exhibits of any production and/or mention of my 7 May 2010 worst provocation in US and UK legal history email to the US Attorney General CC copied to Warren Gorrell, CEO of Hogan Lovells in Washington DC and for which no one wants to prosecute me for on either side of the Atlantic due to corporate, judicial and political foul play against me and that changed the entire nature of the case, Exhibit 52 and of Exhibit 3, the EU RoHS Directive and ECJ judgement in favour of same that was based on my injury at age 13 by SHARP, already noted above, and the absence also of Exhibit 8 or any comment about same, the 2009 forensic translation by me of the 2005 SHARP and Hogan Lovells advertorial against me that proves the law was always on my side, and like absence of any comment about or exhibit of Exhibit 6, the 6 June 2005 transcript of the summary judgement in my favour by Master Miller before he was unlawfully prevailed upon by foul play to call himself a liar and alter against me his judgement on 23 June 2005, even though I copied this and all my other exhibits up to that date to UK Attorney General in August 2009 further proves the point. Nor did UK Attorney General mention that the CPS refused to disclose any of the evidence they are allegedly relying on in relation to the “malicious communication” false charge until late June 2010, until after I they and Met Police sectioned me and held a hearing in absentia so that I could not deny that I sent these emails and tell the judge that it was the Met Police who sent those emails by imitating my writing style and pretending to be me, that in March and April 2010 both IPCC judged in my favour v Met Police re the abuse of psychiatry against a sane man and that on 23 April 2010 Simon J judged that I was always a sane man and was tortured by UK regime in order to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells.
The June 2010 retroactive “redaction” of pages 11 and 12 of the November 2009 witness statement of UK Attorney General is most unusual, perhaps unprecedented, reeks of desperation, despotism, cover-up of fraud, perjury, torture and multiple foul play against me since age, and further brings into focus the criminally insane premise and nature of this action and begs the question, if UK Attorney General admits foul play to a degree that he is forced to withdraw much of his evidence and facts relied on in his 2009 pleading and exhibits and is even forced to lie about this by alleging that it was due to a court order that was in force in 2009 as well before he sued me, rather than due to an unintentional admission by him of foul play by relying on the Dr Page and Dr Michael medical documents about me, and only on those two medical documents that prove the law is on my side overall, including in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and due to the Simon J 23 April 2010 that further proved the law is on my side by rejecting my trick ‘insanity plea’, so why does he not withdraw the action as a whole with a public apology and payment of compensation?
Despite all the unlawful in a civil case, incitement, even to murder against me, criminal allegations without any such proceedings, self-contradiction, outright fraud, perjury, fraud by concealment, irrationality, total contempt for common decency and the rule of law, on a number of points UK Attorney General went beyond that and literally declared that even terrorism with strategic nuclear weapons should be deployed against London as a whole by him in order to murder me with impunity if it would not involve so much ‘collateral damage’.
UK Attorney General does not disclose in his pleadings at any point that both he, SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS and all branches and arms of UK regime, even Ministry of Justice, even Court of Appeal Civil Division, even Met Police and City of London Police who also unlawfully detained Shetreet, refused to comply with my DPA disclosure requests repeatedly since case/s outset, and that UK Attorney General even invited me in his exhibited response (folder 1A) to sue him to force disclosure. This is the equivalent of a criminal who admits foul play against his victim when he is a defendant and/or claimant or both in a civil case, yet demands that his victim be judicially murdered also by unlawful pauperisation after he admits that if he discloses the information required of him he would both lose the civil case and be criminally prosecuted and convicted and possibly spend the rest of his life in prison, which is an extraordinary statement to make.
In paragraph 32, subparagraph (8), page 15, and subparagraph (16) UK Attorney General complains that I am conspiring to kill him and am in possession of illegal weapons, and in subparagraph (18) he states the same of my intentions regarding Hogan Lovells, and in subparagraph (21) and paragraph 33, page 18, he states these are “no idle threats” of violence.
Would any US Attorney General or an Attorney General of any self-respecting jurisdiction complain in a pleading to a court that he is fearful of his life of assassination / self-defence by a party he is suing against whom he makes repeated criminal accusations made as proven facts, not allegations, yet he will not prosecute him, he will not let him speak with a jury in any circumstance because he personally and his entire regime have committed so may crimes against this person. I cannot imagine this, this must be the worst humiliation any UK Attorney General has suffered. The US Attorney General is also involved in case and he too is not agreeable to extradite me for my many provocations to him by email, but he at least is not civilly suing me as well in order to harm me.
In UK there is no respect for the rule of law whatever by the ruling class and even and especially by the judges, partly because there is no written constitution like the French and US have since the 18th Century, so the ruling class of UK think that anything they want and say is ‘the law’ and if they don’t like someone, even though the law is on his side, contrary to Magna Carta that they think is used toilet paper with the rule of law overall, they can simply declare him vermin against whom all crimes, even nuclear terrorism are legal. A good example of this is that in May 2010, an MP and cabinet minister, David Laws, was forced to admit that he paid “rent” to his ‘rent boy’ (rude UK slang for male prostitute), i.e. high priced male prostitute or male concubine in this case, for sexual services rendered, yet he had the audacity to call this salary to his full time male prostitute “rent” and call his male prostitute/concubine his “partner” (since when do female wives for example pay ‘rent’ to their male husbands or the other way around) and charge the regime for the salary for his male prostitute/concubine as a political expense and thereby embezzled money from the taxpayers who were forced to pay a salary to his male prostitute/concubine for sexual services rendered unto David Laws, for years before the outrage stopped. Yet all criminally insane Prime Minister Cameron had to say about this to the news media was, “David Laws, you are a good and honourable man...”, instead of, ‘you are a criminal and you will be prosecuted to the limit of the law, also for misconduct in public office, and you could be convicted and sentenced by a jury to life imprisonment for this, as UK law allows’. Both standards of legality and common decency are infinitely ‘flexible’ with UK ruling class and thereby nonexistent, they are all paedophile sow terrorists and murderous prostitutes who also employ common co-prostitutes of both genders. Even nuclear terrorism is permissible and legal and even commendable in their political and High Court judicial opinion, if it advanced some interest of theirs, this is how depraved and boundlessly ruthless they are, all of them. Many or most UK male politicians are in the closet and pay male prostitutes for sexual services rendered just like David Laws, but the real male prostitutes are all the UK politicians themselves, and Prime Minister Cameron is the biggest depraved and loathsome political male prostitute and political pimp of them all. This document will be incorporated in my online press release, I hereby challenge Prime Minister Cameron to publicly dispute above and all other statements in my press release and prosecute me for perjury for stating these statements, prosecute me before a jury, not a totally corrupt typical English judge and de facto politician and contract killer.
The entire premise of the UK Attorney General in this action is that the law is on side of Shetreet, but I hate him and want to murder him by unlawful pauperisation and I can get my way because UK Attorney General hereby asserts that all English judges are gangsters not judges and will go along with this murder, because there are no juries in UK civil cases, and we the executive branch of the regime and the judiciary who are not independent in relation to Shetreet will be able to rely on this mere expression of hatred when all the evidence, even the evidence relied on by UK Attorney General, is in favour of Shetreet due to the absence of a jury, in order to thereby continue to abrogate the rule of law.
Attention Lord Chief Justice Igor judge, in his action against me based on total contempt for the rule of law and common decency, UK attorney general is paying you Igor Judge and entire RCJ judiciary the most dubious compliment in UK history, he is saying that you will approve his application against me because according to him all RCJ judges and Igor judge have the same lack of respect for the rule of law, truth and common decency of paedophile serial murderers, take heed Igor judge, do you agree with his very good opinion of you in that he asserts that you are as depraved and criminal as he is?
Tarry paedophile sow terrorists against me since age 13 UK Attorney General and Prime Minister Cameroon (Shakespearean English, reference to the Merchant of Venice, courtroom scene, when Shylock is told the law is not on his side after all, and that he cannot sadistically exact a pound of flesh from his intended victim but on pain of death), but why all the hatred against the vulnerable and innocent victim of the all the unprovoked, including violent crimes in this case as of age 13 who despite all the gutter press style invective by UK Attorney General, never harmed, defrauded, pauperised, destroyed the livelihood etc of anyone, unlike SHARP, Hogan Lovells, UK Attorney General and all others who totally destroyed my health and life, repeatedly injured, disfigured and disabled, defrauded, pauperised, tortured etc me since age 13 to date, why all the malice and hatred, and why direct your foul play against such a vulnerable invalid, why not go after someone who is powerful enough to obtain hired assassins to go after you, David Cameron et al and inflict upon your just deserts in such a way that you would wish you were already dead.
UK Attorney General, in your action, which is based on nothing more than incitement, even to murder, mockery of the crimes against me and of my suffering and mudslinging, you allege that I am the most hate worthy person that ever lived and therefore deserved all the crimes against him since age 13 to date and deserves far worse still until he is unlawfully pauperised and tortured to death and murdered. However, if I am so naturally hate worthy and detestable why not put me in front of a jury who would agree with you if this were so. Is it not the opposite, is it not that you terrorist UK regime et al are ruthless criminals who merit hatred, and not I your longsuffering victim.
Insanely, UK Attorney General wishes to rely on common law that has nothing in common with this case rather than evidence specific to this case, which could have been used in the 2009 Hodgson case to attempt to oppose the Hodgson appeal on an arbitrary basis, and to say that once a false conviction is in force it must never be set aside no matter how strong the proof of innocence, as any appeal is always vexatious no matter how strong the forensic objective evidence and proof of innocence, which is what is being argued in this case, but was not done for obvious reasons in the Hodgson case, most importantly because Hodgson was of no political interest to anyone and he was not the target of a political sabotage, injury and murder campaign as of age 13, and because guilt or innocence in such cases is not determined by common law but by the case by case forensic evidence – AND THIS MOST CERTAINLY APPLIES TO THIS CASE AS WELL. Moreover, by way of just one small example, did even one of the common law cases he relies on involve a litigant in respect of whom entire UK regime and all the parties that he sued or were sued by him refused to date to comply with DPA disclosure laws in respect of him, even though on the face of it, Shetreet is not a VIP, a current and/or former civil servant of any jurisdiction or any kind of employee of UK regime or any other regime, he is not a spy, not an organised criminal etc, but a severe unemployable and totally socially isolated thereby socially mute invalid and pauper since age 13, so why not disclose unless this is on grounds that civil liabilities and self-incrimination by disclosure would occur upon disclosure, which concealment by fraud, noncompliance with DPA and nondisclosure are even the positions of UK Ministry of Justice and Court of Appeal Civil Division and entire HM Courts Service, of FCO and MI6, MI5, Cabinet Office that includes 10 Downing St, Met Police, FTAC, NHS, City of London Police, and even of the UK Attorney General himself who had the audacity to refuse to comply TO DATE with Shetreet’s DPA request in March 2009. Yet the UK Attorney General had the audacity to go to High Court to sue Shetreet in November 2009, yet still without any compliance to date with above and the subsequent DPA disclosure requests of Shetreet to UK Attorney General of 2009 and of 2010 directly relevant to case and Shetreet’s ability to defend the UK Attorney General action against him.
Formal application to Admin Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division: UK Attorney General, SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster and NHS Brent, City of London Police, Met Police, Ministry of Justice, FCO, MI6 and MI5 must comply with my DPA disclosure requests that I lodged in 2009 and in case of SHARP and Hogan Lovells in 2004, again in 2009 and 2010, or the UK Attorney General case must be withdrawn by Court order. In addition, if UK Attorney General is not prepared to prosecute me before a jury immediately and adjourn the civil hearing after the criminal case at the Old Bailey for his many criminal accusations against me in his 2010 pleading that were stated by him as supposed facts, not allegations, and for my far worse provocations as of March 2010 by calling myself the White West European Ambassador of Al Qaeda, inciting the killing of regime politicians etc, then he again admits the law is on my side and he must withdraw his case. In addition, if UK Attorney General is not prepared to reinstate NHS v Shetreet and the documents by Dr Page and Dr Michal, plus a memo about the 23 April 2010 Simon J judgement that rejected my trick ‘insanity plea’ and caused UK Attorney General to panic and withdraw all of NHS v Shetreet, because MI6 et al would not allow him to withdraw the action as a whole as a flat earth theory nonsense, because Simon J also judged by above judgement in favour of the fact that the merit of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells is not a “delusion” – that UK Attorney General admitted himself when he exhibited the Dr Page report about me incorporated in NHS v Shetreet, then he must withdraw all of his action against me, as Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS v Shetreet and UK Attorney General are materially and procedurally inseparable and because NHS v Shetreet. In above application I am relying on the UK Parliamentary expense accounts political corruption and depravity scandal that even caused the prosecution of a number of MPs, and would not have occurred if an American journalist domiciled in London had not issued at Information Tribunal an action against UK Parliament after UK Parliament repeatedly refused to comply with her FOIAs, just as UK regime, SHARP and Hogan Lovells refused to comply with my DPAs and FOIAs to date, and UK Parliament even attempted to have her deported but was unable to do so due to her dual nationality legal status due to her British parentage, which is equivalent to the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man and the abuse of civil law against me by NHS and UK Attorney General in order to destroy and ultimately murder me thereby. I believe the disclosures in relation to me are of public interest, as they would expose far worse corruption. I further apply that Admin Court issue an order forcing UK Attorney General to issue an order of null prosecution, which he has the power to do, in relation to the “malicious communication” charges against me, as UK Attorney General admitted several times over and stated in his 2010 pleading as fact, not allegation, that he believes me to be a very dangerous man and that my threats are not idle and that I did commit blackmail, that I will do all I can to realise my threats to kill him and other UK officials that I did commit the protest at UK Parliament he complains of repeatedly but will not prosecute me for this, and therefore my alleged threats by alleged emails by me allegedly could not have been false emails, but very real, very true, very credible in his opinion threats and blackmail by me, and therefore there is no case to answer for malicious communication, i.e. sending false emails, only much higher charges at the Old Bailey before a jury and a courtroom full of journalists. This means UK Attorney General owes me compensation for false arrest and malicious perjury committing prosecution and fraud by concealment in that prosecution and he has no civil case against me either for that reason as well and must be ordered to withdraw his civil action against me as well. I also apply that the 2009 Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells ECRO extension order be set aside with prejudice with all other High Court orders in case due to the reliance by SHARP and Hogan Lovells on electronic communications, including a web form that anyone could have posted and that they sent themselves in my name by commission of indentify fraud, which foul play was an admission by them that the law was always on my side, and due to the perjury in case outset by SHARP and Hogan Lovells before Morison J at UK court, as aforementioned. See also Exhibit 196 below, that proves additional identity fraud by SHARP and Hogan Lovells against me at High Court in April 2010 that proved further the identity fraud by them in case in May-July 2009). In above applications I also seek to rely on below exhibits. 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, quotation from the article, “However, despite the disclosure of thousands of pages of evidence before the beginning of the proceedings, more material continued to emerge. While praising Customs for its efforts to learn from earlier cases that have collapsed due to non-disclosure, the judge said that in this case the system had failed “to produce the degree of efficient, exhaustive disclosure that a case of this extreme complexity and massive scale demands”. Exhibit 208_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 v Shetreet, quotation from the article, ‘Judge hits at OFT failures as airline fraud trial collapses...But the judge pointed out that it would be an “astonishing prospect if the prosecution seek to rely on tampering of documents to make their case”’. Above proves that because SHARP, Hogan Lovells, UK Attorney General who incorporated Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells in his exhibits and pleadings, and Met Police in relation to the allegedly false, i.e. “malicious” emails charge, set out to rely on altered documents, identity fraud communications that were actually sent by SHARP and Hogan Lovells to other parties in May 2009 or in July 2009 and by the Met Police in late 2009 and January 2010. In his pleadings against me, UK Attorney General alleges that a “professional litigator” would not have undertaken some of my civil actions, which is not true, as if judges had not declared me vermin against whom all crimes are legal, all my legal actions would have been immediately successful, yet considering that UK Attorney General refused to comply with my early 2009 DPA disclosure request, before he sued me in later that year, as did SHARP and Hogan Lovells since case outset, as did all branches and arms of UK regime, even the Ministry of Justice, because disclosure would be an admission of case automatically and would also cause criminal proceedings against SHARP , Hogan Lovells, UK Attorney General et al, and SHARP and Hogan Lovells only dared defend case by admitting to the judges they have no legal defence, only a workplace political one, and that is that out of class solidarity the English judges must declare me vermin against whom all crimes are legal, precisely because they have no defence, and that NHS and UK Attorney General would have never even dared bring their action against me if a status quo had not already been established by UK judiciary that all UK judges must deem me vermin against whom all crimes are legal, even torture and ultimately murder, and certainly fraud and fraud by concealment and noncompliance with DPA and FOIA and nondisclosure. Moreover, above nondisclosure proves that SHARP and Hogan Lovells would not have defended the case and that NHS and UK Attorney General would not have sued me if a jury could have been empanelled to hear the case.
23 July 2010 Under statement of truth, Elad Shetreet
_____________________________________________________________________
7. Pasted document
Forward to pasted document below: See also below, 1B list of exhibits, Exhibit
198. IPCC is the acronym for Independent
Police Complaints Commission, and is a UK
governmental body with a de facto judicial function and status in relation to
misconduct and foul play by police officials and/or forces in UK.
The below IPCC judgement was issued on 24 March 2010 (“February”
mentioned below is a typo, the document was actually emailed and posted on 24
March 2010), even though the police foul play complained of commenced in 2007
and even 2006 and is ongoing to date, and the IPCC decision was delayed by
malicious delay tactics by the Met Police, FTAC and City of London Police to
date.
IPCC Assessment of Failure To Notify Or Record A Complaint Appeal
|
DETAILS OF APPEAL |
|
|
IPCC Reference: |
2007/002910 |
|
Name of complainant: |
Mr Elad Shetreet |
|
Name of solicitor / agent (if any): |
Not Applicable |
|
Name of force: |
Metropolitan Police |
|
Date of complaint: |
24th February 2007 |
|
Date of force decision: |
10th April 2007 |
|
Date appeal received: |
28th May 2009 |
|
Casework Manager: |
Neil Jasper |
|
1. The complaint: On 24th February 2007, Mr Elad Shetreet made a complaint to the Metropolitan Police in an e-mail. He alleged that police officers had made fraudulent claims about him to Mental Health services, so that he would be sectioned and thus prevented from bringing a civil case against the Metropolitan Police. Mr Shetreet stated that the police had falsely accused him of sexual harassment and convinced Mental Health services in Brent to section him. He believed that the police arranged for him to be incarcerated for purely political reasons. |
|
2. The appeal (grounds given etc): On 28th May 2009, Mr Shetreet wrote to the IPCC. He stated that he had never received any response to the complaint that he had made in 2007 about the Metropolitan Police and FTAC (the Fixed Threat Assessment Centre). Therefore, he lodged an appeal against the force for failing to respond to his complaint. |
|
APPEAL FINDINGS |
|
1. Did the force / authority fail to make a decision? The force or authority must make a decision whether they are the appropriate authority for the complaint within 10 days The background documents that I have received from the Metropolitan Police show that they responded to Mr Shetreet’s complaint. DI Glenn Tunstall wrote a letter to Mr Shetreet on 10th April 2007 to inform him that the police were not recording his complaint. However, this letter was sent to the Park Royal Detention Centre. Mr Shetreet was detained at this location on 24th February 2007, when he made his complaint. However, the papers on our files reveal that he was released from the detention facility on 19th March 2007, following a decision from the UK Mental Health Tribunal. Therefore, DI Tunstall’s letter was sent to the Park Royal Detention Centre after Mr Shetreet left it; he did not receive the response. In the IPCC’s manuals, casework managers are advised to check whether forces have made reasonable efforts to contact a complainant at the correct address, considering, for example, whether the complainant may or may not be in custody at the time of attempted contact. Therefore, I must conclude that the Metropolitan Police did not make a decision within ten days, and that decision was not communicated to Mr Shetreet. The IPCC’s guidance states that, if a complainant is not informed about the non-recording of his complaint and his right of appeal, then his appeal will be in time no matter how much time has passed since the decision was made. Therefore, I must conclude that this appeal is not out of time. Summary Appeal Assessment: Upheld |
|
2. Did the force / authority fail to notify the appropriate authority? If a complaint is made to an incorrect force or authority they are obliged to forward the matter onto the appropriate authority Mr Elad Shetreet did not send his complaint to an incorrect force or authority. Therefore, this ground of appeal does not apply to this case. Summary Appeal Assessment: Not Upheld |
|
3. Should the matter raised have been recorded as a complaint? As DI Tunstall stated in his letter of 10th April 2007, a public complaint is defined in the Police Reform Act and it is “any complaint about the conduct of a person serving with the police. It may be about, for example, behaviour, inappropriate language, actions or omissions.” However, I cannot agree with DI Tunstall’s view that clear allegations of misconduct cannot be indentified in Mr Shetreet’s original complaint. As the letter mentioned, Mr Shetreet was alleging that police officers had made fraudulent claims about Mr Shetreet to Mental Health services; this is a complaint about the actions of people serving with the police. DI Tunstall may have investigated this allegation and found that the evidence did not support it, but that would be a reason not to substantiate the matter. Complaints should be recorded on the basis of what is being alleged, rather than whether the evidence supports the claim. As a result, I must conclude that Mr Shetreet’s complaint should have been recorded. Summary Appeal Assessment: Upheld |
|
4. Has the complainant raised any points outside what the IPCC can consider? If any points have been raised which are outside of the appeal, they should be acknowledged here. No. |
On the basis of this assessment I have decided to uphold the appeal.
|
ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE/AUTHORITY |
|
As a result of my conclusions above, I must direct that the Metropolitan Police should record Mr Shetreet’s complaint of 24th February 2007, and reply to the complaint, sending any letter to Mr Shetreet’s current address. |
___________________________________________________________________
8. Pasted document
|
|
|
Data Access and Compliance Unit Information Directorate 1st Floor, Zone 1C Post point 1.41 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ T 0203 334 3250 F 0203 334 2245 E data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk www.justice.gov.uk |
|
|
|
Elad Shetreet
|
|
|
|
|
Our Ref: 58521 |
|
24/03/09 |
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
1st 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
_____________________________________________________________________
9. pasted document
Forward to pasted document below: Exhibit 200 and 156.3_see also Exhibits 42.4
139 163 172 176 192 193 Lovells homepage no longer allowed to advertise they
are acting for the European Union evidently following dismissal of Lovells by
EU due to recent complaints by email by Shetreet to the Competition
Commissioner v Lovells and posting of hostile disclaimer by the EU website on
the only legal document by Lovells not purged by EU from the EU website
Above sanctions by the EU against Lovells is equivalent to an ECJ criminal conviction of 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 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 Lovells / Hogan Lovells, copied to Admin Court and High Court re the two pending cases there and the 23 April 2010 hearing:
Dear Sirs
Re: DPA disclosure demand to SHARP and Hogan Lovells to be complied with before the 23 April 2010 High Court hearing, served by email on the global and European managing partners of Hogan Lovells in Washington and London, respectively, CC emailed to High Court and the Admin Court and to the Court of Appeal Civil Division as an application to reopen my case and copied to the EU Competition Commissioner
Please disclose immediately why the EU recently prohibited you from continuing to advertise on the homepage of your website that you are retained by the EU, why the EU purged all documents by Lovells on their behalf but one from their website, and that one document that was not purged is alleged by the EU to have been co-authored by an additional law firm, and why even this one document that was not totally purged, only had its authorship altered was preceded by a hostile disclaimer by the EU, and why the EU evidently terminated all business dealings with Lovells / Hogan Lovells – is it because of my recent complaint by emails to the Competition Commissioner who was the EU decision maker re Lovells at the EU? Did the EU impose sanctions and de facto criminally convict Hogan Lovells due to your criminal offences against me in Israel, UK and beyond since age 13 to date? If you allege the EU renounced and rejected you in such robust terms, literally retroactively, for reasons ‘other than Shetreet case’ – pray tell which are they, and would the Competition Commissioner be willing to issue to High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division in London a witness statement supporting your fraudulent denial, if you would dare deny, that the EU renounced you due to your and SHARP’s crimes against me since age 13 to date, including the procurement of judicially fraudulent judgements and orders at High Court in London by corporate fraud and perjury and violation of judicial independence by procurement of political pressure against the English judiciary procured by bribes to UK politicians.
Under statement of truth, Elad Shetreet _____________________________________________________________________
10. Pasted document
Forward to below pasted document:
Most unlawful judgement and order in Western history that declared all crimes, including paedophile rape and murder and nuclear terrorism, legal under Shetreet v SHARP and Lovells common law. Moreover, per above exhibits, 196 and 205, this judgement and order was obtained by electronic communications to third law firms that were sent by SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and were not admissible as communications proven to be from Shetreet.
An ECRO, as mentioned in below transcript, is the acronym for Extended Civil Restraint Order that bars its target from going to law without permission, which was never given to Shetreet since the ECRO was perpetrated in 2004, not even when Shetreet sought habeas corpus from unlawful psychiatric detentions, torture, injury and attempted murders, and which in this case was thereby abused by SHARP, Lovells and UK et al regimes to declare that Shetreet was vermin against whom all crimes by all parties worldwide were legal.
Mr Justice David Steel, who is a Mossad sayan agent, was more executive minded than the executive, i.e. than politicians and their civil servants and secret agents, in this case, as were all the other judges who committed judicial crimes on behalf of SHARP, Lovells and UK et al regimes. Therefore, this case about broader political corruption of the entire system in the UK, US, EU and thereby the West as a whole, rather than of judicial corruption of one or just a few judges in one instance in one jurisdiction.
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION INTERIM |
|
Royal Courts of Justice
Wednesday, 15th 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,
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
11. Pasted document
Forward to pasted document: Below document was served by email in March 2009 on both SHARP and Hogan Lovells and on the UK Attorney General, as it was served on all the judged who dealt with Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet, yet none of above parties dared mention one word about its contents, not even to dispute this document by one word. This document was also posted on the internet by Shetreet, without any response. SHARP and Hogan Lovells also did not defend the libel, fraud etc part of case in 2004/5 and since, they simply demanded that Shetreet be declared vermin against whom all crimes are legal because they never had any defence for case overall since global outset in London and Israel in 1994 at Hogan Lovells in London, who were the first lawyers to deal with case also in Israel since outset.
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
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. 13th 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 _____________________________________________________________________
12. Quotation from Exhibits 185 from the Independent, a UK national daily newspaper (I do not have access to any legal library or a subscription legal website, I have to rely therefore on the internet including online archives of newspapers for my legal research), about the 2005 dismissal of the most costly fraud trial in UK history due to incomplete disclosure only, by the Customs, CPS and UK Attorney General, not total nondisclosure and radical fraud by concealment and perjury by commission by the Crown, as was perpetrated against me by SHARP, Lovells and UK regime in all the civil and UK MHRT mental health court cases and civil and unlawful psychiatric detention hearings I was a party to in UK, and likewise fraud and concealment in all the civil cases I was a party to in Israel (by contingent fee legal representation in Israel only):
Statement of the trial judge quoted by the press - “despite the disclosure of thousands of pages of evidence before the beginning of the proceedings, more material continued to emerge. While praising Customs for its efforts to learn from earlier cases that have collapsed due to non-disclosure, the judge said that in this case the system had failed ‘to produce the degree of efficient, exhaustive disclosure that a case of this extreme complexity and massive scale demands’. The judge referred specifically to his embarrassment that further material had come to light after he had personally assured the defence that everything had been disclosed.”
When did any UK judge at RCJ ever ‘assure’ me of compliance with the rule of law, they always consistently judged that I was vermin, and not only nondisclosure and fraud by concealment and active perjuries by commission by all relevant corporate and state parties in respect of me, who all refused to comply with my DPA and FOIA disclosure requests to date, but all crimes, even of violence and attempted murder and ultimately murder are legal against me.
Evidently that judge did not believe that all crimes are
legal, not even against defendants in criminal actions, let alone defrauded and
injured as of age 13 and murderously tortured in UK by UK claimants in civil
actions such as Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and NHS Westminster v
Shetreet and counterclaim
13. Substantive and procedural outline of Shetreet v Sharp Corporation and SHARP group of companies importers in Israel that traded as “SHARP”, at Tel Aviv District Court from 1996 to 2004 and 2004/5 Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronic (UK) Ltd and Hogan Lovells, at High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division in London, without any trial, that was unlawfully dismissed with an ECRO active to date without any production of evidence, without any compliance with disclosure laws by all the defendants in case worldwide to date, and without any permission to appeal, due to corporate, judicial and political foul play, perjury, fraud, bribery etc, UNTIL OCTOBER 2005 ONLY - see above and below paragraphs for post-2005 substantive, procedural, criminal and political extreme international developments: At age 13 Elad Shetreet was catastrophically chronically injured, disabled and disfigured by a defective toxic Sharp Corporation product. Above injury was forensically proven by the leading and most peer reviewed published and cited professors of flame retardants toxicology and environmental science in the world (Profs Jacob de Boer, Larry W Robertson and Mufit Bahadir), and the forensic proof was peer reviewed published in Organohalogen Compounds, and in Chemosphere, the most prestigious international peer reviewed academic toxicology journal, published by Elsevier Science. The case commenced in 1994. Sharp Corporation and Lovells in London who had global case conduct since case outset initially issued an exhibited fraudulent “settlement offer”, in retrospect in order to delay and sabotage potential proceedings and “purchase” the defective and injurious SHARP product involved, so that it could not be tested, however this was not complied with and more forensics were undertaken. In 1996, litigation on behalf of Shetreet conducted by a personal injury law firm on a contingent fee basis exclusively commenced v Sharp Corporation and its two Israeli importers that traded as “SHARP”, at the Tel Aviv District Court. After SHARP lost their appeal against Shetreet ’s contingent fee lawyers, fair and square, SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London then decided to evade proceedings by bribery of politicians and intimidation of politicians and judges, as afore and below mentioned including by overthrow of President of Israel Ezer Weizman in 2000 by Hanina Brandes, perjury and fraud, by taking political advantage of their conditional on case outcome orders from the Israel IT export industry, which is why Hanina Brandes, the leader of the Israel IT export industry and entrepreneur in his own right, one of whose companies is listed on NASDAQ and its parent company is registered in Delaware under his name, agreed to represent SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London in this case in Israel. SHARP and Hogan Lovells then evaded both service of domestic proceedings in Israel and of service out of jurisdiction on their head-office in Japan. SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London even fraudulently alleged and thereby committed perjuries to the courts in Israel that Hanina Brandes had only “limited power of attorney” and that he was therefore not obliged to accept service of proceedings, yet when proceedings continued in London in 2004, Hanina Brandes also alleged that he represented co-defendant in London Sharp UK and Hogan Lovells in their exhibited 2004 application witness statement, which means that Hanina Brandes and SHARP were served in legal reality both in Israel and in London and that fraud and perjury was committed in case both in Israel and in London as of the very first pleading and hearing in London and that default judgments in favour of Shetreet should have been forthcoming both in London and Israel had the case been heard on its merits, without politically motivated abrogation of the rule of law. SHARP and Hogan Lovells also alleged in the courts in Israel and thereby committed perjuries that their co-defendant daughter companies and importers could also not be served on an even more arbitrary, political and unlawful basis. In addition, SHARP deregistered their criminally convicted of tax fraud and money laundering original importer in Israel that traded as “SHARP”, M Prossman Ltd, after the claim was issued on behalf of Shetreet so that Shetreet could get nothing in compensation from an insolvent and criminally convicted SHARP dummy company and so that the SHARP importer could not be domestically served with proceedings, which would have forced it to serve SHARP in Japan under Israel product liability law and by contract. In addition, SHARP demanded on an entirely arbitrary basis that their second dummy company importer that trades to date as “SHARP” and is web addressed at www.sharp.co.il be deleted as a co-defendant, even though Israel product liability law requires that the importer be served and determines co-liability and even primary liability by the importer within jurisdiction, as liability within jurisdiction is seen in Israel as more important than out of jurisdiction. In Israel it is emphasised, Shetreet was represented by personal injury lawyers on a contingent fee basis only and he never visited or appeared in any court or hearing in relation to Shetreet v SHARP, no production of evidence was permitted by SHARP, no compliance with disclosure laws by the defendants occurred and no trial ever took place in case, worldwide to date, not even in respect of libel, as SHARP and Hogan Lovells refused to sue Shetreet, Elsevier Science, Sky News, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission and all other relevant parties for stating my injury at age 13 by SHARP as proven fact, not allegation, and as aforementioned and exhibited, Shetreet’s own libel claims in London were unlawfully nullified and/or simply placed on a “Stay” and rendered frozen but pending to date. In 2001, Shetreet moved to London for reasons unconnected with case, and in 2004, when case was ultimately evaded in Israel by bribery of politicians who then pressurised the judges, Shetreet commenced proceedings at the High Court in London v Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd primarily for multinational corporate bribery, fraud and perjury rather than for personal injury. In response, Sharp UK and Hogan Lovells then committed massive fraud and perjury and alleged that Sharp Corporation was not served, even though they relied on Hanina Brandes in their witness statement, even though he only represented Sharp Corporation, not Sharp UK; alleged there was no jurisdiction in UK and that Sharp Corporation was a “Japanese company” only, even though Sharp Corporation was listed until 2007 in Paris, Swiss and Luxembourg and delisted there only in order to evade jurisdiction in this case, and there was therefore automatic jurisdiction in UK under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions of pan-West European jurisdiction incorporated in UK law and CPR, to date, as the delisting was part of an organised criminal fraud and conspiracy to murder; alleged that Sharp UK was not liable because it was not really an active part of SHARP group, just a “distributor to the high street”, even though Sharp UK manufactures for and shares with the rest of SHARP group made and outsourced products and components and SHARP group overall is worth billions of pounds in UK, and revealingly, in early 2006, Sharp UK moved its headquarters from Manchester, one of the least expensive parts of UK to be based in and conduct business in, and where it used to sponsor Manchester United Football Club, to near Heathrow airport, one of the most expensive parts of UK to conduct business in, in order to facilitate travel by SHARP executives from Japan, mainland Europe and worldwide and from Hogan Lovells to Sharp UK in respect of this very case that evidently has consumed large amounts of executive SHARP time since 2004 to date; alleged that Shetreet sued them in London for precisely the same personal injury cause of action he attempted to sue them in Israel, and that they should be de facto rewarded for evading his case by bribery, fraud and perjury in Israel, because in London they alleged, the personal injury was allegedly “time-barred”, even though this is nothing of the sort, under UK Limitation Act s 32 – postponement in fraud, s LA 28 – not time limitation for persons under a mental disability since their injury, and under the same common law by which criminal defendants who escape from prison or do not return for their bail appearance or hearing and thereby abscond within and/or to another jurisdiction, before or after conviction, are not allowed to benefit from a time limitation defence even in respect of the original charge when they are caught, as time is frozen since they absconded from prison and/or bail conditions, and this is the case internationally, hence the UK-US Extradition Treaty explicitly excludes any time defence. The only part of SHARP and Hogan Lovells exhibited 2004/5 defence that was not blatant perjury was sadistic mockery of Shetreet , his injury, disability, poverty, lack of legal representation in UK (to date, due to the political complications of case as of 2004, which made contingent fee representation impossible), and called upon the court to punish Shetreet for their crimes against him as of age 13, and purely out of judicial malice declare Shetreet vermin against whom all crimes are legal since age 13 and for the rest of his life. On 13 April 2005, Shetreet added the 4 February 2005 SHARP, including Sharp UK, advertorial that they published about him in Maariv in Israel that was also legally actionable as libel, infringement of copyright and invasion of privacy in respect of the partially nude medico-legal photos that Shetreet exhibited at High Court in London in 2004 and that SHARP and Hogan Lovells published without permission, and in which SHARP gloated and admitted injuring and defrauding Shetreet in Israel and “London” and sadistically gloated about limb-amputating Shetreet , and thereby admitted and proved the case as a whole, including in relation to most timely fraud. The advertorial part of claim was so timely and meritorious that it was never defended nor mentioned by as much as one word in any of the equally fraudulent judgments and/or defence pleadings to date, not even in the July 2009 SHARP and Lovells pleadings, nor in the 15 December 2009 unlawful and fraudulent decision of Lord Justice Buxton. SHARP and Hogan Lovells refused to comply with both my 2004 and 2009 DPA disclosure requests that companies must also abide by (companies are only immune from FOIA, not DPA in UK), since before the first English judgement was made out, to date, and likewise refused to comply to date with the January 2005 High Court in London disclosure order in my favour, which means that by UK legal definition all English judgements and orders in case were obtained by fraudulent concealment, nondisclosure and active perjury. Above exemplifies the totally lawless, hostile and barbaric judicial atmosphere against me from outset, whereby my neurological, neuro-visual and intellectual disability that was induced by SHARP at age 13 and by deliberate contract by both SHARP and Hogan Lovells at age 24 was taken advantage of by both SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the judges. On 6 June 2005, after two rule of law nullifying judgements against me, Master Miller judged in my favour on exhibited transcript (Exhibit 6). However, after the hearing, outside of the courtroom, in and just outside of the court building, he attempted to extort from me a kickback from the forthcoming compensation order. Because I thought that bribery of judges was illegal in UK, I did not continue the conversation. At the next hearing, at Masters chambers, on 23 June 2005, Master Miller even became maniacal towards me and violently gesticulated against me at very close distance without provocation. He then had to ‘prematurely retire’ from the judiciary. The next judge to deal with the case, Mr Justice Davis stated that the law was on my side but that I should be punished for what Master Miller perpetrated out of personal solidarity, in order to cover-up Miller M’s misconduct at the expense of the destruction of my life, and he unlawfully nullified my human medico-legal status and declared that I was vermin against whom all crimes are legal since age 13 and for the rest of his life and on that basis he unlawfully nullified and unlawfully dismissed my case and imposed on me an ECRO baring me all right to go to law on the basis that I was vermin and all crimes are legal against me. The malicious Davis J even gloated at the hearing, “you will burn alive with pain” (due to continued lack of access to the dermatological treatment I need for that aspect of my clinically multiple injury at age 13 by SHARP), “you will be buried alive in destitution, and you will hang on to life by the barest of threads”. Davis J even alleged case had to be dismissed to punish me for making “allegations of fraud” about his friends SHARP and Hogan Lovells, yet how could this be otherwise, as my claim was about fraud, primarily. Davis J essentially stated that I was vermin and all crimes lawful against me. Satanic Davis J then destroyed the sound recording to prevent the production of any transcript, and SHARP and Hogan Lovells submitted to the Court of Appeal Civil Division a falsified ‘transcript’/”notes of judgement” to the Court of Appeal Civil Division. However, in 2007 they submitted a falsified ‘transcript’ of the hearing before Lord Justice Ward in 2005, and I caught them in forgery of ‘transcripts’ red in tooth and claw, because I ordered a transcript of the prejudgment hearing before Lord Justice Wart that contained important discrepancies with the Hogan Lovells version. Subsequently, Lord Justice Ward committed out of persoanl solidarity with Master Miller and Mr Justice Davis the most depraved judicial fraud and perjury in his judgement in the history of the Court of Appeal Civil Division when he refused to give me permission to appeal at a brief kangaroo hearing with a judgement that was so false that it may well have been about another case. The law was then changed to render permission to appeal applications at the Court of Appeal Civil Division ex parte in camera paper applications only, as evidently Ward LJ found it most professionally embarrassing to commit judicial perjury red in tooth and claw in open court.
14. Judgement in favour of Shetreet re Shetreet injury by SHARP at age 13 in Shetreet v United Patients Fund: See Exhibits 3.1-2, Shetreet v United Patients Fund common law precedent in favour of Shetreet in relation to and thereby in support of Shetreet v SHARP. I note that the 1999-2000 successful and famous / ‘infamous’ common law precedent tribunal case by me in Israel, against my then medical insurer there, United Patients Fund, the first case in which the patient won against the healthcare providers and system overall in respect of disputed treatment and that was therefore officially reported as pro-claimant Shetreet common law in the legal journals of Israel, in which the insurer also refused to disclose their data about me and were denounced in the judgment for perjury also by commission against me (they alleged the top dermatology professor in the country agreed with them and not with me, he found out about this and denounced them for perjury in a letter he sent to the tribunal judge about case) that they were caught red handed in, for their refusal to provide treatment they alleged was ‘cosmetic’ and not non-elective dermatological for that painful without permanent improvement with laser treatment aspect of my injury by SHARP at age 13, was at a tribunal instance and in this case all the formalities were dispensed with in any case, so there was no trial as such, only one, successful national appeal tribunal hearing, and a few brief procedural hearings at the district tribunal previous to that (the first hearing in case occurred in rather surreal circumstances, in my mental absence, after I suffered a severe seizure, with severe convulsions and cessation of normal breathing, lost consciousness and the hearing continued off transcript, given the behavior of below parties after I regained consciousness spontaneously and the hearing was hastily terminated, one of the comments by the managerial doctor from the insurer and judge that a transcript would have recorded was that they thought I was dead because of the cessation of visible respiration and other clinical signs that caused the managerial doctor to reach that conclusion, and given the political circumstance this was for the better), and I was not an official party to the successful action by the EU Parliament and Denmark v the EU Commission at ECJ re RoHS that was enacted based on my injury at age 13 and legal case v SHARP and was never invited to testify at ECJ in that case or any other trial worldwide – which further proves the perjury by UK Attorney General about ‘vexation’ or lack of legal merit on my part in UK, Israel or any jurisdiction. I also note that the insurer simply refused to comply with the exhibited as part of my case statement 40 paged judgement in my favour in which the national tribunal for appeals judges also denounced them for perjury against me at the district tribunal and which the defendant did not have the legal right and did not attempt to appeal, with total impunity, without any prosecution by the Israel attorney general for contempt of court and noncompliance, perjury, conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm etc as should have been done, and I was left without the dermatological treatment that I needed for my injury at age 13 by sharp, as I was likewise left without this treatment by the NHS in UK, and had no access to the treatment I needed until I was able to locate private treatment that I could afford as of December 2008. Above was officially perpetrated on the basis that all crimes were legal against me worldwide even if a court of law ruled in my favour! which further dramatically proves there was never any civil ‘lack of merit’ or civil ‘vexation’ on my part in all my civil and/or tribunal actions worldwide, the rule of law was simply totally abrogated against me by companies and politicians only in the case of above tribunal case and by both bribing companies, politicians and the judges that they fixed in relation to Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and NHS Westminster and UK Attorney General v Shetreet, which is a blatantly political case brought against me both indirectly and directly by UK cabinet level politicians.
15. Exhibit 167.1_invalidation of 2009 Court of Appeal Shetreet order due to reliance on perjury committing NHS and Attorney General v Shetreet, Exhibit 167.2_additional invalidation of 2009 and all previous Court of Appeal Shetreet orders by their 09 refusal to comply with Shetreet DPA. By missing the deadline for compliance with above disclosure request by some two weeks to date, the Court of Appeal Civil Division admitted that they acted unlawfully by refusing to approve my permission to appeal application in an order by Lord Justice Buxton who they brought back from retirement to do this dirty work for them on 15 December 2009 by refusing to comply with my 30 December 2009 DPA disclosure request to see my Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells Court of Appeal Civil Division file and the internal memo I witnessed in the file when I came to collect the bundles in which unlawful instructions were given to nullify my case. Therefore, if the rule of law means anything at all in UK all High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division judgements and orders against me must be thrown out together with the UK Attorney General action against me. If no political and judicial foul play took place, also in respect of the reliance by the Court of Appeal Civil Davison on the perjury committing UK Attorney General action against me when they unlawfully dismissed my application for permission to appeal a few weeks after the UK Attorney General civilly sued me, why not disclose everything and even issue a press release about case? Above is consistent with the total refusal of all arms and branches of UK regime, all other relevant regimes, the EU institutions and SHARP and Hogan Lovells to comply with DPA and FOIA disclosure laws in respect of Shetreet.
16. Further to blatant red in tooth and claw fraud by UK Attoreny General about allegedly “vexatious” status of Shetreet before he moved to UK in 2001:
16.1. See Exhibit 3.1_judgement in favour of Shetreet (in Israel v United Patients Fund, disputed treatment for dermatological aspect of chronic his catastrophic injury at age 13 by SHARP), Exhibit 100.1_first judicial decision in case in London in favour of Shetreet proved claim dismissed due to politics, Exhibit 100.2_Fraud_ pre-bribery legal decisions in favour of Shetreet in Israel further prove bribery and abrogation of rule of law (SHARP lost their appeal at case outset in above judgement, they then commenced to resort to bribery and corruption in case and refused to accept service of both domestic and out of jurisdiction proceedings in order to evade contact with the claim, the claim was never “dismissed”, it simply could not be served due to foul play, the fact claim in Israel could not be served had nothing to do with lack of merit, only the opposite, as if no merit why not accept service and defend on substance, Exhibit 100.2_Fraud_ pre-bribery legal decisions in favour of Shetreet in Israel further prove bribery and abrogation of rule of law, Exhibit 190_Exhibit 190_Shetreet contingent fee lawyer in Israel presiding judge offered Supreme Court judiciary Shetreet not vexatious in Israel and UK, see also http://www.kaplansky-law.co.il, Exhibit 150.1_23 Nov 09 most unlawful and fraudulent in UK history Attorney General v Shetreet civil action with 13 Aug 09 signature of Vera Baird MP Solicitor General.
16.2. In his 20 November 2009 witness statement incorporated into his 23 November 2009 claim and application against me, the UK Attorney General, based his civil action against me foremost on the allegation that Shetreet is as “vexatious” in UK as a litigant in person as he was in Israel through his contingent fee lawyers there, he also alleged that there were “costs orders” against Shetreet in UK, which there never were any in any case involving me until 23 April 2010, and this was irrelevant, as I was the defendant, and is under appeal that will be successful if there is a microscopic semblance of judicial respect for the rule of law in UK, because judges were aware the law was on my side but they simply declared me vermin with no rights and on that basis costs could not be ordered. UK attorney general knew above, as he did not exhibit any costs order in UK against me and/or any vexatious litigant order against me and/or my contingent fee lawyers in Israel, as there was none, they are still in business and the owner of the firm is still also a presiding appeals tribunal judge and was offered the supreme court judiciary in 2001, five years after he began to represent me v SHARP. Moreover, since when did a ‘vexatious litigant’ have contingent fee legal representation, without any payment, from a leading firm in the jurisdiction as above, a firm that also has a corporate law practice and also represents companies as both claimants and defendants, in his total absence from court (I did not visit court in relation to Shetreet v SHARP in Israel even once as no trial or production of evidence was ever permitted by sharp, Hogan Lovells and Hanina Brandes, by corruption and bribery of politicians who fixed the judges) and in his total absence from that jurisdiction overall since 2 February 2001? Moreover, I could not have been “vexatious” in Israel by definition, as Moshe Kaplansky and his firm conducted the case on my behalf in my absence and lack of any instruction or involvement in the proceedings, as if it was a prosecution about murder. UK Attorney General alleged that Moshe Kaplansky, who is a presiding appeals tribunal judge to date and was offered and he declined the supreme court of Israel judiciary in 2001, five years after he began to represent me, is “vexatious” on my behalf and in general, which if it were true would have meant that he would have been disbarred from the legal profession years ago and his firm closed down for not merely representing me, but acting for me on a contingency and conducting my case on my behalf as if I was dead and the case was a prosecution about murder, as I never gave him any instructions in case, he was his own decision maker, as he acted on a contingency and I was rendered too mentally and physically disabled to conduct my affairs in the eyes of the law in Israel in any case. This most criminally insane perjury by a UK attorney general, about my allegedly “vexatious” litigation in Israel and UK, proves ironically the opposite of what the UK Attorney General alleges about me in his action against me overall and proves that case was not allowed to proceed to trial and production of evidence in either Israel or UK and worldwide due to its extreme merit and due to the corruption and bribery of politicians by SHARP and Hogan Lovells in both Israel and UK, including herself, not due to any fault of the objective merit of the case in relation to substance and/or technicality, in relation to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, in Israel and UK. Ironically, the only proceeding that I was able to visit and that proceeded to the substantive case, where it was unsuccessful at the first instance due to lack of precedent in which the claimant won in such a case and thereby of procedure not substance and then proceeded to the appeal on procedure after the substance of the case had already been established to be in my favour and the defendant was denounced for perjury in the district tribunal in the appeal judgment for alleging it was not, was my common law precedent victory against the medical insurers in Israel in relation to treatment for my chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP that as aforementioned no one in Israel ever won against before in relation to disputed treatment. After the judgment was published, Kaplansky junior told me at time over the telephone, jokingly, that if I had not been rendered a severe invalid by my chronic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by SHARP he would hire me as one of the lead lawyer in his firm due to my appearances at the district and subsequently in the national appeals tribunal that ultimately won the case, but as aforementioned, the common law precedent judgment in my favour that was reported as such in the legal journals could not be enforced because my legal status was politically rendered by the bribery and corruption of politicians by sharp, Hogan Lovells and Hanina Brandes that of vermin against whom all crimes are legal even if the highest court in the jurisdiction resists political pressure and judges in his favour. Because I sued SHARP and Hogan Lovells in London in 2004/5 for most timely and then current fraud by SHARP and Hogan Lovells after the evasion by fraud and bribery of the case in Israel ultimately earlier in 2004 and for libel etc as of 13 April 2005, UK Attorney General thereby most ironically tripped himself up and blatantly contradicted himself and proved out of his own satanic mouth and written witness statement the merit of my case against SHARP and Hogan Lovells as of 2004 in London by him very perjury, and by his very need to resort to such extreme and grotesque perjury, the worst in UK legal history by a UK Attorney General or any CPS prosecutor acting on behalf of same in order to attempt to pretend to ‘prove’ the nonexistent ‘merit’ for an application by his against me that he admitted by above insane perjury both against me and against a prominent lawyer and presiding tribunal judge who was offered the supreme court of Israel judiciary has no ‘merit’ and no other legal or moral justification whatever and that is as ruthlessly criminal as nuclear terrorism red in tooth and claw.
16.3. Pasted extract from http://www.kaplansky-law.co.il/about.asp?language_id=1
Below extract from above web address is copied on 20 February 2010 from above website of the lawyer, Moshe Kaplansky, and his law firm that represented Shetreet in Israel against Sharp Corporation and group from 1996 to 2007. It is emphasised again that Shetreet was never in any position to remunerate any lawyer even once in his life to date, all the legal representation by Kaplansky law firm from 1996 to 2007 was on a contingent fee basis, i.e. free of charge, Shetreet was not even in a position to pay for photocopies and other stationary expenses, travel expenses in relation to the case etc. The highlighted emphasis of a paragraph in below pasted extract is mine, as the highlighted paragraph below is most relevant of all to case and to the perjury by UK Attorney General that my contingent fee lawyers in Israel were “vexatious” on my behalf, as I allegedly was thereby in Israel and in UK to the same degree as a litigant in person.
The text was forensically pasted with all the grammar, spelling and style errors in the original.
“Kaplansky Law Offices was established at 1974.
Kaplansky Law Offices is the whole ownership of Adv. & Notary Moshe Kaplansky and is managed by him and his son Adv. Kobi Kaplansky (L.L.M & law Doctoral student)
the uniqueness of the office lies at taking on complicated law cases involving legal importance & fundamentality to the individual as well as to the entire society in the various aspects of life interests including :
car accidents, professional negligence, tort, disaster events insurance, fire, airplanes & air accidents, flooding, diamonds, personal injuries etc.
Mr. Moshe Kaplansky served as the Head of the Claims Department of Migdal Insurance Company Ltd., established & owned "Ad-Gal" Insurance Appraisers Ltd. etc.
These positions provide the office a unique aspect dimension in management and treatment of legal claims.
Moshe Kaplansky Law Offices clientele was and is composed of private clients
& firms plaintiffes and defendents against insurers and/or other financial
groups in Israel
and worldwide.
kaplansky house is located at the dynamic center of Tel-Aviv the commercial
capital of Israel
and is situated nearby the Azrieli towers & Tel-Aviv district courts.
Moshe Kaplansky, Adv.
1960-1963: A private investigator specialized in various insurance fields commissioned to carry out investigations by leading insurance companies in the State of Israel.
1963-1966:Manager of the Claim's Department of Migdal Insurance Company Ltd, the largest insurance company in Israel. In this capacity I handled claims appertaining to all insurance fields. At the Same time, I attended the law faculty extension of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Tel-Aviv, which I graduated with an LLB Degree.
1969:Member of the Israeli Bar Association.
1966-1975:Owner of a Loss Adjuster firm, employer of 16 loss adjusters, specializing in Motor and Personal Injury accidents, as well as all elementary insurance fields and professional liability claims.
1971-1975: Vice-President of the Israeli Loss adjusters' Association.
1971-1976: Member of the academic lecture staff of the "Israeli Insurance Institute".
1972 :Licensed to manage a private investigation office in the framework of the enactment of new statue law regulating the status of private investigators in Israel.
1974-1992: Member of the Israeli Defense Army Lawyers Panel, in which I appeared in all instances of the military tribunals.
1982-1992: Presiding judge of the Israeli Bar Association Ethics Tribunal, Appellate Division.
1989-1997: Member of the academic staff of the Israeli Institute for Management.
1996 : Presiding Judge of the Israeli Newspapers Ethics Tribunal, Appellate Division.
2001 : had rejected the Minister of Justice offer to be appointed as the Israeli supreme court.
1974 :Founder and owner of a Kaplansky Law Offices specializing mainly in Civil and Commercial litigation , where we act as barristers and solicitors.
The office employs 45 employees including myself, my son which is a member
of the Israeli Bar Association since 1994 and an LLB (Hones) graduate of
East Anglia University, United Kingdom – 1992, about 20 salaried lawyers, paralegals and secretarial staff.
Since 1972: The office has handled and litigated files all over the country in all Courts including dozens of cases of precedential importance and impact stipulated by the Supreme Court of Israel.
Amongst the office's local clients, are the leading insurance companies in Israel,
Banks and other well known financial institutions.
Further, we represent foreign insurers, reinsure co., brokers and legal firms from all over the world who have instructed the office
to act on their behalf on various files.”
17. Admission by UK Attorney General of murderous foul play by SHARP and Hogan Lovells and thereby murderous complicity by UK Attorney General: See Exhibits 150.1-11. In another act of criminal insanity the UK Attorney General exhibited in his civil action against me my witness statement under statement of truth and thereby under penalty of perjury under UK law of 26 April 2009 about some of the most extreme violent crimes against me by SHARP and Lovells since age 13 to date, including my kidnapping in Israel at age 24 to Heller Station, a chemical weapons storage facility, where the toxic gas was discharged against me by agents of the state who protected themselves with gas masks and were contracted by SHARP and Lovells who had global case conduct since case outset, in order to cause me catastrophic chronic brain damage and severe partial blindness, including loss of most of the nuero-visual component of literacy, in order to make me unable to pursue my case for my original chronic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by SHARP. As aforementioned, above crime is legally actionable in UK to date under UN international law and UK common law. The UK Attorney General also exhibited my ‘notorious’ in informed circles 2 September 2009 complaint to the US Attorney General about the crimes that were committed against me in UK by UK and with the direct complicity of and foul play by US diplomats in London and officials in US on behalf of Mossad. Above document was also under statement of truth and thereby penalty of perjury under UK law detailed the most serious crimes against me and demanded monetary compensation for these crimes, therefore it was legally actionable as both ‘perjury’ and ‘fraud’ if it was not true, and criminally legally actionable at that in both UK and US if it was not true. Yet he does not propose to prosecute me for perjury and even more tellingly, he did not dispute the veracity of these documents by one word in his witness statement to his claim and application. Thereby his claim and application is inadmissible by his own admission if he states I have such meritorious domestically actionable causes of action admitted by his as true and meritorious and even legally proven in order to go to law about.
18. Admission of and complicity with by UK Attorney General in murderous violence by SHARP and Hogan Lovells: See Exhibits 150.1-11. In another act of criminal insanity the UK Attorney General exhibited in his civil action against me my witness statement under statement of truth and thereby under penalty of perjury under UK law of 26 April 2009 about some of the most extreme violent crimes against me by SHARP and Hogan Lovells since age 13 to date, including my kidnapping in Israel at age 24 to Heller Station, a chemical weapons storage facility, where the toxic gas was discharged against me by agents of the state who protected themselves with gas masks and were contracted by SHARP and Hogan Lovells who had global case conduct since case outset, in order to cause me catastrophic chronic brain damage and severe partial blindness, including loss of most of the nuero-visual component of literacy, in order to make me unable to pursue my case for my original chronic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 by SHARP. As aforementioned, above crime is legally actionable in UK to date under UN international law and UK common law. The UK Attorney General also exhibited my ‘notorious’ in informed circles 2 September 2009 complaint to the US Attorney General about the crimes that were committed against me in UK by UK and with the direct complicity of and foul play by US diplomats in London and officials in US on behalf of Mossad. Above document was also under statement of truth and thereby penalty of perjury under UK law detailed the most serious crimes against me and demanded monetary compensation for these crimes, therefore it was legally actionable as both ‘perjury’ and ‘fraud’ if it was not true, and criminally legally actionable at that in both UK and US if it was not true. Yet he does not propose to prosecute me for perjury and even more tellingly, he did not dispute the veracity of these documents by one word in his witness statement to his claim and application. Thereby his claim and application is inadmissible by his own admission if he states I have such meritorious domestically actionable causes of action admitted by his as true and meritorious and even legally proven in order to go to law about.
19. Total destruction of life of Shetreet
worldwide by unlawful ECRO vermin status in UK
and thereby worldwide: See exhibits 190_refusal by US law firm that advertised online for
Risperidone injury victims to represent Shetreet proves unlawful ECRO vermin
status by UK
is Western worldwide.
20.1 All of above quoted and/or referenced comments and/or judgements agaisnt Shetreet by judges and UK Attoreney General could have been made by Igor Judge LCJ about the new DNA evidence that caused the Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge to discharge Hodgson on 18 March 2009: Only with the sole proviso in respect of above that “ECRO” and “Steel J” would be replaced by a maliciously and fraudulently supportive sadistically mocking reference to Hodgson’s false conviction in the 1970s, because DNA evidence was unavailable then and he and the real rapist and murderer shared the same blood type, the most common in UK, shared by around a third of the UK population, which means that a third of UK population was equally eligible for his conviction based on above blood type ‘evidence’ it was based on exclusively, that was proven by DNA technology totally misleading and his conviction totally false, and therefore the CPS did not defend the appeal and therefore Igor Judge LCJ was forced to respect this reality because unlike against me, there was no news blackout against Hodgson, and no doubt if the Hodgson case had not been highlighted by the news media, his innocence too would have been ruthlessly nullified by Igor Judge.
20.2. As the exhibited 15 July 2009 transcript of the ECRO vermin status extension hearing will show, appearing as I was forced to do without any legal counsel, I was so confused by the ferocious and bloodthirsty without any pretence of any legality, but in retrospect refreshingly honest approach by Mr Justice David Steel, that, as transcript shows, I called him “Zero back off” repeatedly instead of your Lordship as is the UK custom. In fact, I intended at the time to call him your Lordship, and did not become aware that I called him in above derogatory term until I read the transcript. More remarkably still, the transcript will show that Steel J did not state, ‘I am a judge not a contract killer, don’t call me Zero back of, call me your Lordship’, nor did Hogan Lovells or any of the High Court clerks interject and state, ‘You must call him your Lordship, not Zero back off, he is not a contract killer, he is a judge’. This is because it was totally apparent to all, even to the High Court clerks at the hearing that this was no hearing, it was an intelligence services black operation totally outside of and in contradiction to the rule of law. The transcript will also show that I asked Steel J why there were two security staff inside of the courtroom contrary to custom in a civil hearing, and a few more in the corridor who followed me around since I entered the building (many of the pertinent Royal Courts of Justice staff know me by sight because Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells as of 2004 is so notorious there, many, even some judges, have strong reservations about the judicial and corporate foul play in case but there is nothing they can do due to the total depravity of the Court of Appeal Civil Division in this case). The reply of Steel J was a bloody minded, “they can go where they like”, straight out of an intelligence services black operation, appropriate for MI6 headquarters at Vauxhall, not for a court of law. At the outset of the hearing Steel J stated that he was not sitting as a judge, just as a contract killer, and gloated, “the limit of my reading” is SHARP and Hogan Lovells pleadings, thereby spitefully gloating that he did not read a word of my compelling exhibits and pleadings, that as aforementioned are a good deal more compelling than the DNA evidence that vindicated Hodgson in March 2009 after several years of imprisonment for a rape and murder he did not commit. Despite the fact that Steel J was perceived by me as more overtly almost violently hostile towards me than the previous judges, and perhaps precisely because of this, he was the most honest English judge to deal with this case. His attitude toward the case was entirely lacking in any hypocrisy or pretence, his position was that I was medico-legally nonhuman vermin and all crimes against me are legal and commendable, therefore there is no need to commit judicial fraud and perjury of any kind. The transcript will show that at no point did Steel J dispute that substantive and/or procedural merits of my original 2004/5 case at High Court in London v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, as aforementioned, or of my subsequently discovered and/or of my subsequently transpired caused of action. Moreover, SHARP and Hogan Hartson alleged that I should be punished from attempting to gain legal representation, even it was they who should have been punished for illegal espionage against my email correspondence and communications in general and that ‘evidence’ excluded, as even convicted terrorist are entitled in the West to legal privilege and their emails to lawyers seeking representation are never produced in court. The shocking, bloodthirsty, red in tooth and claw joint corporate and national intelligence services black operations nature of this judgment that was null and void by any law abiding Western standard proved that all the judgements and orders against me in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells are equally null and void corporate and state crimes and that the law was always on my side. No judgement and order in no other case in the long history of recorded English legal history since the Middle Ages ever and theoretically since the days of Roman London as of the 1st Century AD ever cried out and demanded to be set aside with disgust on appeal by a court of appeal, and above applies to all judgements and orders against me to date, all of which were procured by fraud and were an intelligence services black operation, not part of a legitimate civil proceeding. Importantly and moreover, the information provided by my 24 March 2009 forensic translation of the 4 February 2009 SHARP advertorial against me in Maariv is so revolutionary in respect of the original 2004/5 case at high court and so incontrovertibly proving literally out of the mouths of SHARP and Hogan Lovells whose spokespersons were quoted in the advertorial gloating about their crimes against me of foul play by SHARP and Hogan Lovells and of miscarriage of justice in 2004/5 that both SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the UK Attorney General acting on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells and UK Government in respect of me did not exhibit this key document in their July and November 2009 applications against me even though I copied this document to them by email on a number of occasions and they exhibited many other correspondence by email documents from me but not the most important document in case available to me overall. This deliberate and fraudulent omission and concealment of the true facts of the case and of the most important document in case that is not classified, by both SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the UK Attorney General acting on their behalf is proof that everyone, SHARP, Lovells / Hogan & Hartson, UK judiciary and executive branch of government, knew from outset the law was on my side a billion times over and that my case and my human medico-legal status were unlawfully nullified for unlawful political and foul play bribery reasons. If even SHARP and Hogan Lovells themselves and even the UK Attorney General are unintentionally calling Buxton LJ and Steel J a liar and perpetrator of judicial perjury and fraud by “gain to another” under UK Fraud Act due to their above omission of the 24 March 2009 forensic translation of the 4 February 2005 SHARP Maariv advertorial that was part of my original 2004/5 case and by their refusal to discharge the ECRO against me to date in respect of all my post 2004/5 causes of action against SHARP, Hogan Lovells, other companies and various branches of UK regime, even when I was being tortured, how can Steel J’s insane judgement be allowed to stand, ‘based’ as it is on the alleged by Buxton LJ murderously fraudulent allegation that case was “dealt with previously” when firstly the main function of the Court of Appeal Civil Division is to deal with cases that were at least partially “dealt with previously” otherwise procedurally they would be excluded from the Court of Appeal that is not a court of first instance, and secondly and more importantly to this specific case that uniquely in UK history truly was not “dealt with”, repeat, never dealt with, at all at first instance in any lawful or substantive sense, as he knew that SHARP and Hogan Lovells never disclosed any data, never permitted any trial or any production of evidence in this case worldwide and therefore also never sued anyone for libel, not even Elsevier Science that published the toxicology forensics about my injury at age 13 by SHARP as proven fact and have a large office in London, not aforementioned Danish Environmental Protection Agency and not even suburban west London based Sky News that also reported my injury at age 13 by SHARP as proven fact, and his equally murderously fraudulently alleged “irrelevance” to case of all, again he meant all, not some, all, civil and criminal offenses against me since age 13 to date directly by and/or on behalf of and in complicity with sharp and Hogan Lovells – and only by them and/or on their behalf, as I do not have another personal enemy since age 13 to date other than sharp, Hogan Lovells and allied to them other companies and/or agents of the state acting on their behalf. Again, how can such a judgment and all the others that came before it from the same murderous and unlawful place be allowed to stand for one second unless the Court of Appeal Civil Division of England is criminally insane. What Buxton LJ meant was in fact that all crimes against me since age 13 are very real and legally actionable, criminally and civilly, if they were committed against someone else, as at no point did he or any other judge or UK official, SHARP or Hogan Lovells set out to accuse me of dishonesty, exaggeration let alone legally actionable perjury, but because these very real crimes by his own admission were committed against me since age 13 and to date in London they are legal and commendable because he thinks that he has the right to nullify my human medico-legal status and declare me vermin against whom all crimes are legal and commendable.
21. Further to my public demand of the EU institutions to compensate me, respect for the rule of law, opposition to nuclear and chemical terrorism, common decency, academic freedom and prohibition of political abuse of forcible psychiatry against the sane in a manner that is as ruthless and lawless as nuclear and chemical terrorism by UK regime, judiciary and business community in respect of disputes about facts that should be resolved by libel action and/or prosecution before a jury for alleged fraud and perjury if it is alleged that lies were told in a civil case in furtherance of monetary gain, if the dispute of facts alleged is sincerely alleged and not alleged as a pretext for totalitarian persecution outside the rule of law and attempted murder as in Shetreet case – UK regime as a whole, SHARP and Hogan Lovells are rogue nuclear, chemical and radiological terrorists: The crimes that UK perpetrated against me were also in violation of EU law in respect of the prohibition of discrimination against Second Member States EU citizens and against disabled EU citizens and in direct contempt of ECJ judiciary. UK alleged to date that EU RoHS Directive (RoHS is the acronym for Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) that was enacted in 2003 based on the peer reviewed published academic case studies about Shetreet v SHARP toxicology forensics about the chronic injury at age 13 of Shetreet by SHARP, including in Organohalogen Compounds (1998) and in prestigious Chemosphere (1999), the most prestigious international toxicology academic journal, published by Elsevier Science, authored by Prof Jacob de Boer (Vrije University Amsterdam), Prof Larry W Robertson (University of Iowa) and Prof Mufit Bahadir (Technical University of Braunschweig), and subsequently cited by other peer reviewed articles in toxicology and medical journals, including Clinician Research & Medicine, published by academics in Chicago, that were officially relied on and cited by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency in their 1999 EU policy paper (available in English on the Danish EPA and Danish RoHS websites to date, citation 28 and discussion in page 47, in which the Shetreet case was mentioned as a proven case of human toxic injury of a “13 year old boy” due to his toxic exposure by inhalation of toxic PBDEs flame retardants that were emitted, evaporated and volatilised in gas form from his SHARP TV set under normal operating temperatures and conditions, said PBDEs were therefore permanently banned from use in consumer products in the EU by and as of the 1 April 2008 order of ECJ) that caused the enactment of RoHS, that ECJ judged in favour of on 1 April 2008, was a “psychotic delusion” by Shetreet, ECJ judiciary, the EU officials overall, the consensus academic peer reviewed scientifically published PhD and MPH professors of toxicology and MD and/or MD and MPH and PhD professors of medicine etc. Thereby, on this ‘medico-legal and clinical basis’ and false allegation only, with minor help of additional perjuries proven as such to psychiatric tribunals, unlawfully psychiatrically detained, forcibly injected with various illegal toxins, tortured, injured, attempted to murder etc Shetreet from 2006 to 2008 in order to cover-up the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal, without production of any evidence, without legally required disclosure of any data by the defendants and without any trial or hearing in the legal light of day at any stage, of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells at High Court in London as of 2004, in respect of the proven and admitted by SHARP catastrophic chronic clinically multiple whole body, skeletal, dermatological, overall toxic injury, disfigurement and disability of Shetreet at age 13 by a defective toxic SHARP product, and multinational corporate fraud, perjury and bribery in respect of the refusal to accept both domestic and out of jurisdiction service of proceedings etc. Thereby, once scientific data are published in the academic peer reviewed journal literature, and in the most prestigious such, published by Elsevier Science, let alone by the aforementioned leading scientists and university professors in their field, it cannot be irrationally alleged by any rogue official and/or common criminal to be a “delusion” without any evidence to that effect, and with all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction, let alone if this data is used to support the enactment of an EU Act. In this sense, Shetreet’s toxic chronic injury, disability and disfigurement at age 13 is probably the best proven, as there is literally not one previous toxic injury that caused the publication of two case studies in peer reviewed journals authored by three of the leading professors in the field and helped to enact an EU Act. Moreover, as of the 1 April 2008 ECJ judgement in favour of RoHS it is libel outside of court and perjury in any court in the EU to dispute my injury at age 13 by SHARP, as ECJ is the highest court in the EU. If NHS, Met Police, City of London Police et al and UK Regime objected for political reasons to date to what Shetreet stated to date about SHARP and Hogan Lovells due to corrupt Labour party political/business connections, directly or otherwise, with SHARP and Lovells, they could obtain permission and power of attorney from SHARP and Lovells, which SHARP and Hogan Lovells would never give for obvious reasons, and sue Shetreet for libel, which SHARP and Hogan Lovells never did, nor did they sue Elsevier Science for their publication of the peer reviewed case study about Shetreet ’s injury at age 13 by SHARP, nor Sky News of west London for much more forthright comments against SHARP about the injury at age 13 of Shetreet by SHARP before the news blackout of this case was imposed, but UK Government, SHARP and Hogan Lovells never had any right to torture, injure and attempt to murder Shetreet by political abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man simply because he is the opposite of ‘delusional’ about SHARP and in general, because the truth, consensus toxicology and medical science, in addition to the fraud conviction of SHARP in Israel pertinent to this case and the law is on his side, and he therefore cannot be sued and/or prosecuted for libel and/or fraud and/or perjury and/or contempt of court or literally any other offence in relation to this case, as mentioned below, and therefore has to be diverted away from both the civil and criminal justice system to the psychiatric detention system and tortured to death outside the rule of law by political abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, any more than UK Government, SHARP and Hogan Lovells have any right to perpetrate what they perpetrated against Shetreet also against ECJ judiciary, Elsevier Science editors and executives, Danish EPA officials and Danish diplomats in London etc. In any case, charlatan political psychiatrists acting on behalf of intelligence services do not have medico-legal jurisdiction and/or the legal right to assess scientific publications about highly complex toxicology forensics well outside their charlatan pseudo-scientific highly speculative ‘Freudian’ etc pseudo-‘expertise’.
22. The criminal and ruthless as nuclear terrorism political abuse of forcible psychiatry by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Regime against Shetreet ‘based’ on UK Government’s fraudulent assertion that EU RoHS Directive and peer reviewed published toxicology are based on a “psychotic delusion that demands forcible psychiatric detentions and treatment with forcible injections” represents the worst abrogation of the rule of law, sadistic medical experimentation, crimes against humanity and war crime in modern West European history that infringed the rights and damaged the reputation of Elsevier Science, the Netherlands export industry, the Netherlands Government and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Danish Government and of the European Court of Justice judiciary and the EU institutions overall and demands the total collective criminalisation of the entire UK body politic: The political abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, against Shetreet, based on the fraudulent ‘diagnosis’ that Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and EU RoHS Directive is based on a “delusion” by Shetreet, ECJ judiciary, the academic community etc, in order to torture Shetreet to death in order to murder him in order to cover-up corporate and official corruption and foul play against him as of age 13 to date was not just a crime against Shetreet by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Government, it was a crime against humanity and war crime by the definition of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal in The Hague Article 8 War Crimes that defines as “medical experiments” any procedures that are not in the “clinical best interest” of the detainee, and likewise prohibits the deployment of toxic weapons, by forcible toxic injections and all other methods of exposure. The Rome Statute is more so applicable to case, as Shetreet is not a UK national, but an EU citizen of a Second Member State. Additionally, above crime against Shetreet was also a crime by UK Government, SHARP and Hogan Lovells against Elsevier Science, academic freedom and the reputation of the academic publishing and overall export industry of the Netherlands, as by unlawfully psychiatrically detaining Shetreet based on the allegation that the peer reviewed journal articles about Shetreet ’s chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP are based on ‘junk science’, ‘fabrication’, ‘delusion’ etc, UK Government, on behalf of and in complicity with SHARP and Lovells, also alleged that Elsevier Science publish scientific papers that are of no merit, no commercial value and/or a good deal worse, are allegedly by UK Labour party, acts of fraud by Elsevier Science and the Danish EPA. Above crime against Shetreet, Elsevier Science, academic freedom and the Netherlands export industry, was also a crime against the good name and reputation for veracity of the Danish Government and Danish Environmental Protection Agency and its policy papers, that as aforementioned relied upon, described as proven fact the injury at age 13 of Shetreet by SHARP and cited one of the journal articles about Shetreet ’s chronic injury at age 13, that Denmark that successfully lobbied for RoHS and then successfully sued with the European Parliament as co-claimant, the EU Commission to strengthen RoHS at ECJ and the EU relied upon to enact EU RoHS Directive and that ECJ then relied upon to judge in favour of RoHS. Therefore, above crime by UK Government, SHARP and Hogan Lovells against Shetreet, Elsevier Science, the Netherlands export industry and the Danish Government, was also a crime against the EU institutions and a criminal contempt of the ECJ judiciary by UK Government, SHARP and Hogan Lovells. Therefore, all above parties, organisations and governments must take legal action v UK Government, SHARP and Lovells, and declare a boycott against all SHARP and Hogan Lovells products and services and force them to pay massive fines and serve prison sentences.
23. List and substantive summary of all
Shetreet civil claims and claims v Shetreet in UK to date
See above paragraphs for Shetreet v SHARP in Israel and Shetreet v United Patients Fund, common law appeal in favour of Shetreet.
24.1. Westminster NHS PCT v Shetreet – censorship injunction to conceal foul play against Shetreet by NHS on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells and automatic admission of foul play thereby by SHARP, Lovells / Hogan & Hartson, UK Government and UK judiciary, as of above paragraph and open letter to Mr Justice Eady.
24.2. No new claim against any party was lodged by Shetreet between August 2005 and May/June 2007 and since June 2007 to date: The only reason Shetreet lodged the claims including v SHARP and Hogan Lovells in 2007 was, not in order to ‘re-litigate’, allegedly by the Attorney General, SHARP and Lovells / Hogan & Hartson, in a “vexatious” manner, but as a deliberate provocation in order to apply the rule of law and reality to case, equivalent to his protest against the judicial anti-disability discrimination against him at UK Parliament in 2006, for which UK regime also declined to prosecute Shetreet , in order to force the judiciary to either prosecute and attempt to imprison him for alleged contempt of court, that was evidently never alleged against Shetreet in circumstance, and alleged perjury etc or set aside all judgments and orders against him if the ECRO was seen by the same judiciary that imposed it as unenforceable with imprisonment because it was seen by the said judiciary as perpetrated by corporate fraud and judicial anti-disability discrimination against Shetreet and the nullification of his human medico-legal status and replacement with a vermin status, which is precisely why Shetreet was not prosecuted for anything to date nor imprisoned for contempt of court for his deliberate multiple violation of the ECRO in 2007, which further proved the point that the law was always on side of Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and Shetreet was victimised to date by the worst miscarriage of justice in UK history due to anti-disability discrimination against him
24.3. See above paragraph for summary of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells until 2005 only, and additional above paragraphs for the post-2005 developments.
24.4. Summary of Shetreet v Mail on Sunday, Yediot and SHARP at High Court in London, issued on 29 May 2007 without any application and immediately placed on a “Stop” by Master Ungley to date: Mail on Sunday and Yediot quoting Mail alleged in June 2006 that Shetreet resisted arrest and engaged in a “scuffle” with a police officer when he protested against the judicial anti-disability discrimination against him by UK judiciary at UK Parliament. Shetreet was never accused by the Met Police of resisting arrest, was not arrested for that, only for the protest itself, and was not prosecuted or convicted of anything, and Mail and Yediot effectively attempted to incriminate Shetreet in and have Shetreet imprisoned for a number of years for a fictional offence he never committed. Mail and Yediot also added that Shetreet was sectioned under MHA without qualifying that it was a political abuse of psychiatry against a sane man. SHARP and Hogan Lovells alleged to and were quoted in the article by Yediot that was also published in English online and that was read by the murderous psychiatrists who were unlawfully detaining and torturing Shetreet at time, that they “deny the charges” in relation to Shetreet ’s injury at age 13 by SHARP, which they never dared defend or sue for libel about in any court worldwide, so they had no right to deny to the news media and thereby incite murder against Shetreet by political abuse of psychiatry, by the vulgar allegation that his case is a “delusion”. Mail informed Shetreet by exhibited email that they removed the article about Shetreet , in which Shetreet is indentified by his full first and sir name, correctly spelled, from their website shortly after it was posted there “for legal reasons”, which means that they recognised and officially admitted by above action and in the exhibited email that their article about Shetreet was libellous and maliciously false, therefore the case against all the three co-defendants in the same civil action should be automatically successful.
24.5. Shetreet v C Anderson & Sons, Central London County Court, small claim, 2005: Shetreet issued above action against plumbers who dishonestly overcharged him over the rate they promised in their advert and over the telephone when the callout was arranged. District Judge Gilchrist agreed with Shetreet that he was dishonestly overcharged and ordered for Shetreet compensation after a hearing in October 2005, after the ECRO was imposed in July 2005, in which both sides were present and acted as litigants in person. The defendant paid the money ordered to Shetreet by a cheque that they sent to Shetreet by post shortly after the hearing, and they did not appeal against the order. During the hearing Shetreet had to explain the nature and causation of the tragic circumstances of his life, his chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP, the fraud that deprived him of his compensation for same and deprived him thereby of his livelihood and that this forced him to reside in a an attic hovel that had poor plumbing, and that this circumstance forced him to claim since he could not afford to be unlawfully overcharged in breach of the advert and promise of the defendant over the telephone, given his tragic circumstance etc. Therefore the ECRO was breached, as above action had to refer, mention, relate to etc Shetreet’s chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP and his legal case v SHARP. Because SHARP destroyed both the life, health and livelihood of Shetreet utterly and totally as of age 13, there is literally no aspect of Shereet’s life and no prospective legal action he could take in respect of anything that would be irrelevant to his injuries at age 13 and age 24 by and proceedings against SHARP. This proves how inhuman and unlawful it was to impose an ECRO on such an extremely vulnerable and disabled member of the community, and further shows how monstrous, murderous and barbaric red in tooth and claw the claim and application by the Attorney General v Shetreet is. The fact that Shetreet won the case simply because the judge was not aware of the unlawful ECRO and the judicial vendetta against Shetreet and the judge at the Central London County Court was commonly decent and respectful of the rule of law and therefore did not anti-disability discriminate against Shetreet and decide that Shetreet must be vermin against whom all crimes are legal due to Shereet’s chronic injury at age 13 by SHARP that Shetreet disclosed to the judge at the hearing, further proves how unjust the outcome to date of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells was due to High Court judicial discrimination against Shetreet due to his injury and disability, and further compellingly demonstrates that Shetreet is certainly not a ‘vexatious litigant’, only the victim of judicial anti-disability discrimination against him. Had the judges at Central London County Court been aware of the ECRO, Shetreet’s perfectly meritorious above claim would have been automatically dismissed without any hearing or placed on a “Stop” to date, which further proves how irrational and unlawful the ECRO is, and the Attorney General claim and application even more so. _____________________________________________________________________
25. Pasted document, List of Exhibits of folders 1-6, see list of exhibits of folders 1B further below.
List of exhibits of folder 1A - Most important exhibits 1.1 - 59 & 100.1, and folders 2-6, but not of folder 1B, see separate List of Exhibits in folder 1B for the case exhibits as of August 2009
The 14 July 2009 version of this document and its exhibits was submitted by Elad Shetreet to Mr Justice Steel but he took no notice of any of the evidence in case.
As of 1 May 2010 Lovells will change its legal title to Hogan Lovells due to its merger with/acquisition by Hogan & Hartson of Washington DC, therefore all below references to Lovells should be interpreted as to Hogan Lovells as of aforementioned date.
August 2009
update
Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd and Lovells - unlawful
detentions, torture, grievous bodily harm and attempted murder of Elad Shetreet
in order to cover-up corporate fraud judicial fraud and perjury and corruption
in the courts of Israel and at High Court and Court of Appeal in London that
prohibited any trial and any production of evidence and refused to give
permission to appeal, in Israel as of 1996 and in London as of 2004
Exhibit 1.1_ECtHR 31 Mar 08 lodgement of application Shetreet copied to ECtHR 9 Nov 07 UK order immediately
Exhibit 1.2_UK interception confiscation without EU precedent original 07 Shetreet v UK ECtHR application consistent with domestic injustice
Sample of most important injury causation, corporate fraud and bribery and torture by UK Government to cover-up corporate and judicial corruption in Shetreet v Sharp Corporation, Sharp UK and Lovells at High Court exhibits including from the European Commission and European Court of Justice based on Shetreet v Sharp Corporation and group and Lovells case specifically
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 p 47 citation 28 re 1 April 08 ECJ RoHS judgement
Exhibit 2.3_2007 Danish EPA additional update report to ECJ re EU RoHS Directive claim
Above ECJ judgement means that in the EU my 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. Thereby, UK Labour party that abused forcible
psychiatry against me based on the pretext that EU RoHS Directive was a
“delusion” are in contempt of ECJ and breach of EU laws and numerous UK high
officials and judges who refused to grant me habeas corrupts from torture could
be extradited to Luxembourg and/or Brussels for contempt of ECJ, torture,
attempted murder etc.
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 3.4_2009 UK Attorney General admission politicians instructed NHS to refuse Shetreet treatment for injury at age 13 by SHARP and abuse psychiatry
Exhibit 3.5_NHS admission politicians instructed NHS to refuse Shetreet treatment for injury at age 13 by SHARP and abuse psychiatry
Above denial of medical treatment was also deliberate torture, as much so as the perpetration of forcible psychiatric ‘treatment’ against a sane man was.
Exhibit 4_EU legal website EU RoHS Directive enacted in 03 based on Exhibit 2.2 Danish EPA EU policy paper re Shetreet case citation 28 p 47
Exhibit 5_EU legal website ECJ 08 judgement in favour of RoHS and claimants Denmark and EU Parliament thereby in favour of Shetreet
Exhibit 6.1_extract 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 6.2_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 7_SHARP 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 05 SHARP Lovells advertorial Court of Appeal Deputy Master responded to 1 April 09
Exhibit 8.2_1 April 09 admission by Court of Appeal Deputy Master Shetreet v SHARP Lovells unlawfully dismissed with unlawful ECROs
Exhibit 8.3_4 Feb 05 advertorial added by applications to London claims on 13 April 05 further proves Shetreet v SHARP Lovells not time barred
Exhibit 8.4_4 Feb 05 advertorial added by applications to London claims on 13 April 05 further proves Shetreet v SHARP Lovells not time barred
Exhibit 8.5_colour copy of SHARP Lovells 4 Feb 05 advertorial in Maariv further proves Shetreet v SHARP Lovells not time barred
Exhibit 8.6_Shetreet v Lovells 11 July 05 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 Chem. Weap. Con.
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 Lovells UN Torture and Chem. Weap. 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 04 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 Lovells for concealment and fraud in Shetreet v SHARP Lovells
Exhibit 13.2_Information Commissioner convicted law firms common law proves Lovells SHARP not exempt from Shetreet DPAs since 2004
Exhibit 13.3_11 Feb 05 successful disclosure application by Shetreet evaded by SHARP Lovells further prohibited dismissal proof of defence fraud
Exhibit 13.4_18 March 2009 additional SHARP Lovells refusal to comply with DPA as of 2004 admission proof of defence fraud
Exhibit 13.5_6 Dec 2004 Shetreet DPA to SHARP Lovells copied to judge re multinational corporate fraud bribery etc by them in case in Israel
Exhibit 13.6_6 Dec 04 SHARP Lovells noncompliance with 2 Dec 04 Shetreet DPA first English case judgement 13 Dec 04 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 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
Exhibit 15.2_SHARP 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 coverup theft of Shetreet v SHARP Lovells
Exhibit 16.2_ICC 12 March 09 not in position to
extradite UK leaders due to continued prohibition of above by new US administration
Exhibit 17.1_Lovells second most important partner part-time High Court judge judiciary were therefore murderously biased in case anti Shetreet
Exhibit 17.2_Common law 15 Jan 99 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
Exhibit 19_UK Ministry of Justice admission of judicial foul play in Shetreet v SHARP Lovells unlawful detentions torture etc 09 DPA FOIA noncompliance
Exhibit 20_London Times secret new intelligence agency tortured injured attempted to murder etc Shetreet to coverup 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_report to MHRT by consultant psychiatrist Dr Page certifying Shetreet never had mental illness defect etc and UK abused psychiatry
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 07 MHRT judgement rejecting FTAC Met Police NHS SHARP Lovells US Israel perjury black operation against Shetreet
Exhibit 25.2_16 March 07 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 07 Israel US SHARP Lovells Met Police FTAC NHS worst police black operation perjury in West European history against Shetreet
Exhibit 26_4 June 07 UK of state terrorism censorship attempted detention due to blog denial of freedom of speech re SHARP Lovells et al
Exhibit 27.1_09 Shetreet Public Complaint Form witness statement City of London Police SHARP 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 as of 1996 by multinational corporate fraud bribery
Exhibit 29.2_Sharp UK Lovells Brandes instructions 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 SHARP bribery of Brandes to overthrow Pres Weizman by leaking his file proves full power of attorney in Israel
Exhibit 30.1_07 SHARP delisting from all Brussels Lugano Conventions jurisdiction stock exchanges to evade by fraud Shetreet case admission of fraud
Exhibit 30.2_07 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 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 32_concealment no time limitation in fraud Express Newspapers v Archer 01 common law obtained by same Lovells partner Atkins conducting for SHARP
Because Sharp group and Lovells relied almost exclusively on a time limitation defence in relation to my case in London as of 2004, their concealment of the 2001 common law they themselves obtained in relation to the prohibition of any time limitation defence in the event of fraud, and because I 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 and fraudulent concealment. Moreover, the decisive factor in the Archer conviction and civil payment of compensation 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 1987 case, Archer would have lost his 1987 libel claim v Express Newspapers. This literally replicates the refusal by Sharp group and 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 in 2009. This means that all judgments were obtained by fraud, perjury, concealment and nondisclosure, by admission of Sharp group and Lovells.
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 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 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 Lovells
Exhibit 46_2009 UK Attorney General and Treasury Solicitor refusal to accept Shetreet counter-complaint v SHARP 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 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 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 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 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 Lovells 2009 unlawful ECRO extension application based upon legally privileged emails of Shetreet to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co
Exhibit 55.2_SHARP Lovells 2009 unlawful ECRO extension application based upon legally privileged emails of Shetreet to Norton Rose and Clyde & Co
Exhibit 55.3_SHARP 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 Lovells foul play at age 24 applicability of UN Chem. Weap. Con. & 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 Lovells against Shetreet at age 24 in 1994 that was mentioned at the 15 July 2009 hearing and not disputed by Sharp group and 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 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
Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic.
_____________________________________________________________________
See List of Exhibits in Folder 1B for a separate list of exhibits post August 2009
_____________________________________________________________________
Folder 2 - Additional torture exhibits 60 – 83
6 August 2009
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 torture to death and murder of 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 06 protest at UK Parliament
Exhibit 63_9 June 06 unlawful pseudo psychiatric NHS detention certificate re Shetreet
Exhibit 64_16 June 06 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 07 Israel US SHARP 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 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 08 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 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
Folder 3 - Additional injury causation exhibits 84 - 99
6 August 2009
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 08 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
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 Int 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
emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operating conditions Environmental Science & Technology 2005 39
Exhibit 94_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2006 40 15
emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs toxic fumes from consumer electronics under normal operating conditions Environmental Science & Technology 2006 40 15
Exhibit 95_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2006 40 24
emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs toxic fumes from consumer electronics under normal operating conditions Environmental Science & Technology 2006 40 24
Exhibit 96_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from consumer electronics under normal operation Envi Sci & Tech 2007 41
emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs toxic fumes from consumer electronics under normal operating conditions Environmental Science & Technology 2007 41
Exhibit 97_emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs from electronics under normal operation Jour of Tox and Env Heal Part A 68
emission volatilisation evaporation of PBDEs toxic fumes from consumer electronics under normal operating conditions Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 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 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
6 August 2009
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 further proves liability as franchise of SHARP should have accepted service of proceedings of case
Exhibit 106.1_2004 Lovells letter for Sharp Corp with same matter ref as subsequent letters for allegedly for Sharp UK only prove fraud
Exhibit 106.2_SHARP Lovells admission of no time limitation in 2004 email
Exhibit 107_SHARP 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 Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking of injury gutter press like 04 skeleton argument
Exhibit 109_SHARP Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking of injury gutter press like 05 skeleton argument
Exhibit 110_SHARP Lovells false & concealing of true facts of case sadistically mocking gutter press like second 05 skeleton argument
Exhibit 111.1_Lovells notes of 13 Dec 04 self-contradictory judgement by Master Tennant who previously judged in favour of Shetreet
Exhibit 111.2_unlawful 15 Dec 04 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 Lovells 1 March 05 accidental admission of evasion of successful disclosure application fraud perjury nondisclosure
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
Exhibit 115.1_SHARP Lovells 14 April 05 evasion of service by fraud 4 days past deadline required default judgements v SHARP
Exhibit 115.2_SHARP Lovells 14 April 05 evasion of service by fraud 4 days past deadline required default judgements v SHARP
Exhibit 115.3_2005 claim pages 5 & 6 SHARP replied 4 days and filed defence 1 day past deadline defence time barred abuse of process
Exhibit 115.4_SHARP Lovells 29 April 05 defence lodged 1 day past deadline time barred p 2 admits instructions from Brandes in Israel
Exhibit 116.1_SHARP Lovells perjury re allegedly only distributor with no liability proven SHARP global & UK joint production joint liability
Exhibit 116.2_SHARP Lovells perjury re allegedly only distributor with no liability proven SHARP global & UK joint production joint liability
Exhibit 117_SHARP Lovells costs fraud judges declined to prevent fraudulent costs hearings judicial admission law on side of Shetreet
Exhibit 118_21 April 05 US CPSC recall SHARP TV sets with fraudulent concealment by SHARP Lovells in case in UK & Israel
Exhibit 120.1_23 June 05 Master Miller self-contradictory fraudulent judgement see Exhibits 6 1A folder judgement in favour of Shetreet
Exhibit 120.2_29 June 05 self-contradictory unlawful order of Master Miller
Exhibit 121.1_Lovells Mr Justice Davis judgement shorthand judge destroyed hearing sound recording to prevent transcript foul play
Exhibit 121.2_26 July 05 Mr Justice Davis unlawful ECRO order & dismissal of Shetreet v SHARP and Lovells
Exhibit 122.1_27 Oct 05 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 & 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 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 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 Lovells county court claim for recent & ongoing offences in London unlawfully dismissed due to ECRO
Exhibit 128.2_first May 07 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 Lovells case conducing managing partner David Harris wanted fugitive
Exhibit 130.2_professional profile of Shetreet v SHARP Lovells case conducing partner Nicholas Mark Atkins wanted fugitive
Exhibit 130.3_professional profile of Shetreet v SHARP Lovells case conducing partner Stuart Hill wanted fugitive
Statement of truth: I Elad Shetreet confirm above document is true and the exhibits are authentic. _____________________________________________________________________
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 09 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 Lovells that I was not entitled 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
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 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 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 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 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 Lovells judgements shows that UK judiciary approve of terrorism in principle and believe there are good terrorists, i.e. Sharp UK and 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 Lovells with whom they went to the same fee paying British boarding schools before they became judges and their friends became 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 White 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Consistently, Sharp group and Lovells did not comply with my DPA of February 2009, yet the UK Attorney General who conducted against me a bogus “investigation” as of July 2008 that was not even disclosed to me until my DPA to the Attorney General, instead of against the offenders in case and did nothing to date to enforce the rule of law against Sharp group, Lovells and all other offenders in case, not even in relation to my unlawful detentions, tortures, injuries and attempted murders in violation of the UN Chemical Weapons Convention (I was forcibly injected with triply contraindicated for me by online warning of the maker Risperidone toxins by UK Government on behalf of Sharp group, Lovells and US and Israeli diplomatic spies) and the UN Torture Convention, as was admitted by UK, including by judgment of the UK psychiatric tribunal, that admitted in its judgement of 16 September 2008 the political abuse of forcible psychiatry against a medico-legally proven sane man who was always sane.
Exhibit 134_UK Fraud Act indisputably applicable to corporate political judicial offences in Shetreet v SHARP Lovells in London as of 2004
I note that the UK Fraud Act has clauses about “evasion of liability” and “concealment”, inkling 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
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. _____________________________________________________________________
Folder 6 - Applicability of UN international law to Shetreet case Exhibit 136 – Folder 6
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 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 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 Lovells, the Statue of Rome, UN Torture Convention and UN Chemical Weapons Convention most certainly applies to case, and due to the forcible toxic chemical and toxic radiological injections that were perpetrated against me under the abuse of psychiatry, 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 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, Lovells, Israel and US in order to torture, degrade, injure, forcibly inject into me neuro-toxic chemical and toxic radiological substances and murder me in order to cover-up the unlawful nullification and unlawful dismissal of Shetreet v Sharp group and 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 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 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 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 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 and the public systems in both Israel and UK refused to provide me with the treatment 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, 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 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
26. Pasted document of list of exhibits of folder 1B.
Folder
title 1B Additional most important exhibits from 28 August 2009 to 23 July 2010, for pre 30
August 2009 Exhibits see folder 1A and 2-6 - List of Exhibits
Exhibit 215_7 July 2010 150 pounds compensation order proves that Shetreet was
not vexatious in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells either
For the 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.
See Exhibits 3-5 in folder 1A, for EU RoHS Directive (acronym of Restriction on certain Hazardous Substances in consumer electronics and electrical equipment) that was based exclusively on the Shtreet 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 injury 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.
See Exhibits 13 in folder 1A and Exhibits 154 and 185 in this folder, mentioned below, for the fraud by concealment and nondisclosure offences by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the executive and judicial branches of UK regime that rendered all judgements and orders null and void in case.
In addition to aforementioned exhibits, see Exhibits 150, 205 and 209 below for a de facto public formal admission by the UK Attorney General, Westminster NHS, the Met Police, FTAC and its Director Dr David James, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS and thereby of the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge and of UK regime as a whole that the civil law in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim and UK Attorney General v Shetreet thereby, civil cases, is automatically on side of Shetreet and that SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK regime et al owe Shetreet unprecedented highly substantial levels of monetary compensation. The NHS v Shetreet, civil case, censorship injunction and unsuccessful application to imprison Shetreet for allegedly violating the censorship injunction, is still a sealed court file, but the case is pending on appeal at the Court of Appeal Civil Division.
See Exhibit 198 for the Independent Police Complaints Commission in favour of Shetreet and against the Met Police and FTAC re the abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man, unlawful detentions, torture, forcible toxic injections, injury and attempted murders in violation of the UN Torture Convention, UN Chemical Weapons Convention and the Stature of Rome, Article 8 - War Crimes, and perjuries to the Mental Health Review Tribunal against Shetreet by Dr David James, Met Police and FTAC.
Exhibit
196 caused SHARP and Hogan Lovells to admit foul play against Shetreet by
blocking all of their emails accounts save that of the global CEO in Washington
See Exhibit 158 and 209.1 for an admission of foul play by SHARP, Hogan Lovells e 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 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 Exhibit 2010, 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 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 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 v Shetreet, which were also based on the premise that Shetreet is vermin.
The gender references to the UK Attorney General change as of exhibits dated as of May 2010 due to the UK elections of May 2010 and change of office holders, but not policy.
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.
See Exhibit 114.1 folder 4,
in conjunction with below mentioned Exhibit 196 in this folder, 1B, and
Exhibits 55, 56, in folder 1A. Above
Exhibit is hereby promoted in importance to folders 1A and 1B – most important exhibits, above exhibit is a
transcript of 4 March 2005 hearing before Mr Justice Morison, very first UK
High Court transcript in case. 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
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 1A
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 1A
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 1A
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 137_28 July 09 timely appeal submission not issued and not returned for over a month after submission
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 09 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 and 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 Underhill J 17 Jul 07 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 Convention rule of law.
Exhibit 142_Shetreet email to Sharp UK
triggered SHARP EU headquartered in
The refusal of UK regime to prosecute Shetreet for above and all other of his provocations further proves foul play in case against Shetreet since age 13 to date.
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’
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_see also Exhibit 198 - unlawful concealment by Met Police and admission by foul play
Exhibit 145_appointment of solicitors by Met Police re Shetreet re personal injury following meritorious complaint to Mayor
Exhibit 146_Oct 09 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”
Exhibit 148.1-2_Nov 09 discharge by Eady J of SHARP ECRO for same offences by SHARP and NHS proves foul play
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
See further commentary on pages 1-2 above and in Exhibits 209 below.
Exhibit 150.1_23 Nov 09 most unlawful in UK history Attorney General v Shetreet civil action with 13 Aug 09 signature of Solicitor General
Exhibit 150.2_exhibit contempt of court by Attorney General in violation of 6 Nov 09 censorship order of Eady J
Above document is no longer in the public domain, see Exhibit 209.2 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 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
Extract from legal letter sent by email on 17 December 2009: What is most extraordinary about this 26 April 2009 witness statement document that was exhibited in full by the UK Attorney General in her above civil legal action against Shetreet of 23 November 2009, is that it proves the law was always on the side of Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and all other outstanding legal issues in relation to him, in Israel, including the second catastrophic injury of Shetreet by SHARP, at age 24, by contract, and by use of a chemical weapon and thereby legally actionable to date worldwide under UN law and UK common law of UK Attorney General v Zardad, 2004/5, Old Bailey, and UK and US conviction of Saddam Hussein also for the deployment of chemical weapons against civilians, yet the UK Attorney General exhibited this in her s 42 SCA claim against Shetreet in order to resort to ‘special pleading’ openly outside and in contradiction to the rule of law with the judiciary to declare Shetreet vermin who is not allowed to go to law allegedly by the UK Attorney General due to “vexation” but in reality on the basis that all crimes are declared legal against Shetreet since age 13 and for the rest of his life, precisely because the law is on his side and so many ‘embarrassing’ crimes were committed against him by so many powerful companies and politicians in multiple jurisdictions since age 13, and to date in UK. At no time in her witness statement to her s 42 SCA claim against Shetreet, did the UK Attorney General deny all the blatantly proven facts (such as the malicious falsehood and violation of medicinal confidentiality etc to date by NHS, FTAC et al in the Guardian online to date against Shetreet) and/or statements and/or allegations made by Shetreet in his above witness statement under statement of truth, that under UK law is legally actionable as perjury if any party disputes the veracity of such statements under statement of truth, at no time did the UK Attorney General even remotely seek to even partially dispute, even by intimation, any part of Shetreet’s above witness statement, importantly, not even in relation to the violent crimes against him by and on behalf of SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Government, including directly by Hogan Lovells on 18 December 2007, nor the violent crime against Shetreet in Israel on behalf of SHARP and Hogan Lovells at age 24, and decisively, at no time did the UK Attorney General suggest she would like Shetreet prosecuted for perjury, which is the strongest and most legally actionable under UK law admission by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Government, and by the national governments of Israel and US, in so far as these jurisdictions are relevant to the crimes that were committed against Shetreet in case since age 13 in and as directed from above and other jurisdictions other than UK, and that the UK Attorney General conducted investigations about Shetreet and was advised by all the competent parties, including SHARP and Hogan Lovells, other branches of UK Government and by the national governments of Israel and US, that all of Shetreet’s statements in his above witness statement are entirely true and accurate and admitted as such by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the national governments of Israel and US. If this is not so, I publicly challenge SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General and/or any other interested party domiciled anywhere in the world, to prosecute in London and/or civilly sue me in London for alleged perjury and/or alleged libel before a jury at the Old Bailey and/or the Royal Courts of Justice in London within days, or weeks at most, and will communicate this challenge by email today, 17 December 2009, to SHARP, Hogan Lovells and UK Attorney General copied to the Court of Appeal Civil Division, and to the Administrative Court, where the UK Attorney General issued her above mentioned unlawful claim against me.
Exhibit 151_foul play refusal of William Hague MP who advocated for others to help Shetreet as this case is far more embarrassing for UK & US regimes
Exhibit 152_foul play nullification of foul play by Serious Fraud Office branch of UK police
See Exhibits 13 in folder 1A and Exhibits 154 and 185 in this folder, mentioned below, for the fraud by concealment and nondisclosure offences by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the executive and judicial branches of UK regime that rendered all judgements and orders null and void in case.
Exhibit 154.1_Nov 09 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 155_Nov 2009 unlawful discrimination by Liberty human rights organisation refusing to assist Shetreet
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
See pages 1-2 above for additional commentary.
Exhibit 158_ incontrovertible admission of crimes by refusal of SHARP Hogan Lovells UK Government to prosecute Shetreet for blackmail threats to kill
Exhibit 159_refusal to comply with Shetreet 16 Oct 09 DPA request to Westminster PCT re Westminster PCT v Shetreet 6 Nov 09
Above email by Westminster PCT is dated 26 October 2009 and thereby predated the civil action against Shetreet, thereby it is not part of the censorship injunction and/or the legal case of above title. However, the continued refusal to date by Westminster PCT to comply with DPA proves fraud in that case as well.
Exhibit 160.1_Dec 09 nullification by Nursing Counsel of Shetreet complaint due to multiplicity of offending officials as did GMC PCC IPCC 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 164_Regina v Hodgson reversal based on objective evidence invalidates all Shetreet v SHARP Hogan Lovells orders due to judicial perjury
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 09 DPA application re SHARP Hogan Lovells invalidated Buxton order
Exhibit 167.1_invalidation of 2009 Court of Appeal Shetreet order due to reliance on perjury committing NHS Attorney General v Shetreet
Exhibit 167.2_additional invalidation of 2009 and all previous Court of Appeal Shetreet orders by their 09 refusal to comply with Shetreet DPA
Exhibit 168.1_Dec 09 Legal Services Ombudsman acceptance of complaint v Hogan Lovells was subsequently nullified by Ombudsman herself
Exhibit 168.2_18 Feb 10 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 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 violations re Shetreet in UK
Exhibit 173_24 Dec 09 unlawful complicit nullification of Shetreet complaint also by the Local Government Ombudsman
Exhibit 174_Hogan & Hartson and Lovells vote to Form Top 10 Law Firm Effective May 1 2010
Exhibit 175_ press release Nov 08 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 08
Exhibit 177_SHARP press release EU approval of SHARP joint venture with Italian companies 4 Jan 10
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 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 181_admission by UK Ministry of Justice Ombudsman p 2 par 2 High Court judge committed bribery against Shetreet yet Shetreet punished
Exhibit 182_public domain proof craniofacial dermatological treatment unlawfully denied by NHS in order to harm and torture
Exhibit 183_10 Feb 10 self contradiction by Court of Appeal that stated torture of Binaym Muhamed illegal and torture and worse of Shetreet legal
Exhibit 184_pseudo moralistic hypocrisy by MacDuff J who judged on 13 Jan 2010 all crimes legal against Shetreet - Kray grandson jailed for murder
See Exhibits 13 in folder 1A and Exhibits 154 and 185 in this folder, mentioned below, for the fraud by concealment and nondisclosure offences by SHARP, Hogan Lovells and the executive and judicial branches of UK regime that rendered all judgements and orders null and void in case.
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 v Shetreet
Below would have been stated in favour of Shetreet and against the judges, UK Attorney General and Met Police in all his cases, in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS and UK Attorney General v Shetreet, civil cases, and Met Police v Shetreet, “malicious communication”, if a jury was involved, as in the below reported failed OFT prosecution, in which a jury was involved and/or English judges were not corrupt and fanatically biased against Shetreet, as the all UK judges were against me since outset of my UK court cases in 2004 to date because I was not the defendant in the OFT case.
Evening Standard, 5 May 2010, open quote:
Judge hits at OFT failures as airline fraud trial collapses...But the judge pointed out that it would be an “astonishing prospect if the prosecution seek to rely on tampering of documents to make their case”...Clare Montgomery, QC, defending Mr George, said it was “an extraordinary state of affairs” and accused OFT of acting as an “adjunct to Virgin’s lawyers” rather than a proper prosecuting authority...Mr Emmerson said it was clear that the prosecution could never have proved that BA and Virgin engaged in price fixing as opposed to simply price matching...Mr Justice Owen said he had given “anxious consideration” to whether a fair trial was still possible...He only allowed it to continue so that witnesses could show - under questioning - if it had been “fatally compromised”... With the threat of prosecution witnesses being humiliated in the witness box, crown counsel Richard Latham, QC, today offered “no evidence” against the defendants...Mr Justice Owen said: “As far as I’m concerned on the evidence I have seen so far the defendants leave this court with their reputations unsullied”...end quote.
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 189.1-6_online libel action challenges to SHARP Hogan Lovells UK regime automatic readmission of criminality in continued failure to sue
The additional parties that need to be sued for libel by UK regime and/or SHARP and Hogan Lovells if SHARP, Hogan Lovells, UK judiciary, UK Attorney General, Met Police, FTAC, City of London Police, NHS et al are not to continue to admit fraud, unlawful detention, torture, attempted murder, forcible toxic injections in order to deliberately induce brain damage, abuse of forcible psychiatry against a sane man etc are the EU, Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Elsevier Science who published one of the case studies and the other above parties relied on above case studies for the enactment of EU RoHS Directive.
Exhibit 190_Shetreet contingent fee lawyer in Israel presiding judge offered Supreme Court judiciary Shetreet not vexatious in Israel and UK
Exhibit 191_Shetreet v SHARP forensic complex fraud Israel Courts & Companies House file evasion of case by fraud in Israel 96 to 04 & 04 to 07
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
See pages 1-2 above for further commentary.
Exhibit 196_See also Exhibits 196.2-3 below and Exhibits 55, 56 folder 1A identity fraud breach of ECRO etc SHARP Hogan Lovells lodged on 8 March 2010 their copy of 2005 Shetreet 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
Extract with minor editing from my application via email to the Administrative Court of 15 March 2010:
New development and unintentional admission by SHARP and Hogan Lovells of fraud in entire Court in London, including breach of their own ECRO that they obtained by fraud from High Court falsely in the name of Shetreet by identity fraud against Shetreet.
Witness statement of Elad Shetreet
supported by Mr D Jenkins of High Court Appeals Office. After Mr Jenkins of High Court Appeals Office
sent to me by post and from his mistaken point of view thereby ‘returned to me’
by post the scanned application, Exhibit 196, I visited the above office and
spoke with Mr Jenkins on 11 March 2010 and he informed me that the application,
the respondent’s / defendant’s ORIGINAL copy i.e. not a copy of same, of
my July 2005 application to High Court Appeals Office, was re-lodged without
any cover letter, fee or fee exemption from or any other document, and that the
envelope had no return address. The fact
that it is an original and not a copy of the defendant’s copy from 2005, is
forensically evident based on the Court stamp from 2005 that is in red ink, not
the black and white of an “office copy” made by High Court to a third party,
and my original 2005 signature, not a photocopy of same, as can be seen from
the blue ink of my original signature on that July 2005 document, which I had
forensically scanned on 11 March 2010 in colour (I can prove this document was
scanned on above date, as the scanned file was emailed to me, and I can provide
the name of the stationary company and person at the company who did the colour
scan, which he would remember, as he normally does black and white scans for
me) so that High Court, the Met Police, the City of London Police and CPS could
see for themselves as forensic evidence.
I can also produce the hard copy of this document as evidence. There can be no doubt that SHARP and Lovells
are responsible for this, as I did not retain a copy of said document, not in
original and not in copy, in paper or electronically, and this is a matter of
provable in a court of law Met Police record, as I disposed of it and did not
have it scanned at the time i.e. before and/or
after the hearing in July 2005, and therefore the Met Police did not
obtain its own copy of this document when they seized a copy of my entire
archive in scanned CD Rom format after my arrest at UK Parliament on 7 June
2006 and their search of my residence where they found and kept the CD Roms
with my entire legal and general archives.
The same occurred on 13 January 2010, after my false arrest at the Royal
Courts of Justice and the seizure of my memory sticks that were found on my
person and search of my residence. This
is also why this document was not included in the CD Rom with the entire
scanned case evidence that I submitted to the Court of Appeal Civil Division in
October 2009 and in early March 2010 to the
Exhibit 196.2_22 June 2010 email by Shetreet that included Exhibit 196 that caused SHARP and Hogan Lovells to block all their email accounts to Shetreet excluding the pre-merger Hogan Hartson email account of Warren Gorell the global CEO in Washington DC of Hogan Lovells and thereby SHARP and Hogan Lovells admitted foul play against Shetreet by their fear of incrimination by further emails from Shetreet and admitted a Washington DC jurisdiction for case
Exhibit 196.3_30 June 2010 further proof that all of Hogan Lovells worldwide blocked access to incoming emails from Shetreet due to fear of self-incrimination – as of early July 2010 Hogan Lovells began accepting again emails from Shetreet, which further proves and admits foul play by admitting that previous prohibition of emails from Shetreet were an admission of foul play and Washington DC jurisdiction
Exhibit 197.1_urgent handwritten demand by UK & US regimes 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
See pages 1-2 above for further commentary.
Exhibit 198_see also Exhibit 144 IPCC 24 March 2010 decision 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 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.
Unlike Shetreet, who has peer reviewed published detailed forensic proof of his
chronic injury causation at age 13 by toxic PBDEs and other toxic flame
retardants that were emitted by his defective SHARP TV set under normal
operation, which evidence was relied on also by the EU in relation the
enactment of EU RoHS Directive, the US federal and local law enforcement and
emergency 9/11 workers who claimed compensation for the ill health effects of
the toxic particles and fumes they inhaled during the 9/11 disaster had
essentially no forensic proof of exposure to PBDEs from the incinerated and
exploded office and consumer electronics and the other toxins that contaminated
the air in New York on 9/11 and the following several days and possibly weeks,
nor any proof that their illnesses were caused by the above exposure, whereas
all of Shetreet’s above toxic injury at age 13 were toxically specific and
highly disfiguring as well, and therefore all their claims were purely
circumstantial in basis, i.e. their presence in New York at the main crimes
scene on and during the weeks that followed 9/11, yet no one to date called the
US 9/11 toxic PBDEs fumes injury claimants ‘delusional’ or had them unlawfully
detained in the US equivalent of an NHS psychiatric sewer, or forcibly injected
them with toxins, as was perpetrated against Shetreet in UK by UK, Israel and
US regimes. ‘Strange’ how the political power and popularity or lack thereof of
an injury claimant can magically transform him into either instantly deserving,
so deserving he does not have to prove anything in a court of law and American
federal judges behave as if they were his personal injury lawyers and on 19
March 2010 rejected the better part of a billion US dollars money offered him
because it is “not enough”, yet when the injury causation and fraud is
infinitely better proven but the political will exists to destroy the life of
the victim, no depravity, political and judicial fraud and perjury, unlawful
detentions, torture etc will suffice in order to defraud and attempt to murder
the victim. Also ‘strange’ that the
definition of ‘mental illness’ is infinitely flexible, so flexible, that a
demand for compensation for legally proven, including by the ECJ judgment in
favour of RoHS in relation to injury causation at age 13 and the fraud
convictions of SHARP in Israel foul play can be deemed a ‘delusional mental
illness’ for the sake of political convenience and in furtherance of political
and corporate foul play.
Exhibit 200 and 156.3_see also Exhibits 42.4 139 163 172 176 192 193 Lovells and as of realisation of merger with US firm on 1 May 2010 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 Lovells and 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 Lovells / Hogan Lovells, copied to Admin Court and High Court re the two pending cases there and the 23 April 2010 hearing:
Pasted copy of email to SHARP and Hogan Lovells
Dear Sirs
Re: DPA disclosure demand to SHARP and Hogan Lovells to be complied with before the 23 April 2010 High Court hearing, served by email on the global and European managing partners of Hogan Lovells in Washington and London, respectively, CC emailed to High Court and the Admin Court and to the Court of Appeal Civil Division as an application to reopen my case and copied to the EU Competition Commissioner
Please disclose immediately why the EU recently prohibited you from continuing to advertise on the homepage of your website that you are retained by the EU, why the EU purged all documents by Hogan Lovells on their behalf but one from their website, and that one document that was not purged is alleged by the EU to have been co-authored by an additional law firm, and why even this one document that was not totally purged, only had its authorship altered was preceded by a hostile disclaimer by the EU, and why the EU evidently terminated all business dealings with Lovells / Hogan Lovells – is it because of my recent complaint by emails to the Competition Commissioner who was the EU decision maker re Hogan Lovells at the EU? Did the EU impose sanctions and de facto criminally convict Hogan Lovells due to your criminal offences against me in Israel, UK and beyond since age 13 to date? If you allege the EU renounced and rejected you in such robust terms, literally retroactively, for reasons ‘other than Shetreet case’ – pray tell which are they, and would the Competition Commissioner be willing to issue to High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division in London a witness statement supporting your fraudulent denial, if you would dare deny, that the EU renounced you due to your and SHARP’s crimes against me since age 13 to date, including the procurement of judicially fraudulent judgements and orders at High Court in London by corporate fraud and perjury and violation of judicial independence by procurement of political pressure against the English judiciary procured by bribes to UK politicians.
Under statement of truth, Elad Shetreet
End of pasted copy of email
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 White West European Ambassador of a prohibited organisation and called for oppressive regime politicians to be killed by rebellious soldiers for which UK and US 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.
As below exhibit 202.2 proves, above email by Shetreet to US Attorney General was probably the strongest provocation anyone served by email on the US Attorney General and UK regime with a demand that he be prosecuted by US by extradition and/or domestically by UK and the refusal of the US Attorney General to rely on the US-UK Extradition Treaty to request and prosecute Shetreet and the like refusal of UK to prosecute Shetreet for above provocation is the strongest admission by both the US and UK Attorneys General that the law is on the side of Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim, all the more so in relation to Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, as the primary criminal and civil jurisdiction in relation to all offences against Shetreet since age 13 to date worldwide is Washington DC as of the December 2009 takeover of Lovells by Hogan & Hartson of Washington DC and the change of name to Hogan Lovells that enlarged Hogan Lovells to the “third largest US law firm” in their own words in the Washington Post. Never was a civil case so well proven and admitted as such by the highest cabinet level law enforcement authorities in the relevant jurisdictions.
Exhibit 202.2_Telegraph 10 May 2010 proves UK and US 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
Exhibit 202.3_30 June 2010 email to US Attorney General by Shetreet in which Shetreet challenged UK and US to prosecute him or compensate otherwise he will legalise a certain prohibited Muslim organisation by opening an embassy for this organisation in London as close as possible to US Embassy
Above exhibit is not available online currently, interested parties can obtain a copy on request.
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 for “malicious communication” only, because it does not require a jury, is false, frivolous, vexatious and unlawful.
Exhibit 203.1_5 May 2010 email from NHS and Pedro Aniceto disclosing escalation of abuse of psychiatry after 23 April 2010 judgement of Simon J that Shetreet was sane since birth to date by transfer to Assertive Outreach Team.
Exhibit 203.2_NHS website definition of Assertive Outreach Team as tool of coercion normally intended only for those with a dual diagnosis of severely mentally ill and substance abuse
Exhibit 203.3_admission of dishonesty and foul play by UK regime overall, SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS and UK Attorney General by 14 May 2010 email from same NHS social worker who stated on 5 May that he had to refer Shetreet case to AOT due a change in his position in NHS
Exhibit 203.4_18 May 2010 response of Shetreet to NHS et al that NHS psychiatrists who require access to Shetreet should apply for High Court supervised access at High Court to Mr Justice Simon who on 23 April 2010 judged Shetreet totally sane since birth
Exhibit 204_legally significant admission by the Court of Appeal Civil Division of miscarriage of justice in both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim
Above was signed by the same case manager who handled Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells permission to appeal application of 2009 and authorised by a judge who chose to remain anonymous. This was an admission that Shetreet suffered a miscarriage of justice and violation of ECHR Article 6 and thereby in this case also of Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 in both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and Westminster NHS v Shetreet due to corporate fraud and perjury and judicial bias and due to lack of legal counsel and lack of a jury in all the civil cases about Shetreet to date.
See also pages 1-2 above for commentary on below exhibits. Exhibits 205 below about the unlawful, fraudulent and vexatious prosecution of Shetreet for “malicious communication” rather than for his actual provocations .e.g., protest at UK Parliament that closed it down for an hour on 7 June 2006, blackmail to which he confessed to Met Police and for which he was rearrested in absentia, various threats, profession of membership of a prohibited organisation etc because a misdemeanour charge of “malicious communication” does not require any jury or real trial with production of evidence, and are therefore of overwhelming legal and medico-legal importance to case in relation to both Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and NHS v Shetreet, as they prove that no one in UK regime and beyond ever believed that Shetreet was in any way ‘mentally ill’ and that likewise everyone in UK regime was aware that the law was on side of Shetreet in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells. The below exhibited charge sheet does not rely on any psychiatric evidence and the prosecution does not even mention that Shetreet was ever psychiatrically detained, lawfully and/or unlawfully or even that Shetreet was ever alleged to be mentally ill. Nor does the prosecution set out request any ‘treatment order’ for Shetreet. This is consistent with the admissions to above effect in both NHS v Shetreet and UK Attorney General v Shetreet as of 2009 (see below), civil cases, in which only the report by Dr Page was relied on and thus the total sanity of Shetreet since birth to date was admitted. This further proves and most authoritatively at that, as unlike in civil cases, in criminal prosecutions and applications for a contempt of court sentence, as in NHS v Shetreet action of April 2010, it is possible in UK law to require a ‘psychiatric treatment order’, yet neither the NHS required a treatment order when they attempted to have Shetreet imprisoned for contempt of court in April 2010 nor did the CPS require a treatment order when they convened the first hearing in his prosecution for a misdemeanour on 10 May 2010. This has drastic significance also for Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, as it proves that psychiatry was abused against a sane man in order to torture him to death and thereby attempt to murder him in order to conceal the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells. This also automatically proves that the law in NHS v Shetreet and Shetreet counterclaim was automatically on the side of Shetreet and that NHS must pay Shetreet compensation for torture, unlawful detentions, attempted murders, injuries, libel etc.
See further commentary on pages 1-2 above and Exhibit 209 below and Exhibit 196 above, due to their significance in case and to below exhibits.
Exhibit 205.1_consistent with Exhibit 2004, 29 April 2010 Charge Sheet admission by UK Attorney General, CPS and Met Police that civil law is on side of Shetreet by refusal to prosecute Shetreet for his blackmail against SHARP, Hogan Lovells, NHS Westminster, UK Attorney General and English High Court and Court of Appeal judiciary that he confessed to Met Police to when he was interrogated on tape during 13 January 2010 false arrest and for which Met Police rearrested Shetreet in January 2010 retroactively to November 2009 with a 2009 crime reference number Charing Cross Police Station 6542602-09
Exhibit 205.2_additional proof of foul play by UK executive and judicial branches of regime in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells, NHS v Shetreet, UK Attorney General v Shetreet civil case and Met Police 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 the two emails by Shetreet relied on and of the 13 January 2010 police interview tape and transcript of Shetreet due to foul play by Met Police et al and proves that the two emails Met Police rely on were doctored by Met Police to suit their purposes and sent by Met Police, which proves that SHARP and Hogan Lovells also doctored communications they sent themselves and relied on in July 2009 to unlawfully extend the unlawful ECRO – see Exhibits 55.1, 55.2, and Exhibit 56, folder 1A
If the Met Police ever disclose a real copy of the interview transcript and tape, it will show that I was never shown the emails relied on and asked if I sent those specific emails, and therefore I never confessed to sending those specific emails. What I did confess to was to emailing up to hundreds of emails that were legally actionable as blackmail only, not false, i.e. malicious communication, as of 2006, to various arms and branches of UK regime, SHARP and Hogan Lovells, and I do not withdraw my admission of blackmail and challenge to UK regime to prosecute me before a jury for blackmail. In addition, under UK law, a charge of “malicious communication” has to prove that the communication was fraudulent, which is not the case with my emails, even if UK regime allege that I made threats of violence, as my more recent description of myself as the White West European Ambassador of a prohibited organisation and the UK Attorney General in his 2010 pleading states that I intend to realise my threats of retaliation. Therefore, my emails could not be ‘false’ and thereby ‘malicious’ in the eyes of the law, as they are admitted to be true by the UK Attorney General.
Exhibit 205.6_total neglect of case by legal aid lawyer caused Westminster Magistrates Court to assume Shetreet has no legal counsel
Decisively, the concealment by fraud by Met Police of the two emails relied on and the tape and transcript of the 13 January 2010 Met Police interview with Shetreet is proof that UK Attorney General, CPS and Met Police have no case against Shetreet, and the concealment of the emails is equivalent to and/or is setting out to rely on fake emails fabricated and/or altered by the Met Police rather than those that Shetreet originally emailed, WHICH MAY WELL BE THE CASE.
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.
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.
Above conduct is proof of foul play by SHARP and Hogan Lovells in case.
Exhibit 207_ see also Exhibits 55, 56 auto-response from James Tipp of Queen’s Bench Listing Office stating the his email to Shetreet and thereby Shetreet emails to him is confidential which proves miscarriage of justice in NHS Westminster v Shetreet and Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells when SHARP and Hogan Lovells relied in July 2009 on fake communications that would have been confidential had they not been fake
See Exhibits 205 and 158 above, and pages 1-2 above for additional commentary on below exhibits. In 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 Attorney General.
Exhibit 209.1_withdrawal of all NHS v Shetreet exhibits and references in pleadings by UK Attorney General admission that entire case must be withdrawn as NHS v Shetreet is materially and procedurally inseparable from Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells
Exhibit 209.2_redacted version due to censorship injunction of UK Attorney General v Shetreet Exhibit by UK Attorney General of NHS v Shetreet first and main case pleading with the ‘Hodgson DNA evidence’ equivalent admission of foul play against Shetreet since age 13 to date by SHARP, Hogan Lovells, UK regime et al by the production of only two medical documents re Shetreet exhibited by NHS and thereby by UK Attorney General, by consultant psychiatrist Dr Charlotte Page and by Dr Jonathan Michael Director of Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospitals, with handwritten pagination of NHS and/or UK Attorney General
The document by Consultant psychiatrist Dr Page proved that psychiatry was abused against a sane man in order to attempt to murder him in order to cover-up the theft of Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and the document by Dr Michael proves that dermatological medical treatment that Shetreet did desperately need since age 13 for his injury by SHARP was unlawfully maliciously denied in order to likewise harm and attempt to murder Shetreet for above reason.
Exhibit 209.3_April 2010 letter by UK Attorney General admitting his deadline for filing skeleton argument was by 1 June 2010 at latest and that after that date he no longer has a right to pursue case
See pages 1-2 for further commentary about the below exhibit
Exhibit 210_22 June 2010 out of court settlement re Westminster NHS v Shetreet and counterclaim for libel etc Guardian admission 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
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 ECRO in order to seek up the miscarriage of justice in Shetreet v SHARP and Hogan Lovells and civil liability of SHARP and Hogan Lovolls for the 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 Court of Appeal 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
23 July 2010, Under statement of truth, Elad Shetreet
____________________________________________________________________
12 August 2010 Under statement of turth, Elad Shetreet
|
|
